Professional photography vs. "citizen journalism"

Once again...I'm in those newsrooms with the editors...they ain't laughing at you for sending it photos. They appreciate it. And so does the community. Smaller, regional papers can't afford to be all places at all times. Our paper has one full time photographer and a combo writer/photographer...me.

I gave up a more lucrative gig to get into photography...which led to being a full time gig at the paper. Pay sucks, but it was my decision...but I get a kick out of doing it. My second copywrited story--opposed to the myriad of articles that run--will come out on Sunday. It's the first time one of my articles has been sent to the AP for distribution and there is also a photo that accompanies it.

There's a chance it could be picked up by any paper in the world. Other than my salary, I don't get a nickel more for this. It's part of the gig.

I still do portrait work and commercial gigs--mostly event photography. But I will say my early pro bono work which led to the paper hiring me full time, and my daily work at the paper has made me a LOT better.

One of the pros comments earlier in the thread is definately true...at a media gig, you have to get it right the first time. You have no time to go back and reshoot things. They want the photo immediately, not later.

But that pressure has also made me a lot better at knowing how to anticipate "the moment" or "the essence" of the situation.

I see NOTHING wrong with people sending in photos...I encourage it. Now that everyone has a digital, everyone is a potential photographer.
If "pros" can't deal with that...maybe they aren't really necessary.
Just my thoughts.

BooRadley

stevetog said:

I feel truly sorry for Kirpax, because it's clear his work is worth

Click to expand...

is it some sort of attempt at humor to constantly spell my name wrong.. a little childish mate..

stevetog said:

nothing, as nobody wants to pay him for it, nobody wants to hire
him to do it, I guess that's why he just continues the mantra 'it's
just a hobby'.

Click to expand...

Why do you think no one wants to pay me or hire me? did you put 2 and 2 together to come up with that.. Plenty of people offer to pay me but I dont want paying.. thats the difference betwen hobby and professional in my book and I dont want to cross that line.. However I have crossed it on many occasions but for entirely different reasons to actually wanting to make money...

Do you really feel the need to make up stories about me just because you dont like my hobby?

stevetog said:

On the other hand these news editors could be just laughing behind
his back, 'this guy supplies us with pictures for free, what a

Click to expand...

they probably do... why would that worry me.. would it make me feel better if i charged.. no it wouldn't, It would spoil it for me.... so why should I... oh yeagh. to safeguard your job... duh

stevetog said:

Either way it looks like a loose loose situation to me.

Click to expand...

eeerm how am I losing.. I enjoy my hobby.. off to do a league two match this afternoon and guaranteed two papers..a local weekly and a local daily..plus club websites and programs and basicall anyone who wants a pic...the more the merrier... papers are happy.. club is happy and I am happy.... and to you thats a loose losse situation haha..

--
http://www.kipax.com

Enjoy the ride they are taking you on...........I dont know how they can keep a straight face.

Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.

Film_Ruled said:

I for one, am not irate. I just think your attitude stinks. You
seem to think you are taking away work from pros, I really doubt

Click to expand...

good grief... i was defending myself against other people who say i am taking work away from pros.. i am saying that if i am then tough.. i am not advocating that I am... you have a very funny way of reading a thread

Film_Ruled said:

That is the main problem you are stirring up here. You seem to get
something out of thinking that you are taking work from some pros.

Click to expand...

yet another poster who is an expert on what I am thinking...and wrong... I dont think that.. i am defending myself against others who think that.. you can then do selective quoting to make it look like that but if you follow the thread from start to finish then thats certainly NOT what I am saying at all.. I fear you ahve the wrong end of the stick

Film_Ruled said:

This gloating is in very poor taste, can't you see that?

Click to expand...

what gloating? you just made that up for effect... show me where i am gloating that i am taking work from a pro tog... show me or stop posting lies about me please... thats a very poor way of trying to win a depate.. i have not posted lies or insults about you.. so why do you feel the need to lower yourself to that level :

--
http://www.kipax.com

i wouldnt worry about it so much steve... i dont
--
http://www.kipax.com

...why is an "armature" (sic) an "idiot"?

Morihei said:

--Abraham Zapruder,

Remember him? He was no professional and without a shadow of a
doubt captured on his little cheap armature movie camera one of the
most tragic events in American history and this film became one of
the most significant and important piece of film of the 20th
Century. For those who don't know; on November 22,1963 captured the
assassination of President John F Kennedy.

There is nothing wrong with some yokel out there with his camera
phone. Most of the time he will be the only person on scene of the
incident and will capture it. Pros cant be everywhere, so TV and
news gathering organizations can and should publish those shots.

Most major newspaper organizations are not soliciting amateur
images to 'save money'. The photographers on their staff get paid
full time.

Now it would not be ok if a paper sends out a unpaid non staff
photographer to cover an event for a story, that would be wrong.

There is always going to be someone

The difference between pros and some idiot with a lucky shot is
that if you send out the pro to cover the story he or she will
bring back good images every time. Not the pro. Even if you gave
the armature a 1dmkII and L glass, that would even be harder for
the armature to use. Armatures are not professional photographers
and the professional news and magazines organizations know that.

The irony to all this is that if your some armature idiot with your
little camera phone and you capture Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears
getting out of their cars with no panties on, then you can make
some good money selling it to the press.

Mike



http://www.pbase.com/michaelcorral

Click to expand...

It is like telling amateurs to buy the cheapest things and let the pros use the more expensive stuff.

hehehe, tell that to an 14 yo boy that wants to buy an computer for 3000$ for gaming. "Srry, but that computer is only for professionals, here you go, here is an Nintendo Wii instead".

--

Rickard Hansson

Steve Mitchell said:

Steve Mitchell said:

I believe people who give away photos to business entities (other

Click to expand...

than charities, family and friends) are just not confident enough
that they can get paid for it. Otherwise, why would they not want
to make money from their hobby?

Click to expand...

there!!!! thats the bit you professionals cant get your head around isnt it... thats exactly it in the last two lines..please read this next line very carefully

"I don't want to get paid because it is my Hobby and not a job."

When you can understand that line then you will understand why I and many others dont want to cross that line and become paid. Many do and many dont.. many go on to bigger things and many dont.. not because they cant but because they have the freedom of choice and choose not to

Sorry if your upset at the way I put my point accross.. but some of you are now starting to get personal and insulting based on how I am saying things.. which means you have pretty much run our of arguments on the actual subject.. thats a shame as I was enjoying the debate...

--
http://www.kipax.com

That's gotta be the funniest thing I've read this week.

brianric said:

stevetog said:

tell you what give me you FT employers name, i'll offer to work for
them a couple of days for free as a 'hobby', then they can stop
paying you for a couple of days a week, then you'll need to start
charging these media corps for pictures to make up the difference.
Then your employer can start paying me, and hey presto we will have
stopped devaluing each others professions by not working fo free.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

stevetog said:

Kirpax, I have come to the conclusion your work is worth nothing -

Click to expand...

i never actually said it was did I .. but I ahve been offered money many times.. if you choose not to believe that then fair enough

stevetog said:

because nobody wants to pay you for it & you have to give it away

Click to expand...

Again.. I told you many times in this thread.. that isnt the case.. I choose not to take money

stevetog said:

for free. Or the editors are laughing at you now for supplying free

Click to expand...

are we going around in circles.. how many times are you going to post the same thing?

stevetog said:

I see you have kitted yourself out very well to continue your

Click to expand...

my wish list is bigger than my got list

stevetog said:

fantasy of being a sports photographer at the weekends, if it had

Click to expand...

how is it a fantasy if I am already doing it? not just at weekends either

stevetog said:

no impact on the profession as a whole that would be fine, but it
does because your are developing the fantasy further by actually
submitting your photographs for free to media outlets. Like others

Click to expand...

So again.. how is it a fantasy if as you now admit I am doing it?

stevetog said:

have said for those news editors with accountants breathing down
their necks, the easy option is to go for the free low quality
pictures you are supplying. Where a paper may have had to pay in

Click to expand...

woooooo where the hell do you get low quality from ?

stevetog said:

Your argument is Photographers must change the way they do things
to keep up with developments & the way the media is expecting to
behave.

Click to expand...

yes..not just my argument either if you read other peoples contributions to the thread

stevetog said:

What the media outlets will eventually end up with if they continue
to behave in this way is a bunch of unqualified & untalented
fantasist photographers - because anybody with any talent & and
means to earn money will go elsewhere, and frankly the media will
reap what they sow......

Click to expand...

so now i am a fantasist unqualified untalented photographer am I ... oh well..

I am smilling though.. and I am happy...I have a feeling.. just a guess that your not...

--
http://www.kipax.com

I see you missed out the part about the media outlets changing the way they work - ie expecting to get something for nothing & passing their loss making activities down the food chain !!!!

Yes any organisations that dont bother to train, have no investment in & worse still dont expect to pay people with talent are going to get garbage in & garbage out. There may be the odd exception, but most people with any sense & talent dont work for free, not for 5 years anyway, for others to make a profit from their work.

I dont think we are going to get any further with this, i'll just say yes it's a fantasy because you are not actually being paid to do what you do. So therefore you are not a professional, you sound as if you are acting out the role of professional but you are not. That's great in a strange way as the territorial army is similar as are special constibles, they are generally regarded as 'playing ' at the role by the full timers. The difference being the state is gaining from peoples good natured intent & whish to forfill a role they can't do full time for some reason. But in your case media organisations are profiting from your good nature & fantasy - which seems rather perverse to me.

--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.

--

• Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com *

...it's a big difference in my view between the odd picture sent in because Joe Public happened to be in the right place with his camera, and serious coverage several days a week for free as KIPAX is doing.

In both cases though I think the paper should pay the photographer for every pulblished picture as they are making a profit from them. But I understand you're not exactly on the photographer's side in this as you work for the paper, so it's in your interest to take the view that it's great if people give their pictures away for nothing.

• Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com *

'I am smilling though.. and I am happy...I have a feeling.. just a guess that your not...'

I do a job I enjoy, I am my own boss, I choose the work I do, I get to be creative & usually thats why people book me, or I get referrals from others. Better still, people pay me well for what I do & appreciate it.

If I thought spending 5 years at college on photography courses & doing a commercial apprenticeship was worth nothing I would charge nothing. If I thought my work was worth nothing I would give up & do something else. If people consistently expected me to give over my talent, knowledge & training & equipment & memberships & insurance costs etc for nothing I would leave the industry. Thankfully where I am working they don't....yet.

--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.

Kipax is doing it as his hobby, and says that he has been offered money but declines it. If it was me I would take the money and buy equipment with it.

If his definition of hobby means not getting paid then so be it. For me Hobby means something that I do in my free time that I enjoy, and if you get paid for it, the better.

As far as I can tell Kipax is doing this because he enjoys it and I am sure for some of the events that he has covered he has taken away a job from a freelancer, but I doubt if he took a job away from a FT PJ. If anything he has just gotten more exposure for the local schools that probably would not have been covered with photos. IF he didn't do the shoots, my guess is that the newspaper would have just run a diffent story.
--
Jay
http://www.pbase.com/damkader
Equipment in Profile

ePan said:

And now, just a little comic relief and perspective on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrK8fB6uYk

Click to expand...

Haha Good post.

--
Good Day,
Roonal

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster

If newspapers can only afford 1 photographer & their business is recording events & news - frankly they should not be in business. Because either what they are doing has no mass appeal at all or they are being so poorly run they are next to worthless. Relying on people to send in free stuff on a regular basis to make money is the stuff of charities NOT commercial newspapers. No wonder they want stuff for free, smells like the stuff of a dying rotting corpse to me.......
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.

or they may actually have to pay somebody to go and record it......
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.

great words....but if the weekend Joe charges nothing for his work all the boldness, knowledge etc in the world counts for nothing - so it seems.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.

It would help if you understood what the business of a newspaper is.

--
---
****************************************

'Giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child.'
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Newsweek (New York, 22 Oct. 1984)