Death Of the PJ, Part XXIV

[amateriat]

Submitted for your perusal:

http://tinyurl.com/yznzk8


- Barrett

 

[drewbarb]

This is great! It frees us up to do the really excellent work we'll probably never get paid (very much) to do.

 

[reagan]

Geez Louise. For funzies, I have cell-phone pics in my blog, but I'm not sure how interesting they would be for "news shots." But then... I'm an old fart, so what do I know? 😱 Rosenbaum's final quote sounds about right, IMO: "...it seems to me there are only two results: whether you get flooded with lots of car fires, or you get nothing. Neither is a particularly good effect.” Thanks, Barrett, for the article.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Can't wait for the day when some unsuspecting person carrying around their GRD or F30 or Dlux end up shooting some amazing event ... upload it to the Reuters site and end up with one of the Reuters photos of the year.

The right person, the right time, and with the camera in hand... think it will be interesting to see the results they get with this

 

[lubitel]

I am not sure what to think of this. Sure it great for news coverage, but may be at the cost of the quality of the photojournalism in the future.

 

[caffeineshutter]

Users will not be paid for images displayed on the Yahoo and Reuters sites. But people whose photos or videos are selected for distribution to Reuters clients will receive a payment. Mr. Ahearn said the company had not yet figured out how to structure those payments. The basic payment may be relatively small, but he said Reuters was likely to pay more to people offering exclusive rights to images of major events.


So essentially, they want something for nothing. They're trolling for the iconic "Burning Hindenburgh" or "Nazi-Sympathizer-Getting-Bitchslapped" shot. It'll make them a ton of money over time, and the rights will cost them a song.

I suspect this practice will initially serve them well, but they'll get bitten in the ass some day when somebody Photoshops some dramatic photo and one of the aforementioned agencies laps up the photo, then loses credibility as a result.

It's happened already; we all know examples. But like bloggers, for every bright light out there with integrity, there are thousands who have an "angle" they're working along with the attendant lack of scruples.

 

[reagan]

"People don’t say, ‘I want to see user-generated content,’ ” said Lloyd Braun, who runs Yahoo’s media group. “They want to see Michael Richards in the club. If that happens to be from a cellphone, they are happy with a cellphone. If it’s from a professional photographer, they are happy for that, too.”

Here's another quote that kinda jumped out at me. It seems from this article that even with today's hi-tech, hi-quality best-ever digital imaging... "hey, whatever shots you got are good enough." Professional PJs are out there busting their balls, backs and bank accounts to acquire the latest-greatest image-maker while all the general public really cares about seeing is a Holga-shot. 🙁 :bang: If this attitude were common back-in-the-day, any kid with a Brownie could have worked for their hometown newspaper.

 

[reagan]

Here ya go... professional at work. 🙂 I think the one in the hat is the driver.

 

[Topdog1]

Let's not be overly cynical on this one. It simply recognizes that "s*it happens all the time", and a photojournalist can't be everywhere at once. It takes advantage of the media recording capabilities that people now have almost as a default because of the advance of technology. Not everyone can write a story. Anyone can press a button. It's very very cool.

Regards,
Ira

 

[Sparrow]

When the Tube was bombed last year mobiles provided pretty good still and video images, and anyway in those circumstances its that or nothing, all the PJs were in Downing St, or chasing Celebes

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I read about this on The New York Times yesterday; thought about posting it here, but wanted to spare the pain.

I think the next step should be that the major networks start putting in their primetime lineup videos from YouTube. But I think America's Funniest Videos proved that sort of Camera Jane and Joe experiment to be...well...

Only time will tell. Is this the dawning of the Purple Fringed Headlines?

 

[Trius]

When the Tube was bombed last year mobiles provided pretty good still and video images, and anyway in those circumstances its that or nothing, all the PJs were in Downing St, or chasing Celebes

Yeah, that's a case of seeking out whatever is available in response to a major, major event, as opposed to issuing a call for "news" photos.

To me it's a sign that the public has been dumbed down enough and the "news media" cheapened down enough that this is likely to become a significant method of acquiring and publishing pictorial content. It will take some time to have some more rigorous standards set ... if that ever occurs. Just look at how so many take wikipedia as authoritative.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Just look at how so many take wikipedia as authoritative.

That is scary. I take Wikipedia as "informational" and use it for reference, but hardly as an "Authority" on the information contained in it. Just like you'd use a Time Magazine or National Geographic article as a reference for something, but hardly as an "authority" on the subject you're referring to. Unless, of course, the subject is Time Magazine or National Geographic, but that's slightly besides the point.

Not too far in the future, at the restaurant we'll be yelling "can you see me now?"

 

[Topdog1]

But Wikipedia IS authoritative!

/Ira

 

[reagan]

Please don't misunderstand my view here. (note the use of smiley faces) Though I'm commenting rather tongue-in-cheek, I find it all rather interesting... photojournalism including shots of daddy and daughter standing in front of a tank. At the same time, who knows? Little 15 year-old Maggie Bemus from Beltbuckle, Texas, armed only with her Cingular pink Razr, may produce the only known images of a world-changing event... a.k.a. "the Abraham Zapruder film of the new millennium." As Pete said, it will be interesting to see how and what this may produce.

 

[furcafe]

Hasn't that always been the case, i.e., getting the shot being more important than the quality of the shot? After all, an amateur w/a Brownie did win a Pulitzer in 1953:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/galleries/essays/001229.htm

Here's another quote that kinda jumped out at me. It seems from this article that even with today's hi-tech, hi-quality best-ever digital imaging... "hey, whatever shots you got are good enough." Professional PJs are out there busting their balls, backs and bank accounts to acquire the latest-greatest image-maker while all the general public really cares about seeing is a Holga-shot. 🙁 :bang: If this attitude were common back-in-the-day, any kid with a Brownie could have worked for their hometown newspaper.

 

[Topdog1]

Yes, and little Viginia Schau, amateur, is much more likely to capture a prize winner in her home town than in a war zone like Vietnam.

/Ira

 

[Topdog1]

By the way, this is no different from the proliferation of stock photo sites online where amateur photographers can submit their work for others to buy. You don't need to have a Magnum behind you to be a player anymore. iStcokPhoto.com even has venture backing, I believe. Alot of the photos are pretty darned good, too. The image is becoming a total commodity. Better get used to it.

And along these lines, there was an article in today's Wall Street Journal about the surprising success of the dSLR and how it is turning week-end shooters into more serious photographers. Deffinitely worth a read here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116528612238940751-search.html?KEYWORDS=Nikon&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

Regards,
Ira

 

[f8&go]

Different but similar:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301037.html

 

[Topdog1]

Different but similar:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301037.html

Crowdsourcing - I love it!

/Ira