The cameras are actually quite good. They're quite responsive in my (now dated, admittedly) experience; hopefully the new ones are just as snappy.
The guy in the photo looks a tad constipated though, hope he's alright.
HubertChen: 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.
snegron2: 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.
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: 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.
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.
Dan Wagner: 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.
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.
mgatov: 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.
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.
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.
nicoboston: The purpose was also to send a big "ENOUGH" following recurrent racism issues in France lately (as the country is more or less falling appart, it's very tempting to blame others).Good photographers and photojournalists are not in danger. Talented people will always exist. They have to adapt. It won't be easy, but they have to! Everybody loves nice images. Now everyone can capture decent images with good cameras and phones... If everyone had access to good violins and pianos, it would be more difficult to become a recognized musician. It's competition... Don't give up, photographers ! Newspapers will disappear, you won't ;-)
There is no such thing as a fake photographer. Anyone with a mobile phone is a photographer. There, I said it.
The sacred cows are no more.
murieston: I think what Liberation has done was a really bold move and one which got people talking, at least. A paper or magazine without pictures is like a desert without an oasis. How many times do you read an article and what sticks in your mind is the picture which accompanies it?
Photo journalists are being sacked not to make a better product but to make a cheaper one. How sad is this world going to be if art is always going to be sacrificed on the altar of money?
Bravo Liberation! and whilst we're at it let's not forget the contribution made to our civilisation by photo journalists.We owe a great deal to the many photo journalists who risk their lives on a daily basis and who have lost their lives to ensure that we have an awareness of what is truly happening in the world.
It is all so easy to just accept 'nice images' - or 'half-decent' photos but what is so wrong with wanting great images and fantastic photos? Great imagery should go hand in hand with a free press.
Are you willing to pay the photojournalists? You owe so much to them as you say.
Will you specifically pay? Do you buy newspapers? How many?
Felixography: 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.
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."
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.
OK so snapshots. So what? Are you willing to pay for actual photographs? Great, because nobody else is.
Snapshots will do fine.
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.
Except this "protest issue" isn't relevant.
dale thorn: Corporate suicide. What are they doing with that $100 billion in cash?
Wait, what?! Steve Jobs died? When?
rallyfan: I want to like this thing.
Didn't read the ad; anybody got any decent motorsport shots with this? It's all about AF tracking.
I read about a mobile phone app that allows mirroring the display from Olympus and controlling the shutter. That would be neat; set up a body right next to the tarmac on a special stage and snap away remotely (I've probably dodged as many marshals on stages as I've had photographers dodge me when I've marshalled stages... Heh, the cycle of sports pics life...).
They're going to invest it in hiring people with your insights in order to save the company.
I too would love to try it! Small is attractive in more than one way; it's not just out catching action shots, it's also candids at the paddock etc.
So you've had good experiences with the E-1? Everyone I've discussed it with loved that camera.