Photo editor's G9 breaks before trip; uses disposable cameras

easyrider said:
Oh dear! I seem to have upset the great Rogers Hicks! That was not my intention. But my dear Roger you are really missing the point. I did not post it because it was new and revolutionary but because I thought some on this board might find it interesting or at least mildly interesting. Not because it was great photography.

There is another point to be made about the National Post spread: She wrote a story to go with it. Alas a travel story and she nicely weaved in the use of the disposable cameras. She did not say that everyone should from now on travel with disposable cameras and do what she did.

There is a lot of moaning on news photographers' boards about the death of their craft. Well, there is no rolling it back. Many younger and not so young journalists now take their own pix and in some cases videos. Multi-skills are required and it sometimes is not easy.

(And, yes, I know Roger that you and your wife also write.)

And thanks for posting that 1950s series. Ah, those were the days! Makes me want to take out my my Leica IIIc and the Rollei Automat.
Click to expand...

What upset me was not the original post. which was, as you said, certainly interesting enough to warrant drawing our attention to it. Rather, I was upset by the 'polishing your $8000 Leicas' remark, rather than (for example) 'polishing your 23 mediocre fixed-lens compacts', because I suspect that most people who buy a Leica (and later, perhaps another) take more pictures than the people who end up spending the same amount of money on buying and selling cameras they 'can afford'.

Before that, of course, there was the post from aperture64: 'Should be a lesson to RFF members that they should just go out and shoot and not be so obsessed with gear and acquiring more of it.' Would anyone, after all, tell a musician he should stick with the penny whistle he had when he was six?

Of course there are people who are primarily camera collectors, and who waste a lot of time buying and selling and worrying instead of taking pictures, but both those posts effectively tar with the same brush the people who take good or even excellent photos with good or even excellent gear.

Yes, news photography as a profession is dying, for exactly the reasons you give. There's also an awful lot of really bad writing about, but then, there always was. The article was at best workmanlike, but again, she's a photo editor, not a writer or photographer. In fact, given that she's in some of the pictures, she didn't even take all of them.

Better than most people, I know that it's a bloody sight easier to get pubished 'from the inside', when you know the editors, etc. Would her story have been published if she'd set it in as a freelance? I suspect not.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The clue does seem to lie in the word 'editor' and not 'photographer'.


R.
Click to expand...

Yes. She's paid to ride herd on the photos the paper uses, and doesn't use, not to take pictures.

It is a feel-good piece, and her position at the paper had everything to do with the publication of the article. (It appeared in the travel section, too.) It's the fact that this article will make most reader feel good that's really interesting. It rests on the fact that most people want, and expect, the camera to do all the work, whether the camera is a cheap disposable or an expensive DSLR. Most people want only to point and shoot.
 
Why am I not surprised that the article ran in the Canadian paper, National Post? They've been losing money hand-over-fist for years now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

They're also forced to publish columns by their founder, Conrad Black:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/ConradBlack.html

Black writes his pontifications from a JAIL CELL in the US! He's serving time for fraud, which makes it hilarious when scolds the Canadian masses for their lapses.

The Winnipeg Free Press published his column once, and the letters page was deluged with mockery. That was the first, and last, Black article the WFP published. (Since he was incarcerated.)
 
Last edited:
You know, I don't understand why this article seems to upset people. Someone used disposable cameras on a trip, was satisfied with the photos, and cobbled together a cute little story for the travel section. She didn't tell committed photographers to throw away their expensive cameras and buy a disposable. She said you can get satisfying snapshots from a disposable camera, which is true.

What is it about some of us that, after reading an opinion expressed by someone we don't know, we are driven to go online not to disagree but to trash that person?

Maybe that's why this place has five new moderators.
 
I am also puzzled

I am also puzzled

I am also at a loss to understand why my post upset a number of people. I was poking a bit of fun at posters who get obsessed with equipment but I also understand that there are people who are primarily collectors of cameras.

I own a two Barnacks, a 1950s Rollei and a Rollei 35 that was for many years the camera I used most. I also have a 1970s SLR Canon EF. I enjoy playing with them but I must admit that I rarely put film through any of them. I brought the Rollei 35 to an RFF meeting loaded with Tri-X last year I had a hard time getting it processed. I do have a developing tanks somewhere but don't want to get back into the "wet" stuff.

I enjoy reading this forum, including the debates about the more bizarre pieces of equipment and I did not mean to offend anyone.

And Roger, I actually do know people who have high end cameras and don't use them much to take photos. They find them too big or do not want to expose them to theft or damage. If they enjoy the ownership, so be it. But let us have a bit of a sense of humour.

One more -- and the last -- point. A few months ago a photographer on the same paper was traveling somewhere on vacation and suggested to the news editor that he write a story to accompany some photos. He got a brushoff so he went to see the features editor who let him write a piece and gave it good space in her section.

And, yes, the paper is under bankruptcy protection and on the block along with a whole chain of papers and TV stations. In the meantime the inmates -- editors, reporters and photographers -- are running the paper and have improved the quality since there is no agenda-driven owner.

And, yes, Conrad Black writes for them from jail in the U.S. He sold it long ago to the Asper family, who are also now gone. You can bet on it that Black's gig will end when the paper is sold.

OK. I plan to say no more. Or, as we used to say in typewriter days: "30."
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
I am also at a loss to understand why my post upset a number of people. I was poking a bit of fun at posters who get obsessed with equipment but I also understand that there are people who are primarily collectors of cameras.

I own a two Barnacks, a 1950s Rollei and a Rollei 35 that was for many years the camera I used most. I also have a 1970s SLR Canon EF. I enjoy playing with them but I must admit that I rarely put film through any of them. I brought the Rollei 35 to an RFF meeting loaded with Tri-X last year I had a hard time getting it processed. I do have a developing tanks somewhere but don't want to get back into the "wet" stuff.

I enjoy reading this forum, including the debates about the more bizarre pieces of equipment and I did not mean to offend anyone.

And Roger, I actually do know people who have high end cameras and don't use them much to take photos. They find them too big or do not want to expose them to theft or damage. If they enjoy the ownership, so be it. But let us have a bit of a sense of humour.

One more -- and the last -- point. A few months ago a photographer on the same paper was traveling somewhere on vacation and suggested to the news editor that he write a story to accompany some photos. He got a brushoff so he went to see the features editor who let him write a piece and gave it good space in her section.

And, yes, the paper is under bankruptcy protection and on the block along with a whole chain of papers and TV stations. In the meantime the inmates -- editors, reporters and photographers -- are running the paper and have improved the quality since there is no agenda-driven owner.

And, yes, Conrad Black writes for them from jail in the U.S. He sold it long ago to the Asper family, who are also now gone. You can bet on it that Black's gig will end when the paper is sold.

OK. I plan to say no more. Or, as we used to say in typewriter days: "30."
Click to expand...

(Highlight) Likewise. As has often been discussed here on the forum, we have no 'body language' and sometimes too little humour.

Consider saying to someone whom you see with his girlfriend, "No, I was just wondering how an ugly-looking bugger like you got a beautiful girl like that."

A compliment or a killing insult?

I am sure you and I (and indeed most of RFF) are closer in sentiment than sometimes appears in what we write.

Cheers,

R.
 
My comment was purely about her pictures being published was because she had an easy 'in'..
I didn't comment on the quality of the photos at all, they seem to be quite nice and of course with better gear you would get sharper shots or whatever, but that's not what I meant.
Ok whatever.. this article was one big 'meh' to me, kicking in open doors, etc.
 
i actually enjoyed the story and the photos. taking her last few comments in mind (low-fi) the images had a certain lack of over saturated, sunset at the beach, view from the pool, cliche travel photo feel to them.

i hope if anything, the paper continues to "try things out" as this mess is sorted.
 
Easyrider: As I see it, the problem with your posting was that to make the much belabored point that "it's not the camera but the photographer who takes good pictures", you chose an example that merely proves, if proof was needed, that you can also take lousy--or at least very mediocre--pictures with a lousy camera. The famous Bert Hardy picture mentioned by Roger Hicks is a much better example. This picture, as Bert Hardy tells it in his autobiography, was taken on a dare. He had written an article for a photo competition, in which he said that "it's the person behind the camera that matters, not the camera." (This was in the early 50s; as I said, it's a much belabored point.) After printing the article, his editor said that now he would have to prove it. Hardy did take the picture with a Box Brownie, but he had the cooperation of two showgirls, the subjects of the picture. As for the the pictures taken by Ms. Suzuki, one must admit that they are a perfect fit for the unrelieved silliness of her article. Disposable cameras and disposable writing go together.
 
Borrowed G11 = no headline

Borrowed G11 = no headline

Obviously if she had borrowed her friend's G11 (or equivalent) and gotten technically better pictures it would not have been much of a story. Man bites dog sells newspapers, not the other way around. The cutesy human interest aspect to the story would not have been there and neither would the cutesy headline that attracted somebody's interest in the first place. That's the "hook" and again that's what sells newspapers or gets on the 6 o'clock news.
We all know that using primative 1950s equipment (like this woman or Ken Rockwell used on a recent trip) will yield reasonable results - in bright sunlight when the sun is over your shoulder - assuming that you are going to make a 4x6 print. The reason that we have all moved past this is because this is technically rather limited - some of us would like to focus on something closer that 8 feet, go out at sunset, at night, in bad weather and sometimes even stay indoors in terrible light conditions. Thats why we moved on to better equipment. Yes, my father's box camera in the 1960's produced acceptable record shots of family vacations when I was a kid, but everyone recognized the amazing leap in quality in the pictures when I bought a Minolta Himatic 7s with my hard earned summer camp counsellor earnings in 1970. I will leave to others to argue about whether a $800 lens is better than a $300 lens and whether a $2000 lens is worth the price, but lets all agree that having minimum controls over focus, aperture and shutter speed do improve the end results if one is willing to learn how to use them. But, they don't sell newspapers.
 
sevo said:
It does not really come as a surprise that newspapers hire photo editors which seem to have a depth of photographic knowledge that does not exceed that of a 25 year old consumer without any photographic ambitions, and don't even pretend anything better. But it is sad nonetheless...
Click to expand...


Most photo editors don't have much technical photographic experience. I kinda prefer it this way.

But yes the story was boring and pointless. It's like when the publisher of one of the papers I freelance for writes an article about her vacations. Which she does often. No one gives a sh**.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Come on! This has been a standard stunt on a slow news day for decades: send out a staff photographer with a box camera to show that you can get half-decent pictures under undemanding circumstances. The only difference is that they didn't send out a staff photographer.

Any sane photographer uses whatever tools he/she is happiest with; can afford; and believes will deliver the results he/she wants. Professionally, you add 'the results the client/editor wants'. Most of the time, most editors want pictures that are technically better than a box camera can deliver, and often they want pics that aren't taken in bright sun or with on-camera flash.
Click to expand...

I remember a piece in the New York Times about Tyler Hicks. Who in my opinion is the greatest living photojournalist today. Lynsey Addario being a second.

He was on assignment with an Army group and they were ambushed. In the scuffle he ran back and fell into a river and lost all of his gear. He ended up using the writers P&S for the duration of the attack and a bit afterward. While not the sharpest photos, they were beautiful images still and visually illustrated the encounter.
 
Okay, I think we all understand that it is the photographer not the equipment that is most responsible for getting good photos, and that good photos can be gotten with crappy cameras.

But there is some reverse-snobbery in this thread, exemplified by the Leica-polishing comment. It is as undesirable as high-end equipment snobbery, no?
 
swoop said:
I remember a piece in the New York Times about Tyler Hicks. Who in my opinion is the greatest living photojournalist today. Lynsey Addario being a second.

He was on assignment with an Army group and they were ambushed. In the scuffle he ran back and fell into a river and lost all of his gear. He ended up using the writers P&S for the duration of the attack and a bit afterward. While not the sharpest photos, they were beautiful images still and visually illustrated the encounter.
Click to expand...

Well, yes.

Not quite the same thing as handing a disposable to a bystander and asking them to take your holiday snaps, though.

As Bill and I have both said, this is a feelgood piece. And as Frank says, reverse snobbery is at least as wearing as perceived 'boasting' about cameras. In my view, it's a lot more common, too. How many people say, "I could only have got this shot with my M9 and 24/1,4 Summilux" and how many say "Only rich idiots buy Leicas, especially new Leicas"? I paraphrase and summarize in both cases, of course.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom