Sports Illustrated Lays Off All Photographers

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Let him partner with a videographer and sell their work as a package.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not a bad idea for the freelancers, but the client may want to choose photographer and cameraman separately. Apart from that I have no idea if it would work. Why not?</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>It can be much less expensive to hire local photographers and ask them to upload their images over the Internet to Sports Illustrated's servers, Ariav added. "There is a lot of talent out there in the freelance pool, and I think Sports Illustrated has realized that," he said.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>As advanced cameras and lenses have become more affordable, there are more photographers in the market than ever before, and the younger ones who grew up with technology have broader skills, said Larry Bashore, president of VSN Photography, a sports photography company in Sinking Spring, Penn.</em>"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-sports-illustrated-cut-all-of-its-photographers/</p>

[DB_Gallery]

That CBS article, no shocker in the top paragraph, staff jobs at publications have been falling like overripe fruit off trees

for years, too bad they are about to heavily dilute the style of vision these guys have.

 

But that second paragraph....yeah, that's a winner, lol! Interview some hack low end sports portrait and sports button

photographer out of the East Coast who seems to think that being young, buying the latest gear gives one a "broader skill

set"......

 

You have got to be kidding me, these Kmart portrait studios of the sports industry practically live in the shoe treads of

soccer moms, what a joke!

 

I remember how I met some of these guys from SI. I was shooting NFL games for Upper Deck trading cards in the early 90's. Like most pro sports shoots at the time, it was fun, exciting and far more liberal in terms of rights....but it did not pay and by the mid 90's the industry showed signs of being even more rights restrictive. Like other low end dead ends, I bowed out.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I note that the author of the CBS piece, Kim Peterson, did not interview the photographers who got "laid off". He did not even name them. And he did not mention that they will still be working for Sports Illustrated, just in a different capacity.</p>

<p>Who has the "broader skill set": a talented newcomer or a talented, experienced professional? There are no prizes for guessing the correct answer. Do reporters not think critically anymore? Did they ever? Do they have any interests asides from their profession? Going through the motions does not make one a reporter, let alone a journalist. I have long suspected that 'qualifications' for journalism are just as much a joke as 'qualifications' for photography.</p>

<p>And, finally, I note the contradiction when some people say that photography will die because you can pull stills from video. The latter idea is definitely a possibility. But the very fact that you're pulling stills from video means that photography is alive. You're just using a different type of camera (as you did - if you did - when you moved to AF, then to DSLRs, then eventually to mirrorless and/or 4/5/6/8K video).</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

What capacity will they be working in?

[James G. Dainis]

If shooting a EOS-1D Mark IV at 10 frames per second isn't one, in effect, pulling stills from video.

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>What capacity will they be working in?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Freelance.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>If shooting a EOS-1D Mark IV at 10 frames per second isn't one, in effect, pulling stills from video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much. :-)</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm actually not a big fan of <em>Sports Illustrated</em> or the institution I'm about to mention, but it finally occurred to me that this would include the swimsuit issue as well. I see that also occurred to Bob. :}</p>

<p>Or has that been 'free-lance' all along? Those who know may wish to keep it to themselves.</p>