The New "Photojournalists"

BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
It's an untapped market, particularly given that most folks have just sent in their newsphotos for free so far, just to see their name on TV. It's an interesting concept, and just another nail in the coffin of guys like my brother. It's the difference between showing the news and seeing it, immediacy has replaced quality. But while that Twitter shot becomes a $.25 after a couple days, the real photojournalists' captures become indelibly etched in our minds when they eventually appear.
 
S

Sandpatch

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
... But while that Twitter shot becomes a $.25 after a couple days, the real photojournalists' captures become indelibly etched in our minds when they eventually appear.
Click to expand...

That's such a fine statement. We can all recall poignant news photos that are forever in our memories, but the blurry mess of cell phone shots that reign in this era are quick discards, soon forgotten along with a thousand others. As an extension, I wonder how many families are losing precious memories on crummy cameras where nothing is saved, except to instantly send it to someone for a look and deletion when the memory card fills up.
 
L

LensWork

Senior Member
Other than the quality issue, another major difference between media sourced from "citizen" journalists and professional journalists is the verifiable authenticity that comes with images from trained, reputable real journalists. There have already been instances where news outlets have published images from these "citizen" journalists only to find out later that the images were faked, a hoax. I guess that media outlets that are willing to distribute these images have no issue with trading their reputattions as unbiased, dependable news sources in the name of saving a few dollars. It is certainly a different world than that in which I received my training in which as a journalist your reputation was never, ever for sale.
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
LensWork said:
Other than the quality issue, another major difference between media sourced from "citizen" journalists and professional journalists is the verifiable authenticity that comes with images from trained, reputable real journalists. There have already been instances where news outlets have published images from these "citizen" journalists only to find out later that the images were faked, a hoax. I guess that media outlets that are willing to distribute these images have no issue with trading their reputattions as unbiased, dependable news sources in the name of saving a few dollars. It is certainly a different world than that in which I received my training in which as a journalist your reputation was never, ever for sale.
Click to expand...

That's a statement, I'm sure has never crossed the minds of these media "outlets."
I think there will always be "quality publications" that value the quality and integrity of good photojournalists. I don't count daily newspapers as "quality publications." -- they're fighting to just survive. . . and then you have the major networks who devote entire segments to what's trending on Twitter, etc. Remember the days when "breaking news" happened on the major TV networks or on the radio? Today, it happens on Twitter first. News reporting has changed.

Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, at least I hope. And Jake is absolutely correct. I don't remember any of the stupid Twit or FB photos of news events. But I do those extraordinary captures by incredibly talented photojournalists . . . you know, the ones that Getty lusts after.
 
L

LensWork

Senior Member
ohkphoto said:
But I do those extraordinary captures by incredibly talented photojournalists . . . you know, the ones that Getty lusts after.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Getty Images has also succumbed to the money crunch of producing news by slashing what they pay for images. A few years ago they went to a flat-rate $50 use fee, regardless of content, placement, distribution, etc., with the photographer getting 60% of that ($30).
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
LensWork said:
Unfortunately Getty Images has also succumbed to the money crunch of producing news by slashing what they pay for images. A few years ago they went to a flat-rate $50 use fee, regardless of content, placement, distribution, etc., with the photographer getting 60% of that ($30).
Click to expand...

My statement about Getty was not meant to be complimentary. I see them as a "greed machine" wanting to get their hands on outstanding photos with no regard for the photographer.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Lenswork, but my understanding (at least the last I heard) re: Getty was that if after a year, the images that don't sell are put in the "free" pool and can get picked up royalty-free so that the photographer gets nothing at that point.
 
N

Nathan Lanni

Senior Member
Aside from the elements that affect professional photographers, here's an aspect of the story I find interesting:

...uses a combination of an algorithm and a manual process to analyze more than 100 million images shared everyday via Twitter. The company identifies the .03 percent of these images that they consider valuable and newsworthy,...
Click to expand...

I've done a bit of coding and I'm curious how you train a computer program to identify "valuable and newsworthy" images. It certainly couldn't do it based on the pixels contained within the images, and must have something to do with metafile data or the tags/captions the twitter's assign.

This reminds a little bit of YouTube after Google took over and started paying individuals for their uploads based on the number of hits they got. On the one hand it turned out a Justin Bieber (assign your own value here), and in other cases scratching my head looking at the viewers "Likes" Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down. Clearly, there's no accounting for some people's taste and you have chalk it up to poor presentation but meaningful content. And there's other cases which leave no way to reconcile viewers appreciation or dissatisfaction of the video.

No doubt the popularity contest world of open media will prevail here as well. An interesting tid bit from the story:

Huffington Post is the largest news organization to publish CrowdMedia photographs thus far. The site ran a pair of images of the Asiana Airlines plane crash at San Francisco Airport created by Twitter users. (It’s worth noting that the majority of the 50 images in slideshow created by Huffington Post for their article on the crash were created by pro photographers and sourced from traditional news agencies like Getty and the Associated Press.)
Click to expand...

Some things won't change - there's no substitute for talent, skill and training (and the right equipment?).
 
Last edited:
L

LensWork

Senior Member
teagueAMX said:
Some things won't change - there's no substitute for talent, skill and training (and the right equipment?).
Click to expand...

Tell that to the entire photo staff at the Chicago Sun Times that was fired and replaced by reporters with iPhones and "citizen" journalists.

Better yet, tell that to the editors at the Chicago Sun Times that made the decision to fire the entire photo staff.
 
Last edited:
N

Nathan Lanni

Senior Member
I heard about that and it's unfortunate, but frankly I don't know enough about the circumstances to fully understand what happened. From an economic point of view, I do understand that newspapers in general are treading water, most have massive debt and aren't financially viable. Seems to me in the last couple of years, the Washington Times (?) requested a government bailout. One wonders how any of them managed to keep the doors open. And, it makes you ask: If the Chicago Sun Times is that deparate, how much longer before more layoffs in other departments follow?

I sense a bit of anger in your statement and I can tell this discussion could get real ugly, and maybe as an amateur photographer I'm wading in to the deep end over my head, but frankly I stand by my statement. And what I'm about to say next is not meant to be callus or hurtful, but talent, skill and training don't assure anyone of gainful employment. It simply affords a person the ability to make an opportunity or be available when opportunity knocks on your door. It's like Louis Pasteur's statement: Chance favors the prepared mind.

Simply quoting from the link posted by ohkphoto: The Huffington Post had an array of 50 images and 2 of them came from non-professional sources. So, IMHO the elements that separated the pros from the _______ (fill in the blank) were talent, skill and training.

FWIW

Cheers

LensWork said:
Tell that to the entire photo staff at the Chicago Sun Times that was fired and replaced by reporters with iPhones and "citizen" journalists.

Better yet, tell that to the editors at the Chicago Sun Times that made the decision to fire the entire photo staff.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
H

Happypuppy

Senior Member
IMO , if I was a photojournalist I would attend many of the same occasions and events and shoot them. Get to know the editors of all your area publications, news websites etc you are able. Put the pics on a a photo hosting site that thy can buy and download and go independent. I think that maybe the only way to make it.
 
R

riverside

Senior Member
Considering the plight of print newspapers, magazines and periodicals in general I don't think anyone should be surprised at lack of market demand for photojournalists.
 
Top