Chicago Sun-Times will train reporters on ‘iPhone photography basics’
poynter.org
poynter.org
Given the 'yes and' style of derivative news reporting commonplace today, the Sun-Times might be more effective firing the writers, keeping the photographers, and teaching them actual journalism.
I think you joke, but you might have accidentally made an excellent point.
My girlfriend, to pay her bills, is a journalist. One of the things that she's talked about a lot (I'm paraphrasing here, these aren't her words) is that contemporary journalists don't have any balls anymore.
The joke is: a journalism professor, on the first day, stages a siren to play outside of the classroom. When it goes off, anybody who doesn't immediately run out with a pen and a pad in hand is dropped from the class.
Lately, a journalist can do their job without getting up from their desk. A photojournalist, however, can't. They're the ones running into "the action" necessarily. A words-journalist isn't anymore, so much.
I'm glad she can make that work!
Shooting "real" photojournalism with an iPhone is more than doable. Hell, the iPhone's field of view is a 28mm equivalent, which is perfect for photojournalism.
I don't disagree with the overall point about the failure of photojournalism, but photojournalism has never been about the capabilities of the camera.
Don't conflate News Photography with Photojournalism. The second is a subset of the first. News Photography is a field that requires greater diversity than 'being there at f/8 (in daylight, with a fast lens and a ready camera)'.
There are sports photographers, portrait photographers, close subject photographers, artistic photographers and, yes, photographers who need to be on the scene at breaking events, where a wide shot and being close are key.
I agree with everything you said, but it doesn't negate anything I said.
Fast frame rate. Very bright lens (e.g. f1.4). Large, high-sensitivity sensor.
It is very much about the capabilities of the camera, because the truth is that lesser cameras miss most shots, especially in a moving situation where you get a momentary window of opportunity. The iPhone camera may get there eventually, but in that situation right now the failure rate to get a shot is going to be incredibly high (obviously a chance is better than none -- the camera you have in your hand is better than the one at home and all -- but we're comparing to ready to go photojournalists).
We shall see how this decision plays out, but personally I think it is a horrible choice because it removes one of the few remaining differentiators between old media and the citizen news, which is that generally in the former you could find great, unique pictures by professionals who know what they're doing.
In a dynamic/dangerous situation, you need to get on the viewfinder and crank away on continuous-high shutter, and you'll take 200x the photos of even an ambitious iPhone user. Now think that out of 1,000 frames, maybe 2 will be head-and-shoulders above the rest... these are probably frames that the iPhone user had a vanishingly small opportunity to capture at all.
Which combined with your comment leads me to wonder about their sports section. Taking sports photography is very definitely about the capabilities of the camera and even more importantly the lens. An iPhone is not going to do very well for sports photography.
Though it would be amusing to see the attempts... ><
[Seriously though, it sounds like they're simply going to use freelancers for photos from now on, many of whom will presumably have all the fancy kit you need for sports etc...]
Don't get me wrong - I use my iPhone's camera frequently and I think it's great. But as a photojournalist where your story (and your livelihood) depends on "getting the shot", you need to be knowledgeable and prepared to shoot in the worst conditions possible. The iPhone can do some awesome things, but you just can't fake good glass with software.
Full disclosure: I sell event photos to my local newspaper that I could not have gotten at all if I had used my smartphone.
Oh, and turn on HDR and wait 5s for it to process.
EDIT: Okay, so an iPhone can never actually do f/8, but I think my point still stands...
The wifi/cell part of the photo is not to be ignored, GPS stamped images uploaded in seconds. The SLR can't compete yet. In a year or two when wifi is prevalent on SLR cameras, maybe, but for the moment is speed counts the iPhone will win for photos and video.
The iPhone does have an advantage in network connectivity, but it's comparatively unlikely to capture the couple of moments worth saving.
What is wrong with the Sun-Times making this decision if it is shown that having a staff trained in 'iPhone photography basics' allows the ST to cut costs without hurting revenue? An iconic photo (e.g. Tank Man photo [1]) opportunity is a black swan event, after all.
What about firing all the editors and teaching the writers to do that themselves?
Get rid of all the janitorial staff and mandate everyone spend more time cleaning up.
And the janitorial staff? You might be surprised to know how many of the actual journalistic sites you read don't even have offices, or at least not ones with desks for writers. Most of these people work at home.
The photo opportunity is, but the ability to exploit the opportunity and get a good photo is not.
Good to see you here again.
(Apologies for off-topic comment).
In addition to the usual blown up prints of his most famous images, they had contact sheets from his film rolls, and they really showed how incredibly skilled he was.
From looking at the contact sheets, and comparing with the blown-up images, you could see that 95% of his shots were perfectly composed, well exposed, in focus, and there were almost no wasted shots at all—none of this "take multiple exposures and choose the best one" business, he just got it right the first time and moved on.
While being shot at.
I liked his work before seeing that exhibition, but I was in awe after it...
[and of course while the equipment of the time (from the contact sheets, you could see it was 35mm film) wasn't all that bad, it was a bit primitive compared to what we have now....]
Will it hurt their sales at all? Maybe not, so maybe they don't care?
It will hurt their journalists self-respect, and, I'd suggest, in the long term, hurt the credibility and respectability of their newspaper. To have unprofessional looking photos.
This seems like a very dumb move on there part, but I also grew up doing/loving photojournalism, so maybe I'm taking it a bit personal. I just feel like it's going to make their photos look very amateur, which will inevitably hurt their credibility even more so.
Or could it be crowdsourcing "Pick the 100 best amateur photos rather than 1 good pro?"
The Sun Times isn't the New York Times. It's the lowbrow of two daily newspapers in Chicago, and already leading the charge to the bottom.
More problematic is the awkwardness of trying to photograph and interview at the same time. "I'm so sorry for the lost off your children, Mrs. Smith. Now can you look at my iPhone?"
That kind of breaks the rhythm.