|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.26.154.53
I think there were 6 remaining from a once glorious stable of pros. A total restructuring they say. Kind of belies what the title means now, but they say photos will be obtained by other means.
As a whole, this is another indicator of the demise of photography as a skill, craft, and art. Everybody and their dog is now a "photographer" taking smartphone shots, and the world is swamped with images of all kinds of everything from everywhere.
Personally, I'd rather see some of SI's staff writers flushed. A few of those over-opinionated blowhards are truly terrible.
Follow Ups:
So instead of paying them all a salary, and having to pay to send them where ever, Sports Ill. pays nothing, except to pay for the photos they can choose from the endless numbers sent to them.
If there were not an endless supply of photographers.. This could not work so well.
But since there ARE an almost endless supply of pro, and half amateur photographers to do all the work hoping for a published pic...
In my previous job where I worked for a Photoshop plug-in company
I saw this coming. Social media websites, cameras on phones, the
obsession/fascination with LoFi photography, and less expensive
decent digital cameras have all contributed to this IMHO. Crappy
low-res pictures are in fashion these days for the general public.I also thought that the increased quality of the cameras on cell
phones would also hurt the mid market digital camera market as well.
I saw an article on just that last year.There will always be a need for well taken high-res shots, but
that market is greatly diminished from what it was. Trying to make
money as a photographer these days is a tough gig.My 2 cents....
Edits: 01/24/15
And weddings? Just as bad. For high-end weddings in some areas, the 'socially approved' list of photographers is pretty short. Trying to break in is Very Difficult.Some weddings are now almost all 'volunteer'. If 40 of the guests send the bride 20 pictures EACH, that's 800 pics. The amateurs are unlikely to have missed anything. Put a disposible camera on EACH table at the reception and collect them on the way out!
The fact that I have 2 grand in studio and on-camera strobes, tripods, a couple backgrounds and very good glass means nothing to the bride who 'just wants a few pictures'. for cheap.
Too much is never enough
Edits: 01/24/15
There was a time when I thought it would be good to do wedding photography. Well, I did about five of them, and walked away. Talk about a pain in the butt with no decent income. Between 5 - 6 rolls of film, processing, proofs, temp album assembly, meeting time, album selection, etc., etc., I was probably working for about minimum wage.
My two Photogenic 1500 SLs, Sekonic meter, Canon 70-200 F4 lens, light stands, soft boxes, umbrellas, etc. are mostly 'collecting dust', although I still like to do artsy-fartsy or portrait photos now and then. But you could not pay me enough to do another wedding! THAT was seriously WAY worse than selling stereo!
:)
Alien Bees (800s) and Sekonic L358 here. I used hand-held diffusion. My 40" disc is STILL used frequently.
And a Bogen with Ball Head, and a couple of 'cheap' tripods.
And yes, a lot of work.
I used a 24-105 F4L and a 20-35 F2.8L mostly. For available light? a 50mm F1.8 was great while the 90mm F2.8 Macro Tamron saw some use in setpiece pictures, close ups of cake and bouquet and the 100-400 stayed HOME.
At one point I HAD a 35-105 F2.8 Tamron, but it was only OK. The 28-70 F2.8 SIGMA I tested was MUCH better glass, but not fully (electronically) compatible with Canon.
Too much is never enough
Sad commentary on these modern times. Sacramento City College's All American Award winning Express newspaper sent quite a few photogs to daily newspapers. Scott Sommerdorf got a gig with San Francisco's Chronicle, Bryan Patrick hooked up with Sactown's Bee, & Lorren Au was part of Orange County Register's early 80s Pulitzer Prize winning staff. In early 70s, Roger Jackson got a Sports Illustrated staff reporter gig. Nowadays it seems all photos are courtesy Getty Images.
...that it is simply cheaper to acquire pictures from free-lance photographers than to fly staff ones around the country and putting them up in hotels etc.
In the digital age pictures are available instantly from world-wide sources.
Makes no commercial sense to keep photographers on the pay roll these days.
Cheers,
John K
nt
all the best,
mrh
NO. You have to START with an image which must be 'taken' somehow.
The bar is INSANELY low these days.
Too much is never enough
Why wait for drama on the field when it can be created ad hoc from drama of old...
all the best,
mrh
I don't know ANY amateurs who submit or have any 'Stock Photography' accounts. Besides, sports is Quite Time Sensitive so while you may run a stock photo of a player or coach, the PLAY only happened at that time. Getting the Action Shot of somebody having their SPINE CRUSHED is a oner. Amateurs are not likely to have access to the locations on the field and GEAR to GET those shots. For example, a CANON 400mm f2.8 'stabilized' lens will run NEARLY 10,000$ When you go to some events and are a 'registered' user, you can go to the Canon booth and borrow some glass. Nikon works the same way. I could be wrong, but in 35mm size DSLRs, I've never SEEN any cameras BUT Nikon or Canon.
Stock photography IS a good business, no question. And todays NEWS and SPORTS photos of note are desired, they MAY become tomorrows 'stock' image.
I've worked along side some GOLF and SURF photographers. Some lucky few are employed by board or club makers and a few others are employed by the magazines. But the rest are freelancers. One guy I met a a golf tourney (Pro-Am, where cameras are allowed) had a Blimped EOS1. Very high frame rate AND it was almost dead silent due to the special case made from 7mm neoprene, also used to make wet suits. $$$$$
Rights management is a whole 'nuther chat.
Too much is never enough
probably more an indicator of the economics of paper publishing.
Tom
...as they don't lay off the ones for the swimsuit issue.
That'll continue to be 'subbed' out to the usual and fairly short list of swimsuit photographers.
Have staff guys EVER done that issue, except MAYBE the first?
Too much is never enough
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: