Remember the Chicago newspaper that replaced its photographers with the Apple iPhone
- Thread starter HotHits
- Start date
AC016
Senior Member
The final product is not a result of the person having an iPhone. It is a result of the person not being in the right place at the right time. I am not sure why everyone feels the need to harp on this story. It all comes down to economics, plain and simple. Newspapers around North America are bleeding money.
AC016
Senior Member
So, tell me what I missed: 28 "pro" photogs got dumped for iPhones. Article is comparing a supposed iPhone picture to one that was apparently taken by a "pro". Photo taken by iPhone and reporter really sucks. Newspaper should be ashamed of themselves and the 28 photogs are now laughing at them. Lesson: only way newspaper will get good photos is to use "pro" photogs. Did I miss something?
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
The problem is not that the paper fired their photographers, it's that they decided to convert their paper as a promotional rag for their website, but instead of saying that when they fired their photographers they allowed that to become the story. Newspapers are dying and will eventually be dead. To me it's not the fact that they fired them, it's about how they fired them, unceremoniously and with the idea that anyone could do their job.
So according to you the way to fix your "bleeding money" problem is to make your product worse. How often does that work? They made the wrong decision plain and simple. Yes, they have saved money but they will make less money.
As far as not being in the right place at the right time, let's see a guy with a camera phone make his way through the swarm of photogs with pro gear and get a good image. I have a feeling the photo isn't wrong place, wrong time so much as all he could get.
AC016
Senior Member
No, what I said was is, "Newspapers around North America are bleeding money." No need to twist my words to mean something else. The "bleeding money" statement is in regards to letting people go to save money. Whether the product becomes worse as a result, is purely subjective. Do people read newspapers to get informed? Or do the get newspapers to look at pictures? Anyhow, don't twist other peoples words to suit what you want to think of something. There are also plenty of examples out there of photogs using the iPhone to get spectacular photos. As I said, it is all about economics and excuse my insensitivity, but those photogs will just have to pull up their socks like the millions of other people who lost their jobs in the last 5-6 years.
AC016
Senior Member
Okay, I feel like I am in bizarro land with this thread. I'm out!
Interesting article. I suspect Chicago-Sun Times will be the poster child for all things non-professional related and for good reason. The notion that a paper can get by using iPhones vs. decent DSLR (or SLR) is just plain silly and Jeff Goldblum's line perfectly illustrates the problem. It's like a faltering pizza parlor switching to frozen pizza's instead of making better pizzas. Things will only get worse for them. If the Chicago-Sun Times is failing it's not because readers want less, if anything readers want more. And while the internet is clearly eating into the traditional newspaper market, there is still a market for newspapers and a savvy publisher will find a way to capture that market and I "guarantee" (ala - Justin Wilson) it won't be the papers switching to iPhones.
Last edited:
Thanks Dave W:angel:
Nero
Senior Member
I second this.
US general news and special interest print publications are on their way out the door regardless of written content or photo quality. Their revenue has been rapidly transferring to electronic media for the past decade. As older generations die off their print subscription habits go with them.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Just as an experiment I'd like to see the Chicago Sun-Times put one of their currently terminated professional photographers back on the payroll but this time armed with an iPhone as their sole source for photography work for the paper. I think the results would be interesting because I think the *real* issue here is not so much iPhone vs. DSLR so much as having reporters trying to be photographers.
I'm betting a real pro photographer could probably turn in decent shots using just an iPhone. DSLR quality shots? No, but again, I think it would be very interesting to compare the bodies of work submitted by both reporters and photog-pro after, say, one month; the only difference being the operator.
Put another way, suppose I were to go on a photo safari with a National Geographic wildlife photographer. I'd have full access to his gear and he would only have access to mine. We shadow each other for three days. Same exact shooting conditions, same exact photo opportunities. Who do you think is going to turn in the better body of work?
...
I think the future of most newspaper photography not directly supported by advertising revenue lies in "stock" shots, independents and wire services. Labor costs, often unionized, include not only photographers but editors, production layout and materials. When operating revenue declines (circulation in that sector) the first thing any competent manager looks at (in the US) is labor cost.
Up until about five years ago there were three local newspapers in my general area that solicited and published quality photos of local interest submitted by readers. When the financial crunch really hit, all were returning submissions with the message of no longer accepting same.
Just so we still photographers don't feel isolated by economic reality, local TV has the same financial problems in reduced advertising revenue. We do charity work and before the crunch when the Xmas holidays rolled around it was a simple matter of calling one's favored station and requesting a human interest segment to stimulate public interest in donations to a worthy cause. Yep, they sent a reporter and a video operator, did the interview and ran it several times during local prime time news. That's also history.
Up until about five years ago there were three local newspapers in my general area that solicited and published quality photos of local interest submitted by readers. When the financial crunch really hit, all were returning submissions with the message of no longer accepting same.
Just so we still photographers don't feel isolated by economic reality, local TV has the same financial problems in reduced advertising revenue. We do charity work and before the crunch when the Xmas holidays rolled around it was a simple matter of calling one's favored station and requesting a human interest segment to stimulate public interest in donations to a worthy cause. Yep, they sent a reporter and a video operator, did the interview and ran it several times during local prime time news. That's also history.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
Great post and many thanks to the OP. This is a reflection of the challenge that newspapers are experiencing. Ad revenue is down in a big way and although most newspapers have added an electronic version, the information age is killing them. As the newspaper-reading generation ages, so does the newspaper itself.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
I agree. After working in the newspaper industry for 9 years, I feel that they're going to fold. When I worked for Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc, our stock traded at a healthy $60-80 per share. McClatchey Newspapers bought out Knight-Ridder. At one point, McClatchey stock traded at 20 cents a share, or so . . . They were reduced to becoming a "Penny Stock." I believe they're up to about $20 a share, if that.