Reporter Attacks City Hall Portraits

Discussion in 'News' started by benqq_harris, Jun 6, 2011.

  1. Its one thing to say the city shouldn't pay for high quality portraits of its council member,
    but another thing to say quick cheapo snaps are as good as a pro sestup
    ...and you know the industry is in trouble when a TV reporter pull this stunt...,0,1921457.story
  2. It is difficult for the pro shooter these days but we are in difficult economic times. Cuts must be made. Being a politician he is trying to over-emphasize the point but ultimately, does any city need photographs of council members? Surely, the money should be spent on other more worthy causes.
  3. Take a look at the frames; I bet a BIG chunk of $$$ went to those.
  4. I don't think they every said that their photos were as good as the pros, but they are good enough for what they are. I think spending that amount of tax payers money on photos is crazy.
  5. Take a look at the frames; I bet a BIG chunk of $$$ went to those.​
    "The finest collections of frames I ever saw" Sir Humphrey Davy on leaving a Paris art exhibition.
  6. You can almost imagine the quote:
    "Now that my picture is on the wall, let's look at saving some money here"
    We can also suggest they replace the "News Reader" with somebody off the street. They are easier to replace than any half talented photographer.
  7. The gist of the story: Everybody has a digital camera. Everybody is some kind of photographer. Digital makes up for shortcomings of "wannabe" photographers to make pictures "good enough for what they are." That becomes the standard for all pictures. Pictures then get lowered in quality, along with the monetary value of those pictures.
    I don't know this for sure, but it seems to me the fees for sport, event, wedding and, yes, big time contract photography (I have a friend who while literally leaving for the airport to go to NY
    got a call from the client to tell her not to leave-they got someone cheaper) have all radically
  8. Frivolous spending
  9. This isn't about what professional photography costs. This is about what vanity costs taxpayers. At least it's not DC, where the issue is $2,000/month luxury SUV leases for the councilmembers, not portraits. Or my county, where local government officials argue for having libraries named after them - not only while they're still alive, but while they're still sitting in office and choosing the contractors that will build the things. Bah. Never mind.
  10. All comments true, but the underlying reason for the reporter's conclusion is a wide
    belief photography as a paid service is less valuable with the plethora of product and cameras. Hence, photography should be cheaper, a kind of broad benefit like air.
  11. It's only Tax money, what the heck.
  12. Ya gets what ya pays for!
    The reporter's $10 pictures (including frame) looked pretty shoddy to me. If you're happy with that, fine. I have no idea whether the professionally shot and framed pictures were worth the money spent (or couldn't have been done a bit more cheaply) but there's no denying that they look pretty damn good.
  13. Well in the end, this is what we're up against..... "good enough" or "really super".
    I've bought shoes at WalMart that fell apart within a month but they were ten bux.
    I now have a 90$ pair of tennis shoes that are going strong at 6 months.
    PS that cheap shot the reporter did, was just that. Cheap.
  14. If I had $1,000 to spend on a photograph, I would not buy a photo of a City Council member standing in front of a flag. Just sayin'.
  15. I fail to see the point of hanging portraits of City Council Members on the walls of the City Council where such a small % of the population, besides the Council Members, even get to see them. Internet photos, yes. But not at that price.
    Council buildings in other states are decorated with historic portraits. This is sheer egotistical lunacy. Wake up, Memphis!

Share This Page