Newspaper replaces professional photographers with iPhone-wielding reporters

[Railman]

It makes sense to me to use a cheap snapper like a smartphones, just bung it into the journo's hand and it saves money. Who really cares about the quality of a photograph in a newspaper anyway, just as long as the reader can get the gist. The story counts for more.

Exactly.

Ever heard of the expression a picture can tell a story? Unless you catch the eye of the reader the content could count for nought. Frankly we are just going down the road of quantity verses quality.

 

[cliffordcooley]

You are just proving the point. The lack of quality in those pictures is apparent, especially from a DSLR camera. using IPHONE pictures there? that would be laughable, im-taking-selfies-for-facebook quality...

Look at the image of that phone and tell me a phone can't take a better picture.

You are trying to prove a point that is irrelevant on the topic of newspapers.

 

[captaincranky]

Look at the image of that phone and tell me a phone can't take a better picture.

You are trying to prove a point that is irrelevant on the topic of newspapers.

But newspapers aren't entirely divested of the topic of photojournalism.

So one struggling newspaper has canned its photographers. That's entirely exclusive of, what I consider to be the slam dunk statement which is, "a DSLR will produce far better images than a camera phone. And that the additional quality, can be put to use, in the context of newspaper images. In both cases, the answer is a resounding "yes"!

Plus, you still haven't wrapped your head around the immutable fact the the reproduction process also kills quality.

So, for the sake of argument, how much image quality are you willing to lose, and what should be considered a viable qualitative starting point?

Photography, (photojournalism included), like every artistic imaging endeavor, has its awards ceremonies, exhibitions, and gallery events.. I doubt some badly cropped mumbo jumbo, coming out the a** of a cellphone would make the grade in those venues.

And by the way Clifford, have you heard from those two trolls that followed you here from the Windows 8 forum a while back?

I believe it was, "TheBeholder", and, "Andrea Borman". (?)

 

[oldikes]

Look at the image of that phone and tell me a phone can't take a better picture.

You are trying to prove a point that is irrelevant on the topic of newspapers.

A phone can take a better picture than the picture in that newspaper. But put the picture you took with your phone on that newspaper, and the quality is even worse than the DSLR picture on a newspaper is.
Point being, and I suppose this must be a newsflash, that GASP DSLR cameras take better pictures than iphones.

 

[captaincranky]

A phone can take a better picture than the picture in that newspaper. But put the picture you took with your phone on that newspaper, and the quality is even worse than the DSLR picture on a newspaper is.
Point being, and I suppose this must be a newsflash, that GASP DSLR cameras take better pictures than iphones.

I know, right?

 

[Guest]

@ ikesmasher

So what you are saying is sometimes you can't tell the difference?

 

[captaincranky]

@ ikesmasher

So what you are saying is sometimes you can't tell the difference?

It all kind of depends on who's running the camera, who's doing the D/D conversions, and who's running the printing press. Is that the answer you were trolling for?

 

[cliffordcooley]

A phone can take a better picture than the picture in that newspaper. But put the picture you took with your phone on that newspaper, and the quality is even worse than the DSLR picture on a newspaper is.
Point being, and I suppose this must be a newsflash, that GASP DSLR cameras take better pictures than iphones.

At the level of promotion you are giving the DSLR camera, I'd be ashamed to turn in a picture of that quality. Because a phone can do a much better job. I'm not disputing the concept that a DSLR camera is better. I'm stating the fact that for newspaper quality, a phone is fine (see picture above). Stop defending a gladiator at an average bar fight.

 

[Kibaruk]

It makes sense to me to use a cheap snapper like a smartphones, just bung it into the journo's hand and it saves money. Who really cares about the quality of a photograph in a newspaper anyway, just as long as the reader can get the gist. The story counts for more.

Well that being the case let's forget pictures and just get the content, a full book like newspaper with no pictures. Right? Right?

There is a point for having profesional photographers on scene, they can take pictures (even with their iPhones) that no one else can take even with their "quickies" "course".

 

[oldikes]

At the level of promotion you are giving the DSLR camera, I'd be ashamed to turn in a picture of that quality. Because a phone can do a much better job. I'm not disputing the concept that a DSLR camera is better. I'm stating the fact that for newspaper quality, a phone is fine (see picture above). Stop defending a gladiator at an average bar fight.

HE. IS. NOT. TURNING. IN. A. PICTURE. OF. THAT. QUALITY.
What is so hard to grasp here.

Moderator note: ikesmasher, please do not shout.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Your the one that can't grasp the fact that no matter what quality the picture is, it will look like crap on a newspaper. If it is going to look like crap anyway, why use professional quality images? You are effectively making a DSLR quality image and making it look as if it was taken with a phone. In that case why not just use the phone? You are laboring under the delusion that the image pictured above would have actually looked worse if taken with a phone. That is false! That image is so bad, my cheap phone back 6 years ago could have taken that shot.

 

[Enthusiast]

I think you're all arguing this in not enough detail; I think the argument needs to be broken into two distinct pieces: glass and sensors.

1) Sensors in the new iphone are pretty good; small, but sensitive. I think their quality is enough for a newspaper, but you don't have the control over the sensor like a DSLR. You can't comp exposure, and you can't control the autofocus nearly as well. Also, you can't manipulate the pics enough, as you're throwing away the RAW data from the sensor and its presenting you an already processed JPEG right from the get go. Thusly, some shots (sports, high contrast/dynamic range) will be very tough, but for pics in front of the courthouse, probably okay.

2) As another pointed out, comparing the lens of an iphone and a pro SLR's potential 'toolbag' is ridiculous. Same could be said for flash. How the heck are photogs supposed to get pictures of people on the red carpet, or sports, or in low light situations, or with shallow depth of field for portraits with buttery blurred out backgrounds? You can't do that with a lens the size of my pinky (and same for the flash). You need light hoovering, big diameter glass with high quality. Fast autofocus. You need flash guns that can put out some light! You need the tools to isolate (and light) your subject.

Now...the photo on the top of the story - if accurate as to what the paper is doing - might (MIGHT!) suggest they're trying to do best of both worlds: use expensive glass with iphone sensors. There are adapters which let you mount Canon EF lenses to an iphone I think. Might get you some of the way there, but not all the way there.

In the end, I agree: imbeciles catering to imbeciles.

My bias? Photography is a (very) expensive hobby for me - I own a few pieces of pro grade gear and spend a lot of time taking and editing pictures.

 

[oldikes]

Your the one that can't grasp the fact that no matter what quality the picture is, it will look like crap on a newspaper. If it is going to look like crap anyway, why use professional quality images? You are effectively making a DSLR quality image and making it look as if it was taken with a phone. In that case why not just use the phone? You are laboring under the delusion that the image pictured above would have actually looked worse if taken with a phone. That is false! That image is so bad, my cheap phone back 6 years ago could have taken that shot.

If a newspaper makes a DSLR camera shot look like that, it will make a iphone picture look like a screenshot of analog television without a signal...

 

[JCMART]

Perhaps one of the reasons that "newspapers are dying out anyway" is that the owners/publishers are more than too willing to place a cheap phone/camera in the hands of an inexperienced writer and accept the sub-par results.
In almost all of the comments on this posting, the comments have centered around the reproduction and newsprint. Practically no commentator gave the first bit of credit to the person behind the lens: a REAL photojournalist! I don't know of any publisher who would hand out a tablet computer with word processing software on it and give anyone a job as a journalist.
There is a great deal of difference between a photo that was just "hosed" by someone pointing a smartphone lens at it compared to a photojournalist trained in composition, lighting, mood and the right moment. Both are photos, but the one made by the photojournalist will always outshine the snapshot. Many of the commentators have called the photos snapshots and that is exactly what an untrained person will always produce. And, in addition, the publishers who are now expecting their writers to bring home the photos as well are not paying those writers so much as a cent more for now doing two jobs.
I was a chief photographer on a daily newspaper when the Instamatic camera with built-in flash was introduced. Our publisher bought one for every writer in our newsroom (About $30 in those days.) What a catastrophe! Every shot was Ill-composed, subjects too far away for the flash, or the camera and flash was in a person's face and way overexposed.
Fortunately, we had a way around the problem, Since it was our department that did all of the film developing from these toy cameras, it was quite remarkable the number of exposed film cartridges that arrived to our darkroom "damaged."
What is next? Handing television reporters those same iPhones and expecting them to bring back video of a news event? But wait! They are already doing that too!
The media owners must understand that just because a low-end digital device can capture an image for the press or the television, they do not necessarily capture the reader or viewer's attention with a poorly made image.
Perhaps if those owners would attend to quality and not cheapness, their viewership would not be suffering.