Sports Illustrated Lays Off All Photographers

<p>Down to six, but those six are now going to have freelance. Not a good sign.</p>

<p><a href="https://nppa.org/node/69374">Link</a></p>

I know three of the six who have been there forever and must of been pulling in over 6 figures. You can either lead your

own innovation forward and chart your own course before the layoffs like I did or ride it out until it keels over and then

adapt. It's a sad day but at least they stuck it out, I would probably would have too given the unique staff position.

<p>Reminds me of the kerfuffle maybe 2 yrs ago(?) when a 'major' us paper laid off all their photographers. Some predicted doom for the paper, I don't think it happened, not sure ... . Probably the way of the future.</p>

<p>It's a lot cheaper to pay a "freelancer" than to pay a salary with benefits. If SI could farm out their work to somewhere in the far east where photographers earn $10/hr - and get the quality they want - they'd probably do it.</p>

<p>On the other hand I guess those photographers are now free to charge SI whatever they want for their services and let the free market decide who will get the job.</p>

<p>Not a good sign for professional staff photographers with newspapers and magazines, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time. </p>

<p>My guess is that SI could have amateurs lining up outside their offices to do the work for free if they wanted that. If they need anyone for the swimsuit issue, I'm available...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If SI could farm out their work to somewhere in the far east where photographers earn $10/hr - and get the quality they want - they'd probably do it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what happened to two of my clients. One client moved production to China and discovered they could get photography done for the equivalent of $0.30 per hour, and ended my contract. They don't seem to be bothered by the decrease in quality.<br>

<Chas></p>

 

<p>I find it difficult to believe that forcing all creative people to start running their own businesses instead of creating a productive environment where they can use their time to be creative helps in the production of high quality content. What is likely to happen is that the best talents, if they're not enterpreneurs at heart, leave the field and start doing something else entirely and the quality of the published content goes in a downward spiral. When the quality of the content declines, people buy fewer magazines, and the magazines lay off their writers too until finally they have to shut down their business when they have no worthwhile content to publish that would separate them from what is freely available on the internet. I think what motivates media companies to lay off their substance producers is the quantity of free content they are offered. Professional journalism is a relatively new phenomena in society, perhaps we are returning to a time where it doesn't exist.</p>

<p>A sign of the times, bad for some, possibly good for others...?</p>

<p>Wayne Melia -- I don't know if it's the paper you are referring to, but here in Chicago the Sun-Times got rid of its entire photography staff, including, IIRC, a Pulitzer Prize winner. One of the expectations was that the remaining print journalists would use their cell phones in certain situations. </p>

"One of the expectations was that the remaining print journalists would use their cell phones in certain

situations."

 

When pro photographers cover public events in Baltimore, they are usually equipped with two Nikons or Canons,

sporting expensive telephoto lenses. You can't get the equivalent results with a cellphone's built in camera.<div></div>

<p>@ Steve Gubin yup, Chicago Sun-Times is what I was referring to. thank you</p>

<p>There's a difference between sports photographers and news photographers. Sports photographers require access, the ability to shoot at high shutter speeds and long lenses, most of the time. Some people commenting on the SI change say that quality is going to drop, but that probably isn't true. Income for photographers will drop as they lose benefits, only get certain jobs and get bid down by an open market.<br>

<br />For news, it's very different. First of all, there's timeliness. There is little value to the photos a news photographer takes forty five minutes after the bus mowed the pedestrian down compared to the shots taken when it happened with a cell phone. People would rather see a low quality shot of what happened than a high quality shot of a street. Second, there's a lot of events that don't require a professional photographer. The best example of this is pressers - only one shot will be used and nobody is going to take a better shot than anyone else. I see both reporters given dSLRs and people with passes using phones at pressers. There's no need for a pro, the people with the cameras are told to get up front and shoot. Third, most news is on the internet and not print and quality isn't a key concern. Finally, lots of amateurs take better shots than the news photographers. I've seen a lot of that recently - better photos on flickr than the news people take. Sometimes it's because the amateurs spend more time at the event and sometimes it's because they're driven by very different concerns.</p>

<p>And many amateurs shooting events around here look like the guy in the photo above, multiple cameras and expensive lenses. The only way you can tell who's who is by the credentials they have. Without seeing the credentials, they can be a well-heeled amateur. </p>

<p>One of real problems is pointed out by Ilkka, plenty of quality photographers aren't capable and/or interested in marketing themselves. It's a constant battle to keep finding new clients and new jobs. Plenty of quality photographers end up on the outside when these changes happen because it isn't in them to hustle everyone, all the time. I have a friend, phenomenal photographer, I use him as an assistant when I need one, who works at a fairly low-grade in-house photography job because he lacks the sales skills or incentive. That's the way it's going.</p>

" The only way you can tell who's who is by the credentials they have. Without seeing the credentials, they can be

a well-heeled amateur."

 

This fellow was shooting at the same event as the fellow with the two Nikons ( above). He had no press

credentials visible, an indicator that he was an independent photographer. Not sure what's indicated by his

choice of equipment, other than he had no immediate deadline to satisfy.<div></div>

<p>In a way, it makes sense. Unfortunately. I mean, what do we expect in a digital world? And I'm not talking about the cameras.</p>

<p>Sports Illustrated could, I suppose, ask freelance photographers, whether they are full-time pros or not, to tag their photos (Flickr, wherever) for possible use in the magazine. If they use a photo, they'll pay a fixed amount. Sounds great... except that by the time SI uses the photos, everyone has seen them already. Big problem.</p>

<p>The other solution would be to offer the current photographers less money. It's not as if photographers are in short supply. Well, that's the theory, isn't it?</p>

<p>I remember one of those photographers by name: Simon Bruty. I read an interview with him in Practical Photography, back in the '90s. He did a lot of F1 then. The one tip I remember him giving: always look for an unusual perspective. There is currently none of that F1 work in his portfolio, however. But I recommend you all check out his work - it's fantastic. Anyway, I do look forward to seeing that ESPN documentary.</p>

<p>I do miss the days when you had to wait for your photos to come back, and you had to wait for your favourite magazine or newspaper. And there was no easy way to spread them around. Well, we can't put the cat back into the bag, can we?</p>

<p>There is the idea that eventually, there won't be cameras anymore. By that, I mean that your phone's camera could be good enough to preclude purchase of a separate camera. Perhaps, also, there won't be magazines anymore.</p>

<p>But nobody can predict the future empirically, because to predict the future you'd need evidence from the future - which you don't have yet. There is no scientific theory of the future. Some people just know intuitively, though, but I don't claim to be one of those.</p>

<p>Not a field of photography I know well, but I wonder if the capacity of motion rather than static pictures (video) has not been perfected to the point where any image to be published can be accessed more easily from the video and at high enough quality (newspapers at least, have less high standards of reproduction). Perhaps Sports Illustrated can also easily purchase the sports photographs from another source (other magazines, newspapers)? What has always impressed me are the great numbers of photographers at any event. Also with the consolidation (concentration) of so many formerly independent news purveyors, it is perhaps normal that the numbers will decrease in time. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>..- why they even publish anything ,seem like six professionals for illustrated editions already radical minimum !</p>

<p>There are still some of us working PJs. Most of us have come off staff and gone to freelance. Less money but vastly more freedom. The rules for Freelance and staff photographers are quite different. I still carry my press pass and maintain the same relationships I did when I was on staff. I make less on PJ work but am now free to do other work as well. </p>

<p>The fact that there are so many folks out there with digital cameras and homemade business cards, styling themselves as professional photographers does not really play in this market. The folks who we see so frequently, (posting, "Hi. I am a professional wedding photographer. What lens should I buy for inside the church.") are not competition for jobs like Sports Illustrated or even local papers/magazines. If they should happen to stumble on a great shot it may well be purchased. This has always been true anyway. They are not, however, getting credentials from SI and sent to the Super Bowl. </p>

<p>Not a good sign at all...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When the quality of the content declines, people buy fewer magazines, and the magazines lay off their writers too until finally they have to shut down their business when they have no worthwhile content to publish that would separate them from what is freely available on the internet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is unclear which is the 'egg' and which is the 'chicken' in the case of the magazines.</p>

<p>Most of the old established magazines get thinner and thinner until they evaporate altogether. The part about what is available on the internet is the key issue, neither the photographic nor editorial content.</p>

<p>Judging from my local Barnes & Noble store, there are still lots of specialty magazines filling very small ecological niches with cheaply (or not) production values. Something like this is happening to the big commercial book publishers -- being threatened by very locally produced, local books.</p>

<p>The printing press did not completely kill illuminated manuscripts, but the present-day market share for the monks in the cloister is very small, even if it is numerically as large as it was in 1250.</p>

<p>Are there independent companies that provide sports photographs? They could get a job there. Or start a firm like that themselves. SI has to get photographs somehow.</p>

<p>Also, this could be an opportunity for a SI sports photographer to branch out into book publishing. For example, stay a couple of months with the Patriots and publish a book of the inside and outside of the team to be sold at the stadium for Patriot sport's fans who want those books.</p>

<p>How about combining with a T shirt manufacturer and provide sports shots of great action of well known athletes performing in their sport? Whenever an industry changes, people in it have to think out of the box instead of bemoaning change. Life marches on. We have to as well. Be a Canon not a Kodak.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are there independent companies that provide sports photographs? </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Reuters and AP, but they don't hire photographers now, they use freelancers too.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or start a firm like that themselves</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The vast majority of professional photographers I have met don't consider themselves entrepreneurs. This is especially true for people who have employment as photographers.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>SI has to get photographs somehow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Sure. They will hire freelancers. It will shift most of the costs from SI to the freelancers.</p>

<p>You get what you pay for. I guess we'll see if kids with iPhones produce images as good as seasoned professionals. We'll also see how long SI lasts as a magazine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sure. They will hire freelancers. It will shift most of the costs from SI to the freelancers.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is what they will do. In many cases it will be the same people.</p>

<p>We should keep in mind that SI and other publications like it have something that a freelancer needs. Access. You can't just go to a Patriots game, stroll down to the sidelines and take pictures. When I covered Pac 10 (12) football, I had my press credentials checked sometimes several times during each game. </p>

<p>I shoot rodeos from the Arena. Though after many years I know everyone there, my arena pass is based upon two things; my ability to stay alive and not be part of the show and my reason for being there. Take away the press credentials and I would be shooting from the stands like everyone else. Even shooting high school sports from the sidelines (where the really publishable shots come from) is problematic without press credentials. </p>

<p>It is still possible to have a great deal of fun and make some money as a freelance photojournalist. I have a good friend who has been doing it for a couple of decades and is all over the world. He makes good money but earns every penny. Sometimes at great peril. </p>

<p>Then there are those, myself included, for whom the job is just fun and the money a nice bonus. Often good freelance PJs have other jobs but are just what the doctor ordered for cash-limited local papers and magazines. We can shoot a local job affordably and reliably but do not have to charge a budget-busting price. Because we are not captured by one outfit, all of these jobs just go into the cash-flow. </p>

<p> It seems to me that these SI photographers may have to make a transition. Some may want to add the 'journalist' skillset to the 'photographer' one. This will make them independent enough to serve a much larger market. They become a one-source solution to the customer. Instead of just pictures they can provide coverage for an event and supply the entire product to the editor. This is attractive, especially when travel is required. </p>

<p>Another thing we have not discussed is that very often these days, journalists are expected to take their own shots to illustrate the simpler stories. They are often issued cameras for this purpose. They might not be expected to shoot the action at a sporting event but they certainly need not contract with a freelancer to shoot an interview picture with the coach. </p>

<p>I am not as disheartened with the lot of the staff photographer as I am with the marginalization of the local news. I believe that newspapers (online or hard copy) provide an essential service. So many are going away that this may well have a serious effect on our sense of community and our vigilance of those who are running it. That is the elephant in the room. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You get what you pay for. I guess we'll see if kids with iPhones produce images as good as seasoned professionals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Nobody is talking about replacing SI photographers with "kids with iPhones." However, as I pointed out above, a photo of something happening, regardless of what is used to snap it, is almost always better than a "seasoned professional" shooting after the fact.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They might not be expected to shoot the action at a sporting event but they certainly need not contract with a freelancer to shoot an interview picture with the coach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I pointed this out above. However, I have seen writers covering the event itself, and I think this is because of the role video has come to play. Most people get their news online, and with the extent of broadband connections, video is easily delivered. Photos come down to splash page images, backgrounds, and occasionally flyers and posters. The flyers these days are often digital and not printed. As a result, the demand for quality is fairly low. I've seen amateur shots used for all sorts of promotion and they work just fine, people aren't looking for the quality of the photo, they just want to know what it's about. Video is a big part of why my income from shooting fights dropped off (the other part is that publications were going OOB.)</p>

<p>Many wedding photographers have combined video with still as the demand for video grew. Is that something that still photographers have to get involved with in sports and other venues?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many wedding photographers have combined video with still as the demand for video grew. Is that something that still photographers have to get involved with in sports and other venues?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As for the first point, I would never do that. Video should be handled by one person, photos by another. I would refuse to do both - it just doesn't work.</p>

<p>The second point: forget it. Unless you're shooting at least 4K RAW video, like with a RED camera, and doing that at all times, not switching back and forth between stills and motion. Possible. But practical? On paper, yes. But shooting effective video means giving up the freedom that you are able to have while shooting photos.</p>

<p>Video is not just a button on your camera. It's a different approach to the subject.</p>

<p>Why does it have to be the same still photographer? You have to think out of the box. Let him partner with a videographer and sell their work as a package.</p>