When Reuters, one of North America's largest picture agency, starts to let photographers go, you know the world of professional photography is changing.
Is it a creative change? Not quite, according to Toronto-based freelancer and Reuters photographer, Jon Blacker. It's a business decision made by Reuters. Strictly business.
While I can't argue with a business decision made by, and for Reuters, I can't help but feel for the photographers who have contributed their best work to Reuters, and who are now affected by this wonderful "business decision".
Even though professional photographers are resourceful, I can't see all of these sports-only photographers moving to strictly news. And that means Canadian jobs are lost.
http://petapixel.com/2013/08/24/reuters-ditches-north-american-sports-photogs-strikes-deal-with-usa-today/#more-121414
Saturday 24 August 2013
Friday 9 August 2013
The price of Twitter.
When a tornado drops down in Ontario, that's a news story to be sure. But when every single image posted in a slide show of that story is from a Twitter feed, today that's not much of a story. Or does anyone really care that all of the images come from Twitter?
I can remember as a young photographer coming across a fire at an apartment building. As the fire department had just started to get the fire under control, I felt it would be okay for me to take photos of the blaze. As soon as I had images that I thought the local paper might use, I headed out. My local paper did use two of the images and I got paid for both. That's right! I got paid to take pictures of a news event!
Now my point is, how many of those images of the tornado used from Twitter were paid for by the news source? Some of them? All of them? Or is it what I think the total money spent for these news images. Zero!
As long as people are happy just to see their images on the web and not get paid for them, and editors do not have to pay for images, your local photo-journalist is out of work.
Free is the best price I have ever come across to be sure...but it won't pay the rent.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photos/tornadoes-spotted-in-ontario-slideshow/another-pic-of-the-arthur-tornado-onstorm-tornado-pic-twitter-com-wac5l1k8dz-photo-1375970615471.html
I can remember as a young photographer coming across a fire at an apartment building. As the fire department had just started to get the fire under control, I felt it would be okay for me to take photos of the blaze. As soon as I had images that I thought the local paper might use, I headed out. My local paper did use two of the images and I got paid for both. That's right! I got paid to take pictures of a news event!
Now my point is, how many of those images of the tornado used from Twitter were paid for by the news source? Some of them? All of them? Or is it what I think the total money spent for these news images. Zero!
As long as people are happy just to see their images on the web and not get paid for them, and editors do not have to pay for images, your local photo-journalist is out of work.
Free is the best price I have ever come across to be sure...but it won't pay the rent.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photos/tornadoes-spotted-in-ontario-slideshow/another-pic-of-the-arthur-tornado-onstorm-tornado-pic-twitter-com-wac5l1k8dz-photo-1375970615471.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)