Can't speak for 'vpwphoto', but from my perspective it's not about using videography. Or about videography's inherent difficulty or place as an art form. Both of those are acknowledged givens. It's about using videography as a (lame) excuse to can all of your talented still photographers, including a Pulitzer Prize award winner. And then implying that move will result in a better overall news product.
Originally Posted by zsas
Our audience demands more video clips. So all of you still photo guys are fired.
How many remember the single most famous (American) combat photo of WWII? How many also remember that Joe Rosenthal won the 1945 Pulitzer Prize for Photography with that photograph of the US Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima?
And how many more remember that there is also a full-color motion picture clip of that exact same event filmed by Bill Genaust? And that Mr. Genaust was standing only a few feet to the right of Mr. Rosenthal at that exact same moment? And that one of the frames in that clip is, for all practical purposes, an exact duplicate of the award winning black-and-white still photograph?
Since when did news-related video clips and still photographs suddenly become mutually exclusive entities to be pitted against each other in a perverse game of musical chairs?
With the advent of the world wide web they are both pieces of the same content 'pie' and those preparing content, must now be able to work in both media.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Canning your entire still photography staff in favor of substituting video is not "working in both media..."
Re post #63 - They didn't....Rodney King and Tiananmen Square resonate as much to me as Wright State and Neda Agha-Soltan. Sun Times still has photographers (sadly 1099 employees), you are making this a polarizing-binary-debate that all photography is dead surpassed by video. This changing of the workforce (especially in media) is happening everywhere (and has always happened, just harken back to Guttenberg)....for eg, instead of full time professors, a university will hire two part time professors (just 1099 em).....the world has changed, we all see it. As PMK said, innovate, redefine, etc.....like most of you, I've worked most this weekend...not on yesterday's dogma, but tomorrows.....
I think we all see change, let's just not pit the artists (eg videographers vs still) against eachother just because the customers of say the Sun Times are more streaming media than say the Tribune....
If you've ever read both papers you might understand that they really do have different base.
I, like everyone here, are sad re those 28 photographers, lets take that off the table....
We all LOVE photography and if we had our druthers all homes would have darkrooms, as per some law.... :)
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Like I said back in message #40: ... "reporters of the future need to be triple threat players: reporters, still photographers and videographers. I guess now they must also be social media experts as well."
The day of the stand alone photographer is probably pretty well gone.
Some of the best photojournalism was done on film, distributed via primitive equipment like the old Harris AP scanners.
Photojournalism has never been a high paying career. Usually just enough to live on and do what you love.
$40 per assignment fee's are not worth my time- 10 assignments a week won't cover my cost in this cheap town I live in.
IF I have bill-able assignments totaling a weekly average of $1000.... after expenses I still barely clear $30,000 a year.
I'm 47... If citizen journalist get a fix for free or for $40 fine, I'll find a new thing to be passionate about.... and their passion will wane, and I understand the moneybags people don't care who does the job as long as there are people lining up to work for free or almost free.
All I know is next time an organization like Bloomberg calls me I'm not working for $200. If someone else thinks working for a place called Bloomberg to "get their foot in the door, or build a portfolio" for $200 for exclusive rights, don't say I didn't try to tell you, you will be 47 and wondering why you tried.
No disrespect to anyone, yes I am venting. I eat lunch once or twice a year with a 85+ year old WWII photographer, he see's his footage late at night on the Time-Life WWII video collection advert. ...poor guy can't get away for the horror... and Time Life is making the money on that too.
It's not just newspapers... the "top shelf" area advert agency, stopped using people with $20,000 rigs and experience two decades high. A high school kid with a DSLR his dad bought him is the new go-to video production house in the area. It just bites what technology has done... I tried to warn this youngster not to get too excited because the kid he needs to worry about is likely in 6th grade......
Not familiar with US newspapers, but the announcement doesn't make a skerrick of sense to me. How can anything be improved, including but not limited to, the bottom line and efficiencies, by dispensing with dedicated photographers? I have never heard of this taking place here in Australia, and never hope to, but given the drama that cloud computing and storage is having on traditional IT positions being sacrificed because of "outsourced online efficiencies" it just might happen in the future. I think decisions like this will actually cause a drop in readership because the quality of the work (photography, videos etc.) will not be of the same benchmark that long-time readers are accustomed to.
I think the IPhone will soon be the past.
With devices like a Google glass you can have a motion picture record videos in "subjective" POV and instantly send it to some server.
You can give the glasses vocal instructions and you can record anything while having your hands engaged in something else.
For instance you can systematically record all your driving. If and when a road accident happens you can easily have a video with the dynamics of the accident. Else you delete the record.
You could actually do this all the time while walking. In a not distant future you can have your glasses record all your "life" and automatically discard all videos after let's say three days unless you want to keep something relevant.
If the landing in Normandy (or wherever) had to happen in 2014 or so, literally thousands of subjective videos would be recorded, live with the enemy shooting at you. Thousands of Robert "Capas" taking pictures at the same time. Actually Google glasses would continue sending videos to the servers while the soldier has already died.
I don't know how this foreseeable progress can be stopped, or if it is really so frightening to live on a planet where all your social interactions might be recorded on a video, all the quarrelling at condominium reunions, all the queries at school.
Remember a camera now can be absolutely microscopic. Google glasses have a distinctive "screen" for feed-back from the device, but if you can do without feed-back, hiding a camera in glasses will be just very very easy. Or you can have it permanently installed in your car, bicycle, motorbike, or on your dog.
I don't think that "fine art" photography will ever die but I do think that "reportage" photography will basically cease to exist in a few years.