henkelphoto

<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>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>I've only shot one fight that was televised by HBO and that was a long time ago (maybe 10 years?). So I don't know how they light their fights now, but you really want to be able to use 500 or 1000 for a shutter speed, so that will mean a real lot of light to get above f4. And, unless you have one of the newest cameras, you'll want to keep your iso at 1600 or less.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey Charles,</p>

<p> I see that no one has answered you, I will try and give you some advice, but please be aware that this is free advice ;-)</p>

<p>First, I would ask if you have the possibility of renting a 600 f4 lens. If you want anything but a full ring shot, I would suggest that. A 300 with a converter will give you a pretty good shot, but a 600 would work better. I would advise against the 1.7x converter as I believe it will drop your max f-stop by 2 stops or at least 1.5 stops...that might be a problem. Also, converters don't usually work very well in low light conditions.</p>

<p>As for weigh-ins, my experience is that the 70-200 would work best. I have never been close enough to use the 24-70 except for full stage photos.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>At the newspaper where I worked from 1980 to 1987, we used to push Tri-X to about somewhere in the neighborhood of 6400 or so. We really didn't know what the ASA rating was because most cameras stopped at 2000asa. Our benchmark was that we had to be able to shoot at 1/250 at 2.8. So we just came up with development times that worked for our stadiums and gyms. For instance, we used to process in HC110 at 85 degrees for around 5 minutes. Normally you'd process at 68 degrees for 3 minutes. Also we would use a 1-16 dilution of Rodinal at 75 degrees for about 20 minutes, if we had the time. That would give us much less grain than the HC110 would have. Of course, we would use the 85 1.8 or 35 2.0 if possible, but night football was a real problem due to having to use the 200 2.8 (notice no zooms at that time). </p>

<p>Once we had to get out prints from a basketball game so quickly, we could only stay five minutes after it began, that's 5 minutes of real time, not game time. Today, we have such a luxury of time due to digital it's really not at all unusual to be able to stay an entire game. </p>

Jeff, thanks for the reminder!

As I work in the newspaper field, I tend to have tunnel vision and only consider the editorial option when

thinking about photojournalism. Certainly there are many ways to be a sports photographer outside of the

editorial field. In fact these days, the options may be higher for commercial sport photographers. As for video, I

can't agree more. Even in the newspaper field, we mostly will not hire any photographer at this time who

doesn't have video experience.

Jerry

<p>Hi Andrew,<br>

Sports photography is an enjoyable field. Unfortunately, there aren't too many jobs specifically for sports photographers. As stated above, most people who shoot sports are working for newspapers, wire services or websites. My first suggestion to you would be to get close to your college newspaper and yearbook editors. Join the staffs. There are probably people who are already working as photographers for the paper and yearbook and they can take you under their wings and help you out.<br>

It sounds like you are just starting out. If that is true, your desires may change so I wouldn't necessarily suggest going to a photojournalism school right off the bat. Get in a couple of years at the college you are going to now. If your interest continues, you can always transfer to a j-school beginning your junior year. You won't miss out on too much and if you are able to photograph those sports at your school now, you will be that much ahead of those kids who started out in pj school (seriously, have you ever seen the sidelines at Univ. of Missouri football games? At least a dozen student photogs all trying for the same shots.)<br>

As for assisting, well, there just aren't many jobs for assisting a sports photographer. Passes are very hard to get and if you were to be an assistant for a sports photographer, your job would most likely be filing photos.<br>

Good Luck!</p>

<p>Wow, what a lively thread! Sorry I’ve come to it late. However in the interests of giving information to the OP, I would submit the following.</p>

<p>First off, I’ve been in the photojournalism field since 1976. Currently, I’m splitting my time half as a photographer, half as a photo editor.</p>

<p>For lenses for news/documentary photography, I would definitely say…it depends. I am working with a Nikon D300 and D700 bodies. Mostly, I carry three zoom lenses in my bag, a 14-24mm 2.8, a 24-70mm 2.8, and a 70-200mm 2.8. However, I also have a 300mm 4.0, that I keep in the car. On occasion, I’ve also used my 35 2.0, 50 1.8, 135 2.0 and a 10.5mm 2.8 fisheye. I also have a Nikonos V UW film camera with two lenses, a 35mm and 20mm.</p>

<p>I’ve noticed that most of the people who have posted are not and have never been in the news field. Apparently, a lot of you think we spend all of our time doing huge pool events with dozens of other photographers jockeying for position. The idea that all we photojournalists ever do is celebrity shoots is unfortunate. Rarely do I do celebrity shoots. Mostly, I photograph everyday people in the community doing normal or extraordinary things. I also photograph a lot of sports. Occasionally, I end up in a pool position where I have to jockey with other photographers. Usually, I’m the only photographer at an event. Sometimes, there is another still photographer from our competition and a few videographers from tv stations.</p>

<p>As a newspaper photographer, I rarely worry about excessive noise in my photos. Once the photos hit newsprint, noise is not a problem. Consequently, I shoot a lot of photos at 1600 or 3200 iso, something that my D700 does exceedingly well. I try not to use flash any more than I have to. I don’t find 2.8 lenses to be a detriment as concerns the “speed” needed to do photos. Sometimes, when shooting a lounge act, I’ll pull out the 35 2.0 and the 135 2.0 since they give me another full stop, the 50 adds another half stop. Wide open, 2.8 doesn’t give the short dof that those lenses do, but I really don’t notice all that much more dof anyway. Besides, the 35 2.0 isn’t as sharp wide open as my 24-70 2.8 is wide open anyway.</p>

<p>I hope that these comments from a working photojournalist will help the OP choose which lenses he decides to get.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Hannah,</p>

<p>First, what type of diver are you? Experienced or novice. if you are a novice, don't even consider spending the money to get a dslr housing and flash units for uw photography. It's just too expensive on something that might be a flash in the pan for you. I've been a diver for around 40 years and can't tell you the number of divers who get certified one year and quit diving in the next year or two. So, decide if you really, really want to spend multiple thousands of dollars on equipment that won't do you any good if you give up the sport.</p>

<p>Now, that doesn't mean you can't do uw photography. A G10 or 11 will give you great photos. Also Sealife makes a great little camera and flash combo for around $600 that is a dedicated underwater setup.</p>

<p>As for the Nikonos, I've got a V and it's a great camera. However, it is film camera and a non-rangefinder film camera at that. What that means is that there is a viewfinder, but you have to turn a knob and estimate your distance. No easy above water, downright difficult underwater. If you get a Nikonos with the normal (35mm) lens it usually comes with, assume a success ratio of 1-35 for every roll of film you put through it until you learn how to use it. In other words, if you go that route, shoot a lot of photos with it underwater at subjects you really don't care if you get or not before that once-in-a-lifetime trip. If you are not familiar with film (and alot of photographers these days are not), I would forget about the Nikonos, even though you can get them pretty cheap. And the 15mm lens mentioned above will run about $600 for a nice one. Consider all the film and processing (and lost photos due to improper focus) and it becomes much more expensive than a good p&s camera in a housing pretty quick.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Unlike Steve, I'm not solely a sports shooter, but I am a newspaper shooter, and I find myself using my D300 more for sports than my D700. I like the additional reach and since I shoot most sports JPEG, I really don't see a decrease in speed (I use the AA tray so my D300 and D700 both reach 8fps). I will admit that I really, really miss the larger viewfinder when shooting the D300.<br>

On to your original question about lenses, since you asked about dirt track, I would agree with others that the 70-200 will do most of your work. However, if you go to a NASCAR-type track, you will need a 300 or 400. With other sports, the 300 is invaulable. Baseball, day football, soccer, golf (an absolute must!), even tennis are all better with a 300. And that's even on a D300 body!<br>

My advice is to start with a D300s--they're only 1500 right now, and spend the extra money on a 70-200 VRII. Later on, you can add a D3s or whatever is the current model or buy a used D3s for a great price when the newest model comes out. I don't know who you are shooting for, but the D300 will give you good images at 3200iso if needed (remember, I work for a newspaper), which will give you a 2.8-4.0 f-stop at 250-400 at most high school stadiums for night football. We'd all like a higher shutter speed, but it's far better quality than when we used to have to use TriX pushed to 3200 and processed in HC110.<br>

Jerry</p>

<p>Thanks all,<br>

Unfortunately, we are flying so I won't have a long lens. The wildflowers sound great. Hopefully, while riding we will see some wildlife!</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>HI Guys!</p>

<p>I'll be travelling to Bandera, Texas, in a few weeks for some business. I'll have a three day weekend to spend photographing. Can anyone suggest some likely things to shoot? I've never been to the hill country of Texas before. I plan on doing at least one day of horseback riding.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Be especially aware of the weather if you do go through Titus Canyon. If there are rains in the area, even 20 miles away, it might be wise to skip the drive as there is nowhere to get to high ground once you are in the canyon proper. Flooding there can reach 10-15 feet up the canyon walls if a real hard rain comes down.</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p> I'm about to upgrade to a D700 and use my D300 as backup. Right now I have CS3 and have no problems with my D300 raw images. Does anyone know if I will be able to read the D700 raw images on CS3 or will I have to upgrade my photoshop to CS4?</p>

<p> Thanks!</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

<p>Hi Carlos,<br>

I've got a D300 that I use for newspaper work. 1600 is great, 2000 is okay. I find 3200 to be a bit too noisy and don't use it unless really needed. I was shooting a lounge act the other night and was getting 1/40 at 2.8 at 1600. Needless to say, I moved up to 3200 which gave me a marginal 1/80 to use...okay with my wide angle, but I had to brace myself pretty good to use the 80-200. I'd like to get a D700, but just purchased a 24-70 2.8 so it's out of the question for now!<br>

Jerry</p>

<p><em>"However, simple distractions could be removed by burning in or dyes: a distracting utility pole growing out of a subject's head, or wires in the background that appeared to be going through the ears."</em><br>

Lex, I don't know where you've heard this, but I've worked at a few papers (Springfield (MO) News-Leader, Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, Pacific Daily News in Guam, and currently at the Las Vegas Review-Journal) and The Associated Press either as a staffer or freelancer and not one of those papers or the AP would allow the above to be done.<br>

Jerry</p>

<p>If you want the genuine article, here's a link to Jacobson Blimps. This is the one many people in Hollywood use.</p>

<p>http://www.soundblimp.com/Default.htm</p>

<p>Jerry</p>

Gwen,

If you want to make a career as a stills shooter, you will need to become a member of IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees). Some films utilize non-union shooters, but they are invariably the least paying (sometimes "just for the experience") of any films. Union films, which include virtually all major productions, only use IATSE shooters. To become a union member, you need to have a certain amount of time on a film set (used to be 30 days over a period of one year). Catch-22? You bet. You ask, how can I become a union member if I have to be a union member to be able to get the experience to become a union member? The answer is, if all union shooters are occupied elsewhere a non-union person can be hired. (This is where you really, really need to know people in the business.) Also, a production can hire a non-union shooter as long as they hire a union shooter as well and let the union guy sit it out (This is where you really, really need a relative who's a producer).

Now there are always cracks in the ceiling, but you really need to be in Southern Cal or NYC to be able to take advantage of them. You need to be willing to work for free for a while (maybe up to 2 years) before being invited to become a union member. You need to be able to go on location. You need blimps (they are available from Jacobson Blimps).

A while ago, the film companies negotiated a change in the union agreement stating that they no longer needed a stills photographer at every day of filming. This, I'm sure, is now soon to be renegotiated due to the fact that digital cameras are close to being able to make frame grabs, making a stills photographer largely unneeded.

Pay can be good if you work alot, but most shooters do not work as much as they would like to.

Good luck in your endeavor.

Jerry

Be aware that recently there have been some problems with customs in Bali. Here is a link to a thread on Wetpixel documenting the problems.

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=22814

Jerry

I'm surprised that the Times would pull a photo off the web and use it without permission. It is common knowledge

among newspaper photo editors that all photos on the web have an inherent copywrite. If you don't want to anger the

Times' photo editor, give him/her a call and mention that you really liked the play your photo got and next time would

they please call or e-mail you asking for permission to use one of your photos (with full credit).

Be aware that many authors freely give away (or grant permission to pull from the web) photos of themselves with no

thought of copywrite or payment even though they themselves would be irate if someone copied a passage from their

book without paying them.

I'm assuming this was used as a small thumbnail photo and not as a centerpiece photo for the article. Sending them

a bill for a photo that was used in that way without permission will do nothing except make them sure to never use

you as a

freelancer. A letter from an attorney might get you some money, but with the same results.

Well, it all depends on what you call "good pay" I used to work for AP in the 90's and our base pay in Los Angeles

was $55k per year. These days, I'm sure it's higher. Also there is "merit" pay. And, of course, since AP makes its

own pay rules, if they really, really want you, they can pay alot more. One photographer I knew was making over 75k

for them. And let's not forget overtime. Many photographers in the 90s would almost double their pay with overtime. I

have heard this has been much curtailed now, (I haven't been with AP for 10 years) but they still put in a lot of

overtime. How much do you think the photogs at the Beijing Olympics put in? I'd guess around 12 hrs per day for 16

days straight (maybe one or two days off during that time).

Now to some out there who are doing commercial work, 55k + overtime isn't much, but it's a livable wage and there

are hundreds of photographers who would jump at the chance to work for an organization like that. I remember one

time when one of the photographers was grousing about how she was having a crappy day. I told her, "Look, all you

have to do today is sit on a stool for 3 1/2 hours on a nice sunny day shooting a S.F. Giants game. Then spend

another hour and a half in the darkroom (still using film then). That's it. Do you know how many people would kill for a

job like that?"

As for the "can't spell cheap without the AP" it's a common line we all used. I'll bet most are still working for AP

when they say that. Come on, how many people gripe about their pay? I bet even Bill Gates says "I wish I were

making more money" once in a while.

Jerry

Andy,

As for pay, that will most definitely depend on where you are located and how big the paper is. AP pays

depending on geographic region, i.e. the larger the market, the higher the pay. Out here (Las Vegas) they pay

$250 per assignment. I've heard that they have just gone to this rate in Los Angeles also. I don't know what they

pay in the midwest, but they average around 250-300 on the east coast. Papers usually have a standard rate they

pay all stringers and usually don't "stiff" the newby.

Yes, in fact most papers and especially the AP require a contract stating they have full rights. If you are

working (received an assignment) for a paper and that picture goes on to make the paper a mint (highly doubtful)

then they get to keep the money unless they have an agreement to split proceeds with the photographer (some do).

However, bear in mind that AP doesn't pay papers for use of their photos. Neither do television stations that

have AP accounts. There are exceptions which would probably fill another thread, but bottom line is very rarely

do photos pay big bucks on distribution on AP. NOW, if you happen across a photo and take it down to the local

paper, THEN it's yours and they are generally buying one-time rights. Of course, you can always go directly to

some big agency if it's really a once-in-a-lifetime shot and get them to represent the photo.

A good example of how you don't get residuals for photos from AP is the photo from the Vietnam war of the nude little

girl running from a napalm attack. The photographer was Nick Ut, who still works for the AP in their LA office

today. He was a stringer at the time of the photo. He has never received any residuals from that photo and the AP

has made many, many thousands of dollars off the licensing of it. Of course, they got Nick out of Vietnam and

gave him a job he's held for his whole life (he was 16 when he shot the photo) so I guess you could say he's been

amply reimbursed for the photo.

It can be argued that papers shouldn't have total rights to the photos, but their reply is that the stringer

wouldn't have been at the time and place without the assignment from them. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

Take it or leave it.

Jerry

Hi Andy!

First off, good luck to you, there's about 200 people looking for each job that's available. That said, openings do occur and we (I work for a paper) are always looking for good, reliable stringers. In fact, right now, even with the downturn in the print media, we would love to have two or three more stringers available.

My suggestion to you is don't bother the managing editor, he'll just turn you over to the photo editor anyway and if you try to see a managing editor, it may be weeks before he or she can set an appointment with you. The photo editor/director of photography is the direct contact anyway, so go there first. I would highly recommend a phone call to set up a personal interview. If you just send an e-mail, it may not get answered. (I come in every day and have to weed through about 100 e-mails just to catch up from overnight). Three things to remember when going to an interview with a newspaper photo editor. First, he wants to see your best work. It doesn't have to be photoj work, but that will certainly help. (And if all a person has is pretty flowers and portraits, he really shouldn't be applying for a stringer job with a newspaper anyway). Second, be prompt. All of us at a paper are really busy and don't have time to wait around for a late appointment (also be prepared to wait, if breaking news hits, you will be put on a back burner). Third, present a professional attitude. Don't be tentative. Be prepared to discuss photo issues, both about photography and ethics. Not saying this will come up, but it could. Also as part of a professional attitude, wear nice clothes--you don't have to wear a suit, but don't come to an interview wearing a t-shirt and old jeans.

As a stringer, you will have to understand that there may be days or weeks between assignments when you first start. You will be given crap assignments at first to see how you do. Pay is not good (although the AP is paying pretty well these days). In most cases, you will have to sign a contract stating that the images you shoot while on assignment for "xyz" paper are the property of said paper and you will have no rights to them with the exception to using them for self-promotion.

As for format of your portfolio, I would bring in a nice print portfolio but have a cd available to leave with the photo editor along with a one-page resume (best if this is included on the cd.) with all your contact information. If you have business cards those would also be great to leave.

Again, good luck!

Jerry

I recently got Panda after one of our IT techs suggested it. Seems to be working well, it picked up 58 spyware apps that Norton missed; and automatically updates every time you access the internet. I had problems pulling Norton off my system as well. It actually acts like a virus when you try to uninstall it. I ended up having to download an uninstall tool from Symantics in order to get it off my system. I told my wife if I ever think about loading Norton again to whack me on the head.

Jerry