Your Dumb iPad Picture Taking Is Keeping Real Photographers From Doing Their Jobs

from the moment i first saw a digital camera screen, thought it was the way to go! The i-pad even more so.. Sure it's like rude to bloc peoples view, press or civilian.It is a photo of our time. It may not be "our" election, but the result affects the world.
sometimes you have to learn to cope with competition. i did weddings..i helped the others get their shots.They soon understood not to get in my way, as i'd set shots up, after mine! One of my biggest orders was from an Uncle of the Bride. He was a pro, brought with better equipment than mine!
He preferred my shots.
The photo is truly great! in my time as a PJ, it was the video people pushing us out the way..
 
Just another nail in the coffin of photojournalism. In another few years, there are going to be so many phones, ipads, and even cameras pointed at every conceivable event/happening that media outlets will no longer need to pay talented photojournalists... they'll be have instead software to sift through every online image to pick the best! :-(
 
I work in this field and can tell you everyone needs to get used to it and stop complaining. It ain't going away any time soon. Times have changed and situations like these are inevitable and unavoidable.
 
Damaso said:
Discuss 😀
http://gizmodo.com/5941915/your-dum...ping-real-photographers-from-doing-their-jobs

Here's a picture of Barack Obama campaigning in West Palm Beach, Florida yesterday. Except you can't even get a great look at the prez because of all the amateur idiots taking idiot pictures with their idiot tablets, getting in the way of the real professional photographers. This disruptive behavior has to stop.

xlarge.jpg
Click to expand...

A real CREATIVE photographer takes a picture of some some one taking a picture with an iPad. Showing the age we live in and they way the world evolves.
Just save this shot and review it in 50 years from now and see what story it will bring forward. :angel:
 
That press photo is pretty interesting. I agree in 50 years it will be SO interesting and such a milemarker of the early 2000's.

But I have to rant, I f*&%&* HATE ipads. Not as a device, but because people are hellbent on carrying them around and taking photos of anything with them, and they pretty much completely obscure or block any decent view of the subject. Also they insist on holding them at complete arms length, and above their heads. Was at a local show last week, couldn't see the band. Had to watch half the show through the LCD screen of a godamned ipad of the twit in front of me. GRR.
 
The definition of whats a camera is slowly getting blurred, there are just too many devices that capture a still photo and video, in high quality.
 
what's any worse about an iPad versus a humungous pro Canon or Nikon DSLR with a 47 lb, two-foot long autofocus zoom lens? At least the iPad folks generally only carry one of them with them at a time. The Canon/Nikon guys are always carrying at least two of their behemoths and chimping after a shot anyway, right? Anyone whom I haven't offended yet?

actually, the thing that baffles me in this and similar scenes is that most if not all folks who own an iPad or other tablet must surely own some kind decent cellphone with a camera. frankly, I'd be worried about dropping my iPad in an environment like that. Imagine how hard this makes life for agents on a presidential (or pres candidate) secret service detail. I also imagine that they freaked out when the pizza parlor owner picked Barack up and gave him a bear hug the other day. and that guy was a republican.
 
Jamie123 said:
So effin' what? They have just as much right to take a picture as 'real professional photographers', who, by the way, are usually the ones obscuring the view.
Click to expand...

Yeah! When I'm watching a movie, other people yelling in the theater have the right to be heard over the movie. During a wedding, the drunk uncle has the right to say the wedding vows just as any other citizen. When having a family picnic, the guy with the powerful sound system in his pickup truck has the right to express his musical tastes over the peace of the neighborhood.

Damn civility...it's all about me me me.

Fascetiousness (sp.) aside, in all seriousness, people have got to have a bit of common sense. We may have the right to do things, but we must also learn not to be egotistical. A sports commentator may be boring as h3ll, but that does not give the cameraman the permission (although as a citizen he has the right) to get on his cellphone and call in the station with his own live feed while talking over sleepychitchat.
 
I can just see it now ... back in the eighteen hundreds some artist was painting a portrait of whoever the prez was at the time and some clown suddenly wanders in front of him and starts setting up an enormous view camera.

Hey you ... with the donkey and the tent!!! :bang:
 
zauhar said:
There are already cameras you wear with eyeglass frames, so maybe there will soon be no need to wave your ipad like an imbecile.

Think of it - All you will need to capture the Decisive Moment is to walk around all day with the eyeglass camera running. Provided of course you have time to sort through 30,000 images at the end of the day.

Randy
Click to expand...

not to worry, Facebooks and Google's Automated Face recognition will do that for you and instantly tag all individuals present, no opt-out available.


It ain't real if it's not alive on the internetz!
 
Keith said:
I can just see it now ... back in the eighteen hundreds some artist was painting a portrait of whoever the prez was at the time and some clown suddenly wanders in front of him and starts setting up an enormous view camera.

Hey you ... with the donkey and the tent!!! :bang:
Click to expand...

WHOA, cracks me up, belly ache laughing! 😀😀😀
 
I'm not paid to take photos of famous people. Therefore I find the photo of people with iPads taking photos of POTUS much more interesting than a picture of POTUS standing and smiling in the same setting.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Yeah! When I'm watching a movie, other people yelling in the theater have the right to be heard over the movie. During a wedding, the drunk uncle has the right to say the wedding vows just as any other citizen.
Click to expand...

No, people in a theater actually do not have the right to yell which is why they can be removed by security. Same goes for the drunk uncle.
What the OP is suggesting is that 'professional' yellers have the right to be heard over the movie and that the rest of the people in the theater should shut up as to not disturb the pro.
Besides, we're talking about a situation here where a politician goes into the crowd to get close to the people and shake hands with them. So a common citizen should not have the right to photograph his or her once-in-a-lifetime meeting with the president because he might get in the way of some press photographer getting generic head shots? That's hilarious.
 
swoop said:
The person with the ipad took a picture just for themselves.
Click to expand...

Unlike the pro who surely attached a free creative commons license to the picture so everyone from the public can blog it, upload it to their facebook, use it on their website or do any other thing they desire with the picture, right?
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Just another nail in the coffin of photojournalism. In another few years, there are going to be so many phones, ipads, and even cameras pointed at every conceivable event/happening that media outlets will no longer need to pay talented photojournalists...
Click to expand...

Already happening.

Last year I was out sick with cancer for almost six months and couldn't work. While I was gone, the publication I work for had to get images elsewhere. They tapped into the HUGE population of folks doing just what you describe, and these folks are so thrilled that the picture they took is in the paper, they give away their image rights for free.

When I came back in spring, I had alot less work, and the editor told me that even though the images they get for free pretty much suck compared to what I give them, they're "good enough" for most things as they are printed so small or appear on line so small that it's okay. And, she said, not having to pay a photographer as much as they used to, has helped them in trying to balance the budget in these tough times.

As an example, the paper just ran a story about controversial remarks Barney Frank made at a speech last week at the DNC. Here are two images they got for free of the incident:

barneyfrank_lgbtcaucus.jpg


20120906-134128.jpg


And here is the image I "sold" them of the incident:

TCPDNCDay3WC-5-BarneyFrank.jpg


Not a big fan of "good enough".

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom