Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
@Batwist (post #4)
BTW... in today's new business... you would be very hard pressed to sell a newsworthy photo and get it published with a non digital initial workflow.
I live here in the mid-west. I was out driving one day when monster storms were rolling in hauling my sailboat home. I laughed that I might photograph a tornado gobbling up a small town with my Russian LTM, get like hell to my darkroom have a negative ready to scan say in 40 minutes and be BEAT by an inferior (in story-telling and quality) i-phone image.
ALSO my image that I might try to sell would have to be SOO very good to get PAID, as most i-phone shooters love to post stuff and get it published in the paper or TV news for free.
You would probably be running yourself ragged trying to beat a digital photographer to the editorial punch, and there's little point in trying to defy the nature of traditional photography. But what's wrong with releasing the image to the press later, if it says something? Do we have to live by the 'now or never' mentality of a child? Thomas Hoepker's 9/11 picture for instance, despite his hesitation in publishing it, probably raises the most questions about that day than any of the thousands of 'impulse pictures'. That's important. It probably still would be if he'd left it another 10 years. Some images absolutely need to be shown during or in the immediate aftermath of events and arguably, video is best suited to this (camera manufacturers understand this, even if we don't yet) but some pictures only truly have an impact in retrospect. The need to be retrospective, in fact, is almost ingrained in the traditional process and I hope this always has value to people.