staff press photographers

<p>First of all I'm not staff press photographer in any paper so please forgive any naiveness of my questions and my personal observations based in Europe.<br>

Q.<br>

Does realy beeing a staff photographer for a local paper ( in a big city ) is like being a God's favourite one (I don't even dare to write about a national titles ) ?</p>

<p>What are the reasons of such decending need for staff photographers ?</p>

<p>Is it competition of agencies which will provide a photo for a good prize and U dont need to pay pension, insurance or worry if he goes sick etc.</p>

<p>big corporations are taking over so one photographer do job for few titles and there is no need for paying to anybody else ?</p>

<p>Does freelance press photography is really thriving regardless how hard that trade is and how badly is paid ?</p>

<p>or maybe is it simply that whole world economy downfall ?</p>

<p>what's you opinion ?</p>

<p>regards,<br>

p.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Being a photojournalist is hard work. I do not think that those that go into it and get lucky enough to get a staff position are the 'chosen' ones. They are either skilled or lucky or both. Staff positions have all but disappeared because there is not enough money to support this important position. As more and more newspapers go digital and corporate, they look to cut costs. So what is happening in the PJ industry is just like what happened in the commercial photography industry when stock photography showed up. So there are less PJ shooters and the images get used by more people. In the end people who want to be photojournalists should do it because they fell strongly about social issues and effecting change. They do not do it for the money.</p>

<p>Why pay, when photography is free? My local paper gets a large chunk of its photos for free, from people who just want to see their photos in print. They have a photo site where amateurs from all over the area upload their best work for consideration. They pick and choose what they want.</p>

<p>Ever notice on the television news how people are encouraged to send in their photos and videos? Same thing.</p>

<p>In the USA today newspaper printed circulation is low. There is less advertising revenue. Budgets are way lower than in past eras. There is less money flow to support a large staff of photographers. 25 years ago a staff photographer might visit three Friday night High School football games and shoot tri-x. Shoot and scoot. </p>

<p>Today in Ventura and LA County a high school student can shoot digital and email the few gems for the editor to select. There is no rush to develop Tri-x/c41 dry and scan it for a deadline. Kids with a laptop connected to the internet email the images while at the game site. Digital cameras have iso speeds of 1600 to 6400 +; thus even a F4 kit zoom outguns a 1985 asa 400 tri-x shooter.</p>

<p>The newspaper industry is sick today. Papers are smaller and with less pages. Even in written articles a minor league team 10 years ago got a 1 to 2 page article when they were on a winning streak. Today the same newspaper often has an article that is only a few columns. There are also many folks who shoot sports for fun for their amateur sports sites. If they get to 30 dollars and their name in print for a High School football shot they are in heaven.</p>

<p>Newspaper work has never been God's chosen ones; unless it is a Hollywood movie or a fiction novel. It has always been hard work, odd hours and work to meet a deadline. It is worse today since the advertising adverts are less and circulation numbers are way less.</p>

<p>The bulk of newspaper advertising revenue is from printed newspaper not their web versions. Revenue is not stable, more like level or in a decline. The cost of a newspaper at a store or newspaper dispenser is more. There are many folks who today just buy a Wednesday newspaper for grocery store sales, and a Sunday paper too. My own subscriptions as a newspaper junkie have gone from 5 papers down to 2 in the last 20 years.</p>

<p>A neighbor in High School often supplies school sports images for the local newspaper. There really is not enough advertising revenue to support a staff newspaper photographer anymore.</p>

<p>http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Newspaper+decline+slows%3B+National+trend+remains+mixed.-a0240599830</p>

<p>The other trend that bugs me is papers hiring photographers right out of college with an MFA and no experience, instead of seasoned photographers with no degree. Many friends I've worked with in the past are in this boat, and another reason why I don't subscribe to my local paper.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>another reason why I don't subscribe to my local paper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Newspapers are businesses. Businesses exist to make profit. Lowing expenses is part of making profit. Everytime you buy something, somewhere along the line, you are supporting people people not getting the job or not getting paid what they think they are entitled to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>another reason why I don't subscribe to my local paper.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's really not so mysterious as to why newspapers aren't hiring more expensive staff.</p>

 

<p>Well guys, I don't know where you live or what size paper you see, but the paper I work for neither hires people with no experience nor do we use photos shot by "citizen journalists" as tv calls them. Granted, the business has become somewhat tenuous, but we still use a professional photo staff. In fact, due to our new video photographers, we have more photo staff now than we've had in the past few years. One thing that has happened at our paper is that we've dropped all of our freelancers. Due to the smaller issues, we have no need to use freelancers anymore, but we have not dropped any of our full-time photogs. I know that this is not the case at most papers, but I feel lucky to be working for a good group of people who value our collective worth. </p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Jerry;<br>

Newspapers in the USA have bought images from non staff/employee photographers ever since photography started. There is no reason to have somebody paid as an employee, they just buy the image.</p>

<p>It is a very clean transaction. There is no wages, no insurance. no attitudes, no egos, no vacation issues.</p>

<p>Buying an image from a non staff shooter is common. All the news service images are non staff images. The adverts are about all no staff shot. The bulk of images in a newspaper are shot by non local newspaper employee shot images.</p>

<p>When an editor buys a High School Football image from the neighbor kid at the game running a laptop, it is a professional transaction and a great newspaper quality image. The editor gets a better deal for the newspaper, you cannot physically be at 5 games on a Friday night if they are far apart. The newspaper cannot afford to have 5 staff shooters covering 5 games at once, you basically cost too much compared to the newspapers advert revenue.</p>

<p>An actual reader who follows XYZ High School will tend to buy Saturdays newspaper when their team has a few great images in the newspaper.They really do NOT care who shot the great images. Buying the images from the girl who shoots for the school paper has a transaction where the shooter has their heart in it. From the editors standpoint they have less errors as to who the players are in the images. The editor has less attitude about covering a lowly High School game. The editor gets a better deal ie value for the newspaper, it gets images of games that the staff cannot be at. It gets the images at a better deal.</p>

<p>With an employee staff shooter of a newspaper covering 3 games on one Friday night with a shoot and scoot, much action gets missed. Coverage is poorer. The token staff shooters are missing during key plays and thus are less professional. They are worth less to an editor, they skim a game.</p>

<p>None of this is anything new, I sold images to the local newspaper many decades ago like this. The neighbor next door in High School does the same thing today but with digital and a laptop.</p>

<p>In the current economy an editor cares more about quality sports images for the newspaper, than whether the shot was shoot by a staff shooter or high school student. The editor has to look what is good for circulation, ie a quality images. Using a non staff shooter allows the newspaper to publish images in sports games that it cannot afford with the higher priced staffers.</p>

<p>Circulation is what matters. That is what folks who advertise want too.</p>

<p>Newspaper circulation is down. Budgets to support a big photo staff is way less than in past eras. Buying professional images from non staffers is ancient and will always be done. The newspaper is about circulation, not a support site for photographers. A newspaper looks at images as a business, they want the best value. A High School shooter paid per shot is a better value for the business, same quality , less cost. The newpaper does the same thing for paper, ink etc too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alvin, <br>

While what you say is true about the wires (yes, I'm a former AP staffer myself), I'm just saying that at our newspaper, which has a Sunday circ. of about 160,000, we don't use freelancers anymore (well, okay, sometimes we use one occasionally, now that the economy has loosened up a tiny bit), and we don't take "free" photos for our news pages. Yes, certainly there are photos from independent sources in our ad section, primarily the display ads. Yes, we obviously use AP and other wire services. But we don't use AP photos from local events.</p>

<p>We still have a staff, and I kind of get tired of people who are not in the newspaper business and have never been in the newspaper business saying how there are no professional photographers working in the biz anymore. What you do see is smaller papers using photos from a bunch of no name, "citizen" journalists or high school kids. Papers who are hanging on by a thread. Papers who never really had a photo staff to begin with. For instance, the Ely, Nev., paper, which my company owns, has a one person news staff. That person and the editor are responsible for all the stories and photos in a two-day per week paper. Do they take photos from individuals? Sure, and stories too. I've talked to the editor, he would love to hire a full time photographer, but in reality, he would add a second writer first. That doesn't mean that he prefers what he has to use to a professional staff. </p>

<p>As for your last graf saying that budgets are down and a big photo staff is a thing of the past, well, I'm telling you WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN OUR PHOTO DEPARTMENT NOW THAN 15 YEARS AGO, and that's with a smaller news hole. As for buying from high school students or other non-staffers as far as local news goes...we don't use high school students's photos, paid or otherwise, and those non-staffers that we do use all have a personal relationship with us. Now that said, do we have a page once a week that is written, photographed and edited by high school journalism students? Yes, we sure do, and hopefully, the experience that those students get will help them decide if they want to pursue a career in journalism. And sometimes we take a photo from a person who happens on an extraordinary event that we don't have access to or can't make in time (i.e. a catastrophic accident...car, bus, plane, etc., that happens when we can't get to it or someplace outside of the realm of realistically getting a photog to in a timely manner.) </p>

<p>Of course there are always exceptions to any blanket statement. Just as there are extremely rare times when we would use a non-staffer photo for our local news pages, to make a blanket statement that all newspapers are giving up their professional staffs in order to use "citizen"/non-staff/unpaid photos is totally false. </p>

<p>Alvin, I have been in the newspaper business as a photographer/photo editor for 34 years. As of right now, I can tell you that certainly you are right, papers will buy from AP (although the AP is in fact a co-op owned by the newspapers which it serves, so in a way, that could be considered a "staff source" in a certain light), papers have always bought from non-staff sources, especially for advertising and entertainment purposes (though most of those photos are freebies) and occasionally for the local news content. </p>

<p>You paint a very grim picture of newspapers, where editors don't care about their own staffs, where they think that their own staffs are less professional than high school students because they cover three games in a night and possibly miss a key play (our shooters, by the way, only cover one game a night, and yes, we have 29 high schools in town. We just make a decision which are the key high schools to cover each week, not try and shotgun every game in town), and where editors are more interested in less pay than good photographs (by the way, our editors don't really consider the cost of an individual event, just that the news is covered professionally). </p>

<p>Personally, I find your thinking flawed in most newspapers' cases, outside of very small hometown-style newspapers. By your own admission, you haven't been involved in newspapers in many decades. I think you still are guided by the experiences that you encountered back then and not what is prevalent now. Bottom line is that photojournalism is still a vibrant career, albeit not the same one as 40 years ago. Now you need different skills, web design and video shooting and editing are skills that are very important. Still photography is still a big part of being a photojournalist, just not the only part. And jobs at newspapers and their websites are still available for qualified, professional photojournalists. Not as many, but they are still out there. </p>

<p>Sadly news papers are almost dead in the US. A few will hang on for a while longer but the end is near. The return on investment is not there. The environmental impact of paper making is a target. The real nail in the coffin is most people just don't read any more.<br>

Joe</p>