Cameraphones and ambulance chasers

Aaargh… those ppl can always apply to this thread : http://www.lightstalkers.org/looking-for-photographers-who-will-work-for-free
:-)

No seriously. Cam-phones are the worst invention since electrical toothbrushes. And the ppl who use’em are even worse.

Kodak Tri-X 400. You cant beat the old stand by.

We journalist are civilians with no more rights then the guys with the camera phone. I can careless about pics of car accidents or a dumpster fire. But if you guys are making a living off of that stuff, guess you have some competition.

Everyone including me can now be a stupid media member.

Yo, Richie, show them hardworking press shooters some respect.”I can care less about pics of car accidents or a dumpster fire”... WTF. You think we enjoy having to shoot that? It’s just part of the workload, my “fellow journalist”. And come to think of it,”civilians”with cameraphones, on their part, have no more rights than the guys with pro dslr’s. We “guys making a living off of that stuff” have painstakingly built relationships with the cops/firemen/ambulance crews, and it sucks seeing that relationship sour because people feel entitled to shoot a crashscene with no regard whatsoever for journalistic ethics. So, chill out some, my friend. Don’t just go about trivialising our situation. It’s hard enough as it is making a living as a hack, without having to deal with some yahoo’s sporting camphones interfering with our work.And who knows, maybe you too will have to shoot that stuff sometime…

Hey Pat, I shoot for dailies, and have to shoot accidents and fires. But I often wish some guy with a cellphone would get it so I wouldn’t have to drive out there. I’d rather spent a little more time on features and EPs. I don’t how it is in Europe, but in the US everyone has the right to be a journalist, and that includes the people with the camera phones.

I was in Lower Manhattan today intending to do my usual street photography stuff, the difference this time was that there are 1000 times more people than on a usual Tuesday on account of the NY Giants tickertape parade. There was one particularly rowdy incident where I happened to be; a group of young men were jumping on the roof of a parked taxicab and destroyed it and police moved in and made some arrests. Of course, I switched into my old news photographer mode (which I really really missed, btw) and shot quite a few frames. But then there were hundreds of other “citizen photojournalists” documenting the car-stomping along with me and I felt a little useless, redundant. Everyone had their cellphones and P&S out and was even more aggressive than I was in getting the picture.

On the other hand, I got some decent shots that was worth offering to NYT, and so they did use one on their website and maybe on tomorrow’s paper as well. I think I’m one of the few (I saw a number of youngish people with red-ringed Canon lenses), if not the only person, who got the shot who thought of doing that. Them citizen journalists shoot mainly for fun, for Flickr and YouTube, and for free.

Max, it great that the Times bought a photo. I think it silly that we’re complaining that there are more people with cameras out their. We shouldn’t complain about competition.

I am saying we should be shooting news; and I have to say a car accident (unless it involves numerous deaths) isn’t news. I crashed my car before is that news?

If you will go to the NYT webpage where my pic appeared, there’s another picture at the bottom that the NYT guy I spoke to said was offered to them for free. Note also that it isn’t bylined. And the third difference between the first pic which NYT pays for and that second pic is that the first is obviously a lot better, if I can say so myself.

Hey Max, can you give the link? best

Click on the red-highlighted “their website” at the second paragraph of my first post.

Richard – turning up at these incidents as a newsman or woman is legitimate enough to be protected by law almost regardless of the western democracy you choose to look at. Photographing the news has legitimacy before the law that gawkers turning up for a sticky-beak do not get. So while you endorse the punters sitting around on desk chairs, punctuating dipping in to their eskies for another beer with the odd shot on their mobile, wondering how much they can make from The Sun, the law still supports the professional, working newsperson.

Max – you miss the important point here, and it’s why everyone should stop worrying about cameraphones. You’re a professional. You know what you’re doing. They’re punters. Up against you their pictures just aren’t going to stack up most of the time. The appetite for reader-submitted digital pictures is really just hyperinflated by the websites themselves at the moment, spinning it into something it’s not if you ask me, because while convincing readers to send in their stuff they enjoy the prospect of not paying our fees, but also they think it helps to “build communities” by making their readers feel involved. The fact that 99% of the time the photographs are pure drivel doesn’t seem to matter at the moment. But it will. There’s a reason we don’t publish the same garbage in the print editions. Readers expect a certain level of quality from the product they’re paying for. On the web that’s not the case right now, but as soon as the websites become the main platform for print media companies (which will happen once they figure out how to make as much money out of them), readers will once again expect quality (even if “quality” is not something they can put their finger on) for their money.

Wade, that is exactly the point I wanted to make. This is why I replied to the post made by Richard, where he stated that:”We journalist are civilians with no more rights then the guys with the camera phone.” No way I’m endorsing these “citizen journalists”.

I think you misunderstood my message.

Guido, whats wrong with a leccy toothbrush?

Sorry Pat, I meant that one for Richard. Will edit.

Daniel, it can embarrass you in airport queues.

I once heard this familiar buzzing sound coming out of a woman’s bag in a long queue at an airport. It went on for ages and everyone was sniggering, before she pulled an electric toothbrush out of her handbag. Then everyone started blushing and so did she. Too many dirty-minded people on this earth.

I crashed my car before is that news?

It was to you, Richard. As for the rest of it, I agree with Wade; someone who knows what they’re doing beats someone who doesn’t 98% of the time. My one bylined photograph was a car accident where I had a monopoly on the coverage: I was the only one there with a camera. The pic that ran wasnt that great, but it was the only one the paper had so they went with it. Most news events get covered by professionals and I think you can tell the difference between their pics and the vast majority of amateur shots.

Daniel, I just don’t like those vibrating tooth-things…
Pat, how are you, dude? Been a while…

The way I look at it, if some guy with a camphone equiped with a plastic lens can take a better picture than my digital camera with a 70-200 L lens then I better give up photography. Unfortunatly, at not only newspapers, but many potential clients prefer to pay less and receive lesser quality photos.

Don’t be stupid, look at Martin Parr’s Sony Ericsson K750 camera phone snaps. It’s not what you have, it’s when, why and how you use it. And sometimes that 70-200L simply won’t do.

Well, there are still some news outlets that are willing to pay for quality (but not too much especially if you’re a no-name PJ). I base that opinion on my recent experience. I think CNN invented the “I-Report” to exploit the camera-wielding masses’ hankering for bragging rights that their pictures or videos were seen all over the world. It’s a sort of a YouTube or Flickr, only more focused and organized.

Good photographers can shoot with anything.

Robert Clark’s book of cellphone pictures:

http://www.digitalrailroad.net/robertclark/gpgs.aspx?pgid=769279&e=0&p=0

Akaky, crashing my car was news to me, but do you or the rest of the world care? By what you’re saying everything in my life could be potential news. Journalist get special access because we have press passes that tell police we are doing a job. But don’t think for a minute that we have special rights. I agree that a professional can often get better pics then a amateur but we can’t be everywhere all the time. Camera phones has captured some of the most important spot news events in recent years, like the london subway bombing. A journalist friend once told me that in spot news you don’t have to be best if you can get there first. Amateurs beating pros isn’t a new thing. The fotoage that everyone uses of the JFK assasination was taken by an amateur.

Hi Preston,

Thanks for sharing the link. Its an amazing body of work.

Santanu

Richard, I know that amateurs beating pros is not a new thing; f/8 and be there is a fundamental law of the photographic universe, applicable to anyone with a camera whether they are Robert Capa or Virginia Schau. I’m just saying that all other things being equal, the pros will get the shot more often than an amateur can. And everything in your life can be news; how else to explain the blog revolution? ;-)

Of course it would have be great to have a Robert Capa or a Steve McCurry at the London train bombing but that not possible. I first interpreted this post as “ambulance chasing is for professionals with big SLR how dare civilians with their camera phone muscle in on my territory.” Akaky, thanks for thinking my life could be news but since I have no boobs I doubt many people will find my life interesting. There’s never a lack of good stories or good picture ops; it is the job of Pros to seek them out.