This page at the end of Libération's November 14 issue shows the images that would have appeared on the pages with no photos.
The newspaper could be read and then given to children to color and draw in.
To those who sent stupid comments on my previous post, i'm glad to say that it is a privilege to be a" non politically correct citizen" these days...I assume the fact that i don't like the editorial line of Liberation & the buzz they did with the "non photo issue"...Yes press is the third power in France & if you criticize it (whatever their political identities) it is like if you criticize the government and most people (except the non politically correct citizens) dislike that...I do love France & but i have to admit that the country & it's people are suffering under the "socialist paradise" of the current government & Liberation is within the system...l
"...it's people are suffering under the "socialist paradise" of the current government"...I agree with that, but people do not suffer from a socialist policy, there is nothing socialist in France since 1997!
Let's not bash the French. If it wasn't for their financing and training of the American armies of the 1770/80s, all of you would have pictures of the Queen of England on your money. They bankrupted their own nation to help kickstart the idea that was the United States of America and they did it to get revenge against the British. I don't think it can get anymore brazen than that.
Let's not bash the French. If it wasn't for their financing and training of the American armies of the 1770/80s, all of you would have pictures of the Queen of England on your money. They bankrupted their own nation to help kickstart the idea that was the United States of America and they did it to get revenge against the British. I don't think it can get anymore bada s s than that.
Let's not bash the French. If it wasn't for their financing and training of the American armies of the 1770/80s, all of you would have pictures of the Queen of England on your money. They bankrupted their own nation to help kickstart the idea that was the United States of America and they did it to get revenge against the British. I don't think it can get anymore badass than that.
I like this immensely, no matter the 'real' motivation. By showing where a photo would be makes its point so much better than just filled with text & no pics.
BRAVO !! NICE !!
I think many poster here ignore the sad news in France.A young photo journalist at Libération was shot in their entrance hall by a gunman. I believe the young man is seriously wounded. This is probably the real trigger for the newspaper to issue this paper with no photos in order to honour him and show respect for photogs work.
If you follow the news, you will also learn that the lone shooter was arrested and his DNA testing found positive.
You care about a photographer !! Do you care about "ordinary people" shoot ? In their news, Liberation did not care about the shooting on the Société Génerale after the one at Libération office. Only their one is important.Liberation pretends to be a left newspaper. It is always the same thing in France. Does Liberation care about a French ordinary people hostage in Africa ? It is just a few lines sometimes during the detention. When it is a journalist or a photographer, it is every day with display on the town hall, march, etc. Two weights, two measures. Sorry, a man is a man.
First of all, no one was hurt at the Société Générale. Second, the decison by Liberation to print a photoless issue was taken before the shootings.It takes some bad faith not to recognize that wether leftist or righistt, Liberation has always shown a great fondness for photography.Were you concerned about (professional) photography, you would at least acknowledge this paper's effort for the cause of photojournalism.
News papers will can all their writers too and send out the janitorial staff with mobile phones to snap pics, then come back and write the articles in between cleaning toilets?
Janitors include some aspiring journalists. Janitors also see documents the rest of the public does not, before shreding or incineration.
It's pretty sad that this comment section has deteriorated into a political discussion.
It sounds as though some of you didn't even bother to read the article.
The newspaper was showing their support for photojournalists by printing a newspaper without any pictures in it, to show its readership that "something is missing" (i.e., the photos!)
If more and more newspapers start giving their reporters mobile phones, they will no longer have any use for photojournalists, which means one less career available for people that enjoy using their cameras...people like us.
Few noticed because few read papers.
Wow, this is a really nice move. :)
Avenue des Champs-Élysées, one of the most famous streets in the world.Littered with cigarette buts, and I couldn't spot a single trash can.Vive La France!
Maybe because similar terrorists groups that threatens the USA used bins in the past to place bombs right in the area ...I left Paris quite a few years ago, so maybe the bins are actually back and you did not see them ?Anyhow, don't be too quick to judge a complete nation because you could not find a bin on a stroll once in your life ...
@ Titus XIII
Hum.. What is your point exactly ? In what is it related to the news ?
I can see, after reading some comments, that the stupid anti-french feeling induced by the neoconservatives hasn't died in ten years... Freedom fries, anyone?
I didn't know anyone in France had a gun.
Some people have guns, they just happen to be using the for something else than shooting people. A revolutionary idea, I know.
The VAST majority of all guns in the U.S. are never used to shoot anyone, even the ones carried daily by the police and non police alike. In fact that is true in ANY country that has any form of legal civilian gun ownership.
@Josh Would you also agree that most weapons in US are purchased with the intent to be used at people? (or protecting your home as it is more nicely put.)
Nope. Most firearms purchased in the US are used for sporting purposes such as hunting and shooting competitions. In fact those who purchase them explicitly to use as a weapon for self protection are in the minority and under constant attack from anti gun groups and even other gun owners who only use guns for hunting, target shooting, ect. Many hunters for example don't even view their many rifles and shotguns as weapons at all and will say "why would any one need to carry gun?" or "Why would anyone want X type of gun?" Further in most self defense uses of firearms no shots are fired at all. See most criminals don't want to get into a shoot out any more than anyone else. They are look for the easy pay day and use weapons to intimidate people. They are not looking to get killed in gun battles or even shoot anybody most of the time. The media which has a decidedly anti gun bias likes to paint a much more bleak picture of gun ownership in the U.S. than actually exists.
Liberation is a dreadful newpaper always guided by provocative articles & with an arrogant editorial line and strong left spirit " à la française"...(nightmare to see this country shrinking like Greece ...) It's true that they don't care about ordinary people,they just care about minorities & syndicates & of course journalists. The "freedom of press" is their daily battle and their "non photo issue" means nothing,explain nothing,solve nothing as they just struggle to exist & try to maintain their sales !
Lol!Must be 20 years since you opened this newspaper.For your information, the publication is actually owned by Edouard de Rothschild, who's not really someone from left, AFAIK.
You are full of prejudices. What is your daily reading ? Minute ?
@Miwok. Ericsan is really right. It IS a left newspaper. It has nothing to do that Rothschild owns it or not.
To rrr_hhh, the nameless coward.Are you stupid or hemiplegic ? With you, if someone is not on the left, he is a fascist. I am independent journalist. I read Liberation, Le Monde and Le Figaro daily.I agree with Ericsan. This crime is not an attack on press freedom. It is just a crazy man who shots on everybody who moves. Liberation does not care about the shooting on the Société Génerale after the one at Libération office. The press in France is the third power. It does not care about "ordinary people". Who cares about a French ordinary people hostage in Africa ? It is just a few lines every month in the press during the detention. When it is a journalist or a photographer, it is every day with display on the town hall, march, etc. Two weights, two measures. Sorry, a man is a man.
are you so sure he was a "lunatic"?
Rumour has it they are going to take this one step further in the next issue: no text!
This unfunny joke has already been made earlier in the comments. Please do your research before posting.
Would invisible ink be considered as "no text"?
By tragic coincidence [?] on Nov. 18 a vicious lunatic enterred the Libération offices and shot a photographer's assistant seriously. Strangely, the criminal managed to get a ride to a subway station, where he melted into the passengers, and the hostage drove home rather than inform authorities. Onlookers ... well, maybe later we will learn of phone camera images that help lead to an arrest. Meanwhile, this is not the sort of thing that traditional staff photographers would be able to cover or solve, unless the perpetrator happens to be a luny estranged colleague.
Yes, but this is the paper from the 14th, right? so that question mark is not needed...it suggests something which has no relation with what happened on the 18th.
C'est le meme chose. Point being: camera phones are more likely to aid in the capture of the felon than photo-journalists, one of whom in this case happened to be a victim. The suspect, nearly fired a gun at another TV firm a week earlier, clearly has some malignant ire on the lose. Why hate photographers or videographers, unless ... Well, there's a lead the French police might explore.
"C'est la même chose", you mean? And I believe the suspect did fire several shots at that TV firm, it wasn't a "nearly" thing.
If any image is going to help the capture of that sniper, it will rather come from the surveillance cameras rather than from a smartphone.
Now I'm waiting for a newspaper issue with no text and no photos.Wait wait....I have one already.
what is that?
When i read thes I don't think these are the answers or professional photographers who earns there living with photography, correction or not?
Sorry to correct the article, but there is more to it than just a mere suppport to photographers, or anything in connection to the Chicago Sun-Times affair.
It is related to a photographer who got shot yesterday in the office of Liberation, and who is in balance between life & death.
The Issue with no pictures : November 14thThe guy shot in their offices : November 18th
Just tell me how they "relate to" a photograph who at the time of the issue has not even been shot?
Are you photograph or journalist?
Nope, it's just DPR posting this news several days later.
No you are wrong. It is connected to the opening of the "Paris Mois de la Photo"
I haven't seens all the commentary, but it seems one very important piece of information is missing from this story : yesterday a photographer got shot in Liberation offices. I think that it is this event who triggered this special issue of Liberation. They took the opportunity to show their gratitude to the whole profession.
For more info on the event (only in french, sorry) : http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2013/11/18/un-homme-ouvre-le-feu-au-siege-de-liberation_3515511_3236.html#ens_id=3515677&xtor=RSS-3208
The Issue with no images : November 14thThe guy shot in their offices : November 18th
Where did you even get "They took the opportunity to show their gratitude to the whole profession."?
I'm always surprised how people can invent stories from nothing..
Sorry, but it is not gratitude but opportunism. This will increase sales. This crime is not an attack on press freedom. It is just a crazy man who shots on everybody who moves. Liberation does not care about the shooting on the Société Génerale after the one at Libération office. The press in France is the third power. It does not care about "ordinary people". Who cares about a French ordinary people hostage in Africa ? It is just a few lines every month in the press during the detention. When it is a journalist or a photographer, it is every day with display on the town hall, march, etc. Two weights, two measures. Sorry, a man is a man.
Attacking a newspaper office. hmmm...remember this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18321160Could be another attempt to silence our free speech/democracy, although not sure what Liberation published to p*ss off this guy.
The issue of the photo less newspaper took place on the 14th November, the day of the opening of the "Mois de la Photo" in Paris and was probably planned in connection to that event. The sniper acted on the 18th November.
The French photographers have a great responsibility in the closure of many news agencies in France. They have a State employee mentality. They want at the same time salary like an ordinary employee and copyrights. Sorry but you have to choose. Either you are independent with copyright, either one is employee and photos belong to the company. I saw French wedding photographers ask copyright on wedding photography for private clients. Amazing...
It really depends on a mentality an local laws. In some countries selling copyrights for a photograph is something very different (and priced differently) than selling right to publish one photograph one one occasion. Whole issue of copyrights is much more complicated than you try to make it up.
Dear PlastekYou must choose : To be independent or employee. • When you work for a boss, you are an employee. The work product must belong to the company. • When you're independent, work product belongs to you. In France, social taxes represent 30 to 50% of the product, plus 20% for VAT. There is only about 30% for the company. If you ask one more Copyright, it is no longer tenable for the company.In France, every hour, 4 companies close their door, 96 per day....Cheers.
@WeddingEtCeterayou obviously don't know what you're talking about: most if not all of French photojournalists are independant. They are not employed. Some are part of a press agency but even then are not employed.Could you stop spreading wrong stuff about the situation, and remember this website is about photography?
Brilliant idea this. Now, you can download pictures from the internet, print them and then glue them to the appropriate space. Perhaps the quality of the publication will increase and people can have their very own personalised version of the "truth".
Libération is a very bad newspaper, only interested in Paris, politically correct subjects, stating the obvious, etc.
You're right, Liberation is a Parisian newspaper for "BoBo" (bourgeois bohemian). This is a hemiplegic newspaper. If you're not on the left, you're right ...
Doesn't matter much if they are or not. They made a right move in pointing out obvious issues with changes we go through right now on a market.
politically correct means: support the global warming, communism, fight with religion, support the lovers who "loves people" in an alternate way? Like New York Times?
Sometimes, you need to take away something to really appreciate it once it's not there
I continue.I am a french journalist and wedding videographer and photographer. I have the experience of African Marriage, Buddhist, Catholic, Evangelist , Gay, Jewish , Muslim, Persia, Protestant , etc. I never refused a Confession. Since 1993, I shot 329 weddings throughout the world. When I go out of France, Client does not care if I am White, Catholic, Straight , etc., He chose me because he likes my movies.In contrast, in France , there were only 3 Black couples, 2 Asian couples, 4 Portuguese couple and one Gay couple in 20 years. Why ? Because a Black will appeal to another Black, an Asian will appeal to another Asian, a Portuguese will appeal to another Portuguese, a Gay will appeal to another Gay, Etc. Just watch on saturday the "color" of the couple and the one of the photographer. The only exception is the Jewish Community which does not hesitate to call a Goy.On August, I filmed a Nigerian Wedding. An Invited refused I caress the cheek of his son because I'm white.Cheers.
Liberation does not know what to do to get noticed, to increase their sales. Racism exists in France as, unfortunately, in many countries. However, France is not racist. We just have a problem of integration.Sample. A few years ago, in a Stadium where North Africans had whistled the Marseillaise (french national anthem), the French TV interviewed one of them who said: << I am a Muslim before being French. >> In 2011, in the USA, for the ceremony Anniversary of September 11, 2001, American Muslims who were tired of being stigmatized marched through the streets with the slogan: << I am American before being Muslim. >> For when in France ?Our justice minister likes to give moral lessons. She forgets that she is the first to speak of France as a country when she is in Guadeloupe. In this case, France is only a metropolis, not a country and Guadeloupe is a department of France.To be continued...
These days the shots are fakes anyway. Nothing a little PS can't create.
Not the case of Liberation, they always publish the best images they can find, and they have a lot of room for great photo-journalists and Art photography.Just take a look on there web publication, you will see.
@weddingetcWhat makes you so resentful toward Liberation ? Beware, having such a beef against them, the police may investigate what you were doing on the 18th ..
And now one of their free-lancers has been shotgunned in the back - on their premises in Paris - on his first day.........
They make a clear and good statement this way. "everything online" may be the future as many see it, yet good quality journalism (sorely lacking on the completely crazy, conspiracy-idiots ridden internet) including good photography is a important and far more pleasant, balanced way to get the news.
"Everything online" does not mean bad quality. And "paper" does not mean good quality, liberation is actualy proof of that, they have never been, and that is their problem now. before "online", there was little competition, so they could sell their low quality newspaper, now, they have to compete with free sources of news that are of equal quality.
Everything will be online. Newspaper will soon be history. Doesn't really matter if it has pictures or not.
Are you sure you have well thought to what you're telling ? Can't you imagine a second people prefering still images to videos for any reasons (no time to look at a video, quiteness of a photo that doesn't disturb or interfer with the internal process of analysing information etc.) ? With a way to think like yours, with the invention of trains we should have slained every horses, and then detroyed every trains with the invention of planes.
Yet, there are still some horses, trains, boats etc. around. Doesn't it mean something, I don't know, something like "not everyone on earth has the same needs/tastes/rythm/feelings" for instance ?...
Yeah, film, lp records, cd's are still around too.
Even with all the online media coverage, the way you get a lot of information in a newspaper instantly without taking you battery power or needing data coverage is unique. Newspaper will stay for a long time.
Newspapers are guaranteed to stay around as long as generation born in '60s-'70s is still alive. Most likely even longer than that. Sure, sales will drop, but there's many reasons to blame for that. Still though they'll keep on being printed.
Reportage photography and as well almost all gene of photography is a classic example of the bad coins pushing off the good coins on the market
Well said !
Gets the point across pretty succinctly, especially in a media market where there are a lot of newsstand sales and subway customers. It's a very visible way of opening a conversation about this problem. I'm curioius as to how it would work in a media market where newsstand sales are a non-factor, where the customer base is older, and where people don't really talk to each other than much about the paper. You know, like the large portion of the US and the rest of the world that are not covered by big-city tabloids and newsstands.
Liberation, given its politics, is naturally going to present the issue in this "workers' solidarity with the photographers who inform us" kind of way. But other papers that are still investing in content including photography — the Orange County Register in California comes to mind — are demonstrating the commercial advantages of such an approach too. Namely, they're not getting hammered in the way that the obsessive cost-cutting papers are.
Maybe the market forces dictate this, but you can definitely tell that quality of the photos have suffered. What makes me laugh & roll my eyes, although maybe it's not the same thing, is when news outlets go all crazy "Britney posts a sizzlin bathing suit pic on her Instagram," and when you see the photo, it has awful quality, I mean it STINKS, and you're thinking "wow, a star posts an Instagram shot and with their high public profile & image they post that lame of a photo? Couldn't they afford a pro photographer to post a high quality image? Doesn't anyone in their crowd own a DSLR or a mirrorless at least?"
Anymore, the more your photos suck, the more people like them. If you try to get a high quality image, you're a "snob." Thank goodness McFurry didn't think that way & photograph the "Afghan girl" with a Kodak Instamatic or Polaroid. No one called him a "snob" for using a Nikon FM2 & prime lens & capturing that incredible eye detail.
Hopefully, in the end, quality will win out.
That's right, but look at how people became lately: tattoos, piercings are among us. Music is more noisy than melodic. Even new churches architectures are bizarre. Good taste has been overpowered by bad taste everywhere. The only good point I see in this, is that nice things (clothes, furnitures, deco items etc.) are now cheaper than ugly things.
Call me pessimistic if you want, but for my part, I'd say that things will be worse before becoming better. And photography won't escape the general rule, I fear that things will change the day people will be bored by this "gothic" atmosphere and hubris that have impregnated the whole society. In 10, 50, 100 years ?
In a photo news the catching of the moment from the right angle is more important than composition and bokeh. If there are 10,000 people at a major event with a phone camera and one photo journalists, then chances are one of the 10,000 people just gets the better shot. The crowd is everywhere, the photo journalists is only in one spot.
And that is for a planned event. For an unscheduled event, the difference is even more stark. Someone with a phone camera is there and takes the shot, the photo journalist is not there.
It seems for run of the mill photo coverage the method of collecting best shots of phones is not only lower cost, but results in images with better coverage. An unbeatable combination.
Photo journalism needs to change to offer value in a different area. Only offering better value will ensure survival. Complaining that 10 years ago there was less competition will not help. Who adopts to the change will continue his business.
What you tells is right. BUT things are not only obvious as mankind has the ability to take choices in a view to put some order in society. If the sole ability to take a picture - not even a good one - is enough to satisfy the needs of the mass-medias, couldn't be regulated by a sort of "gentlemen agreement" as to proctect the photographers profession ? Why should we, one may say ?
Well, imagine that we use the same unregulated way to do things to every profession and you will see a surge in unemployement then a civil war in no time. If anybody owning a car can take the job of a regular cab, why not after all ?
We have to remember urgently that work is not only a question of ability and a means to satisfy a need to "found ones place in the society" but OVERALL a way to structure society, and to feed the "units" called "fellows" and "families" that make that society turn round and exist on the long term. Basic wisdoms are the corner stones of life, and forgotting them costs a lot !
well this benefit the ads. people will look at the pictures of those.
Trained photographers take better pictures than people happen to be there with an iPhone but without proper photographic skill
Dedicated photographers need to make a living from selling their pictures
If newspaper issues could be sold at a higher price to people interested in paying more for higher image quality, then there would be the money to pay for the staff photographers.
So it seems in the last decades image quality was higher than public needed. Now that there is an option to lower image quality and lower cost, the public is choosing this lower cost option.
Times are a changing. Always have, always will be.
I think you've summarized it very well indeed. You are exactly correct in my opinion: There is now an option to lower image quality at lower cost and this is the option that the public choses, increasingly.
My negative views on "photojournalism" and the "artists" that all deserve Pulitzers etc. aside, there are honest, hard working people that are losing their jobs everywhere. There is no escaping that this is very alarming and outright tragic.
That said, times always change. Hopefully they'll soon find something else.
Thank you for your reply and for adding that it is always tragic for people loosing their job. And for a photojournalist this might be especially hard, as he possibly put more heart into his job than many people put into theirs.
This is definitely a loss of great people contributing to society. They challenge is for everybody which includes the photo journalists to find something else to do. Putting effort into finding new jobs will be a positive response to the change of the world. Sadly fighting the change of the world is unfortunately a response that just drains energy with no positive outcome.
In a nutshell: These days the services of a professional photographer are not required to produce a photo that is "good enough" for most people most of the time.
I do maintain some hope that in the future a system will be developed where photographers can be reliably paid for their work in proportion to its usefulness or perceived value. While supply outweighs demand in most segments, in the top tiers this surely cannot be true..
I agree that in top tiers a professional photographer has an edge by design. If there is a market willing to pay for this edge, I do not know. I sure hope so.
Your writing suggests that you are waiting for a better system to emerge. How about you start contributing to such a better system? Create a website selling licenses of professional pictures of current events? Contribute to discussions on how such a better system would look like, as you do now. Successful business are started by people with a passion seeing a service not available yet.
Couldn't tell when last I purchased a magazine or newspaper. But I still buy printed novels.
Awesome :-) ....unless people really like it and want it to stay that way. Then were all scr*w*d :-/
Way to go, Libération! Especially the accompanying clarification.In this day and age where just about any dip with enough money can buy a business s/he doesn't understand, and then decide upon the fate of workers who made it successful and interesting, this approach should become an more widespread answer.
Pertinent subject. What passes for 'news' has degenerated into a mindless pablum. Certainly, budgets have been tweaked from on high, and those folks assume an audience lacking the will to make noise on the issue. Video news has certainly become a 'reality t.v. show'. It follows that like managers on daily papers & mags will allow a descent into 'snaps' vs. well thought images.
More, that our history will be forgotten, for a while. Some event(s) will no doubt cause the importance of good writing and imagery to resurge.
Until then, just keep hammering away, and fight the urge to lower your standards.
The reality is that with the proliferation of cell phone cameras, there is always someone on the scene to take a picture... whether it is a natural disaster or an accident, or even a war. As long as there are people present, there will be pictures available.
Snapshots, not pictures; much less actual photographs.
OK so snapshots. So what? Are you willing to pay for actual photographs? Great, because nobody else is.
Snapshots will do fine.
Settling for less is indicative of the dumbing down of society. How low will we go? Back to stick figures and wall drawings? Humans are capable of creating, recognizing and appreciating art. It distinguishes us from other species. Why take this gift away?
A snapshot or video of an actual event is worth a lot more than a posed editorial after the event. Papers can still hire agency photographers or buy pics from Reuters if they want an "insertion" picture, but that's for ongoing situations. For much of the news it's simply not possible to have someone on the scene.
This is a direct result of the emergence of smartphones, meaning for any event happening anywhere in the world about 100 people are going to be shooting it. Just look at youtube.
I may not like it much either, but c'est la vie. I don't see papers hiring a lot of typesetters these days either..
The "photographers" and "photojournalists" have a tremendous sense of entitlement and self-importance from what I see here though. The reality is, they're not important enough to sell papers.
Another aspect of reality: They're getting their own medicine. When painters could no longer make money painting portraits because photographers came along, and portraits were now quicker and more accessible, that was just fine though, eh? Photographers love it then, eh?
But now they're "artists" and society will suffer a tremendous loss without them. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Tech moves on.
You don't buy it because you don't understand it. In the same way people buy McDonald's because they don't know what a real hamburger is, but I would hardly call that "moving on." I call that having no taste.
Wow what a combo! You are condescending and completely clueless.People go to McDonalds for convince and price. They know the restaurant across town has better burgers. But they also know it's already 5:45 pm, they have hungry kids crying in the back of the van, McDonald's on the way home, cheaper, and has a drive through that doesn't even require entering the building let a lone sitting down and waiting to be served and then waiting a another 15-20 mins for the food all the while the kids are still acting up.
See people don't really care about having the best as much as they care about convince and getting their needs met for as low of a price as possible. No one cares if newspaper photos are "artsy" or have "good composition" They only care about getting the info they are seeking from the paper. A cell phone snap does that job just as well as an expertly composed photo form a pro using a DSLR does. No one will pay more for a paper just for slightly better photos.
Oh I'm quite "clued." Yes McDonald's is faster & more convenient, and that's why people buy from them, but that doesn't mean they are more advanced or that better quality food is irrelevant. It simply means people can't be bothered. It reminds me of that "Jimmy situation" line in "Pulp Fiction" where Jules is complimenting Jimmy for his coffee being gourmet not Taster's Choice, and Jimmy says "I buy the good stuff, when Bonnie [my wife] goes shopping, she buys [crap]."
In other words, there are a lot of Bonnies in the world, but that doesn't mean "tech has moved on" as it were. It just means people accept inferior quality for a quicker turn-around time. Even if that's understandable, those who take better photos or make better burgers or coffee are right to be somewhat offended.
LOL I love it when people back track to a more moderate position when they are called on their Sh*t.
Since I started as a pro photographer I often said that if magazines don't want to pay a reasonable amount for photography they should just publish without photos and see how that works. Also, it's always annoyed me that photographers get an inferior credit to writers, and especially those mags that bury the photo credit in the gutter. I don't diminish writers at all, and believe photos and words together are best.
They'll publish without *your* photos. They'll get less expensive photos elsewhere. For example, from absolutely anyone at the scene. They may not be excellent quality and may lack that elusive artistic sensibility that a pro would provide but they'll do.
Since you've said (47 times) that people won't pay for photographs, what good would it do to seek cheaper ones?
Put another way, given the proliferation of new outlets, what is the marketability of those that seek to only to meet your non-existent quality standards? People will positively line up to pay for recycled UPI crap with cell-phone pics, right?
People won't line up to pay for anything.
If you want to produce art, find a wealthy sponsor and have them buy your masterpieces.
Everyone else will be OK.
they did line up for iphone...
Except this "protest issue" isn't relevant.
Newspapers aren't going to start printing issues without photographs.
They're going to start printing issues without photographs from "photographers" and "photojournalists."
The argument whether "anybody can take that picture!" is moot. We will soon enough see whether anybody (a) can and (b) will "take that picture."
The answers will invariably be "yes" and "yes" to those questions.
as much as everyone is a graphic designer since they can install illustrator in their laptop. Or web developer because wixx exists. not happening. washington sun directors are plainly ignorant cowbillies and they will simply fall in the brainless pit they dug
The best photographs in the world AREN'T GOING TO SELL NEWSPAPERS.
Ostensibly, photojournalists WERE pros and "excellent" at what they did. Newspaper sales DECLINED.
What would you do? Pay the same "photojournalists" more money? Get even better "photojournalists?"
The money's GONE. The jobs went with it.
It's not pleasant and it's not fun but it's reality.
As for "graphic designers" they're an even worse lot. Look around at web sites, print ads, etc. Not much hope there either.
That is not a valid comparison. The standards for new paper photos are far lower than they are for pro design work. All that is really necessary is that you can tell what the photo is of. That, added to the extremely low quality ink and paper used not to mention the small size that most newspaper photos are printed at, means that actually, yes anyone with even a cell phone can pretty much get an image that is usable for a newspaper as long as they can get close enough and point it in the right direction.
No one reads a news paper looking for expertly composed "artsy" photos. Heck they see the photo for 2 secs think that's nice and move on with their day never thinking about it again. Keeping full time staff photographers is a very bad business decision for a struggling newspaper in light of these facts and in light of the fact that many papers can get ( often better) photos of news worthy events for free from the public who were there as it was happening.
Rallyfan: The best photographs in the world DO sell papers. The reality is that publishers are now making tons of more cash in the digital age compared to the paper publications of the past (think advertisement dollars, selling your info every time you log into their site, and no print production costs at all). Also, why pay pros for quality work when the general audience (young generation of today) is incapable of recognizing art and every person who owns an iphone is a paparazzi wannabe? News organizations today are simply greedier than they were in the past.
Human greed has not changed.
Are you saying that increasing the quality of photojournalists will increase newspaper sales?
I doubt young people are incapable of recognizing quality; they are more likely unwilling to pay for it. Neither am I, frankly.
Snapshots will do.
Prepaid subscriptions to newspapers with better looking images may mean more sales to those that still use photographers.Then again, many of us are getting our news from websites or TV, and not bothering to read papers anymore or buy them, except once in awhile.
If news print is dead thanks to digital media, then the same standards that once held true for prestigious publishers in the past should hold true today. Most of the profits earned by publishers in the past was in advertising more so than in actual sales of their printed product. Circulation was more a measure of how much more they could charge for companies to advertise with them. The money is still there but publishers are even stingier today.
Would I pay for a quality publication (digital)? Yes, I would. Especially if I can read and view truly award winning articles.
They'll need more subscriptions than that though, and they'll have to compete with free publications that use "snapshots" and publish the news within minutes, online, for "free" to everyone -- yes those guys have ads on their site but I can't name a single ad vendor from Yahoo News (just an example) any more than I can name one from here -- except Amazon, of course, since this is an Amazon site.
in today's declining markets the only businesses surviving and will be the ones standing are the ones investing in professionalism, specialization, expertise. Neither wedding photography, nor photojournalism, or whatever kind of photography can be replaced by smartphones for at least various technical reasons alone. A snapshot is good and worth of doing the job under certain circumstances while in countless others more theres no way it can deliver. Are you going to stick your neck for example to get a picture from a hazardous situation only to find out that your ....smartphone cannot reach the event 100 meters away that no amount of tiny megapixels can save the day or you have no clue how to deal with light and come back with a burned or soak in dark out of of focus mud of a useless image ? The list goes on
as for designers, true designers are the ones who are profiting right now and they are sought after. It is a time that clearing up in the market occurs , competition is real and solutions to the challenges deriving from the financial situation can be given only from people truly qualified
as everybody elses, the payments of every professional might and is become a subject of flexible adaptation, a photojournalist should be called to work for more clients or reduce somehow his prices etc but that would be all
i dont think also, on a different level, that is a functional attitude to act in an introvert / phobic way, "don"t get that, don't get this, don't need that, etc sustaining a self absorbing black hole in the market chains (less demand, less research, less production, less innovation, less jobs etc) that will lead to a total collapse eventually
I applaud this publication for taking a stance on the importance of photography. I am disappointed and sickened by the 20 somethings and 30 somethings today who are only capable of acknowledging low quality "selfies" shot with their toy camera phones as actual "photography". What a sad,sad art-less generation of techno addicts.
Punishing your customers, by offering them less value for their money, is called "taking a stand"?
I'm sure this will really bring more customers to their door step.
You negate the possibility of the reader perceiving value in the content of the gesture. I think this presents the world, as you see it, in very narrow terms.
The conscientious reader will issue a "progressive" shrug, then click to find some other source with news and pictures and less of the obscure baggage about protecting a privileged club of haughty "photographers."
It's not a matter of the reader "perceiving value" in the gesture. It's a matter of whether the publisher is willing to pay for "photojournalists" and the answer is increasingly "no."
rallyfan: It's no so much the reader perceiving value than it is the reader being capable of understanding the impact of a powerful photograph. I do agree that publishers are less willing to pay for photographs as they receive a flood of daily submissions by smartphone users who are excited to have their 10 seconds of fame. What needs to change is that there needs to be a select few publishers who are brave enough to challenge the mediocre media outlets by printing/publishing award-winning images with equally valuable written info. Then pay these photo journalists and writers good money; make it prestigious to work for their organization.
I can't see it happening. The cat's out of the bag. Newspapers had no concept how to deal with the web, and so many made their stuff free that it's truly difficult to sell subs nowadays.
The WSJ is an exception -- but because of their content, not their photos. Nobody subscribes to WSJ for the photos.
I read them because they help make money. An artistic photo in some other publication won't do the same for me, so I don't really care how great it looks.
rallyfan, my comment was directed at the previous poster, Mark Smiles, his claim being that "taking a stand" (quoted from original poster) should not include lesser value in this particular edition because of absent photos. My comment was proposing the potential "value", for some, may be in the protest gesture.
I find the project interesting, and some of that is just the visual interest created by the negative space in the absence of the photos. Not to mention that the images ARE provided in the supplement. I don't, by any means, claim that everyone should be audience to what amounts to an conceptual art piece, should that omit the traditional content entirely. But this simply rearranges such content as a gesture of protest and to stimulate dialog. And there are many that found value in that, I'm sure.
How come DP published this today and IR posted it on Friday?
"French newspaper “Libération” shows us a world without photojournalismby Tim Barribeauposted Friday, November 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM EST"
Libération is not sold on Amazon.