Slashdot Mirror
Chicago Sun Times Swaps iPhone Training For Staff Photographers
frdmfghtr notes (via Cult of Mac) that "the reporters of the Chicago Sun-Times are being given training in iPhone photography, to make up for the firing of the photography staff. From the CoM story: 'The move is part of a growing trend towards publications using the iPhone as a replacement for fancy, expensive DSLRs. It's a also a sign of how traditional journalism is being changed by technology like the iPhone and the advent of digital publishing.'"
It takes horrible pictures.
At least use the Samsung Galaxy Camera GC100 or something similar.
clues:
- training in iPhone photography
- firing of the photography staff
- iPhone as a replacement for fancy, expensive DSLRs
Who cares what equipment they're using... A piece of crap camera in a skilled photog's hands can still get a great photo.
The real story (and tragedy) is they think that non-pro photographers (writers and amateurs) can do the job. Watch the results - photo quality (content wise, maybe not just technical wise) will plummet. Maybe they think that doesn't matter, who knows. And for things like sports, they'll have to use wire service photos now for sure. You can get great photos from AP/Reuters, but they'll be the same photos as other news outlets.
Sad sad, and short-sighted decision IMHO
Madcow
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Keep in mind that the photographs will wind up on the web or on newsprint. You don't need artist quality cameras for that.
That's like teaching a jockey to ride a broom stick instead of a real horse because the staff needed to feed the horse has been too costly.
Now, where is the difference between a normal human being taking a pic of currrent happenings or the reporter?
There is none, anymore. Anyone can ride a broom stick, except the jockey might do it with a bit more skip-walking, but not really gaining an advantage.
Spelling errors were made for your amusement only...
I propose that the editor be replaced by my second-grade grand-daughter - I mean, she can edit just as well, right? - and the "fancy, expensive" computer that the editor currently uses be replaced by an Etch-A-Sketch. Or Crayons.
you don't but a fast autofocus with low-light sensitivity will be necessary. Also, when photographing sports, cropping from a 12mp camera phone still isn't good enough quality. A 70-200/ 2.8 will provide a decent quality (dependent on the photog's skill) but it's still hard. But on the other hand, you force the reporter to record video of the sporting event (usually high school)., he/she will still spend a considerable amount of time scrubbing the video to find a good still frame; or worse, edit the video for their online content.
"Grammer". You're one to complain.
clues:
- training in iPhone photography
- firing of the photography staff
- iPhone as a replacement for fancy, expensive DSLRs
It's real, there was quite a bit of time dedicated to this story on Chicago Tonight a few days ago. The big joke is the Chicago Sun Times itself...once a respectable newspaper, now transforming itself into little more than an amateur blog. And using iPhones with their subpar optics...in the hands of people who know nothing about photography...the paper will be carrying Facebook quality pictures, or as another mentioned, the same pic as every other outlet via AP/UPI.
Whatever bozo made this decision should be fired...his/her 6-figure salary will probably pay for 2 or 3 decent photographers, and they'll get a whole lot more value out of those photographers than they will the moron who made this decision. But then, I don't think the Chicago Sun Times is long for this world anyway (an end hastened by such collasal mismanagement).
What we're watching is the final deathrows of a dying paper, in an industry on life support.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Now, where is the difference between a normal human being taking a pic of currrent happenings or the reporter?
Just so long as the reporters getting this training realise that they are next for the chop - just as soon as reader-submitted "news" becomes more plentiful.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The move is part of a growing trend towards publications using the iPhone as a replacement for fancy, expensive DSLRs.
No, the move is a trend towards replacing trained skilled professionals (in this case, photojournalists) with cheap, unskilled labor (reporters who might be fine reporters, but don't know shit about photography and photojournalism; or even "user submissions" from Joe Random's cellphone). The cost of a DSLR is nothing compared to wages for a professional. Unfortunately, the *results* from dumping the photojournalists are also nothing compared to using the professional --- and it's not a matter of camera quality. A professional photojournalist with an iPhone would produce better photojournalism than non-experts with a DSLR. The Chicago Sun Times isn't throwing away "pixel quality" so much as "journalism quality" --- no wonder newspapers are dying.
Thom Hogan (Nikon expert) has a very critical take on this here , one which I happen to agree with fully, to quote Thom:
" If you're in the content business, there's one simple rule you have to remember: create the best content for your chosen media. First, you can sell great content to customers (circulation revenue). Second, you can sell your access to a great set of customers to others (advertising revenue). Corollary: if you don't invest in the content, you'll die. First, because you don't attract a large enough audience and can't hold them. Second, because the declining audience will scare advertisers away. Finally, if you just run from your chosen medium to try to dominate another one, you're playing moose to someone else's elephant. Prepare to get stepped on."
Except the camera isn't just a tool. It's more like one of the ingredients. Suddenly your haute chef is using canned ingredients and rotten produce.
Some shots just aren't going to be possible with a phone period.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Have", not "of".
"You'll get much better shots from an iPhone than you will if you hand over a D4 or a MkIII to a non-photographer."
No, actually, you won't. DSLRs still have "green square mode" which puts the things in automatic. You won't get the results you'd get from the same camera with a decent photographer behind it, but you'll get better results than a camera phone provides.
One of my favorite quotes is from Chief Wiggins' son on The Simpsons, "Me not know English, that's unpossible!"
So sad it's fitting for the print media. They can have their reporters take photos but they are losing a lot in terms of composition and quality. Anyone can take photos, but not everyone can take good photos.
It is not just about the quality and other tech aspects of the camera. There is a world of difference in the ability of a specialist photographer to anticipate and shoot at the decisive moment, with good framing, and that of someone just hauled in to do the job. People like Don McCullin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McCullin] would probably still have got cracking photos even with a Box Brownie, while a typical hack writer would probably produce laughably amateurish pics even with a top-of-the-range Nikon.
I'm sorry, sir, but I am afraid I must revoke your geek card. It's "me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Do you have a subscription for the Sun or a similar newspaper? If you do, good for you. But, there are millions who stopped paying for their news. Without this revenue, how exactly are the news outlets supposed to have all these professionals on staff? Magic money tree? The more people get their news from the "internet", the less money will be spent on gathering the news. This is just a natural outcome of the digital age. If it reduces the quality, well.. That's just part of the game.
The people now responsible for capturing the most important events...
...aren't working for the Chicago Sun-Times anyway.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The green square helps but it can't make artistic decisions. The photograph will be properly exposed by certain measures but it can't fix composition or subject matter.
Actually, it'll only be properly exposed if it's pointing a subject that's 18% gray (within its metering area, ie spot, center, or center weighted).
The meters inside cameras are reflective meters (as opposed to an incident meter you hold in front of the subject and click). So they measure the light reflected off the subject. But different subjects reflect different amounts of light. A white object is more reflective than a black object. So how does the camera know what color the object is that it's pointed at? It doesn't. So it assumes it's medium gray and sets the exposure accordingly. That's fine for an average (by definition) scene, but fails everywhere else. This is why if you've ever pulled out a point and shoot camera, or phone or pro DSLR in green square mode in the snow and taken a picture, you'll notice all your white snow is gray. That's why professionals use manual exposure, or at least exposure compensation in auto modes.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
AP (Chicago transcript by Siri): President Obama's state of the unit address was... I'd rather not say. But the corndog mafia sentopolis and will in the Mideast. I don't know. Maybe the genius bar guys could answer that. But North Korean leader... I'm not allowed to delete reminders. Look... a puppy!
Yep, that's wide spread enough that it's effectively correct. And since it's a contraction of you would have, the correct spelling is you'd've. guess that makes it a compound contraction.
Unless set for spot or center, modern AE algorithms are little more sophisticated than "Expose the whole scene for 18% grey." "Matrix" metering has been around for something like 25 years now. Matrix metering tries to recognize what you are trying to accomplish and adjust exposure accordingly. You are correct that it doesn't always get it right, but give them a little credit... I find that when I'm using my modern DSLR, AE gets it perfect most of the time, and produces a usable shot (as in, one salvageable for a website or newsprint) almost all the time.
I have 4 different "compact" camera (no-name,Olympus, Fujifilm and Samsung), I've taken pictures from several phones (dumb nokia, HTC and Galaxy S2 (with a 8MP sensor)... but I will never return to these now that I've my DSLR... And if I had bought one from the start, I'd never had to buy the other one.
- less noise on low light conditions
- much better lenses which allow real zoom (not digital zoom) and such
- Much faster to take pictures (no delay which means that you take the precise image that you want)
- good continuous mode (several pictures in a row, at less than 1 sec interval which allow to pick up the best one)
- faster exposures (needed when you take picture of things which are moving, no more motion blur)
- much better battery capacity
- better sensivity on low light condition (due to larger lens opening)
and so on...
When I compage Galaxy S2 and Samsung camera (both having 8MP sensor), there is already a big difference thanks to the lens of the camera... and they both come from same manufacturer (camera is older than S2 and gives better pictures)
My guess is that they'll revert quickly to DSLR... journalism photographers have to take picture of things that are moving most of the time... that's definitively NOT the best use case for phone's cameras.
No woooosh in space.
Chicago Sun Times' new classified ad
If you're following the news about Google Glass, you'll have heard that some people hate having their picture taken. This is a fact that nearly every photojournalist has to deal with. Only those who've been in the industry a very long time will be able to blend into the background and capture the scene without becoming themselves a reality-distorting distraction. The best will do this without disturbing the relationship and trust the reporter must build with the people being interviewed. They might even become "the bad cop" (does anyone remember The Animal from Lou Grant? That jerk photographer that both the interviewee and reporter can share a laugh and a beer with while the reporter builds her story.
Give the reporter an iPhone or DSLR or Google Glass and the reporter becomes that jerk photographer. The relationship between reporter and interviewee disappears as quickly as you can say, "So-long Chicago Sun-Times."
I shot freelance for a newspaper in Toronto during the 80s and 90s. And although the work was a lot of fun, I think its time is long over. Consider the adage from dead tree papers: If it bleeds it leads. How many different, artistic ways can you shoot the following, that hasn't been done a zillion times in the past: .org.
1) Large or medium-sized structure fire--this was my specialty.
2) Personal injury accident.
3) Victim(s) being transported.
4) Reminder to set clocks ahead/back.
5) Look how Hot/Cold/Snowy/Icy the weather was yesterday!
6) Perp walk or subject under arrest.
7) Politician making a speech on in a media scrum.
8) Drug/weapons seizure evidence on the table.
9) Presentation of a giant cheque to a lottery winner or charitable
10) Devastation after a large natural disaster, governor/official doing official tour
11) Sad kid/parent after a bully stole their lunch money, bicycle or all the toys for Christmas presents at the poor house.
Now. Go fetch today's paper (good doggie!). How many of the above items do you see in the hard news section? Now factor this: If it's a major disaster, fire, accident, etc, the news editor will be fielding calls from hundreds of people with photos of the event. Probably some with pro-sumer levels of kit. If that isn't available they'll buy a wireservice image and run it. Everything else mentioned is shootable with a phonecam or a shirt-pocket cam, and the level of knowledge needed to shoot it is somewhere between "f/8-and-be-there," and "push-here-stupid."
Sports is an entirely different kettle of fish, and I don't know how they're going to handle Bulls/Black Hawks/Bears/Cubs/Sox games. Again, probably just buy freelancers' materials or stuff off the wires.
Gone are the days when a newspaper NEEDS actual photographs. Unless you're living under a rock the audience already knows what the governor looks like, what a perp-walk looks like, a building fire, a traffic accident or the President making a speech. We can get that anywhere. The hard news reporting is what I care about (not that there's all that much of it these days). Pretty pictures I can find online. They made the right call.
Cheers, Peter, W2IRT