henkelphoto

See if your lab will do a "test strip". That's where they take a little bit of the film and develop it to find out what's going on. You waste a couple or three frames if 35mm or probably one or two 6x6, but you find out how far off you are.

 

Jerry

Well, I'm a photo editor right now. I have worked for the Times in the distant past as a freelancer. I don't know William

Lobdell, but then again, when I did work for the OC edition, Colin Crawford (current Times director of photography)

was the photo editor down there. However, I don't believe that Lobdell was a photo editor, rather a managing editor

type. Not that that makes much difference to what he's written.

 

Yes, papers have been remiss in not getting into the web sooner. Yes, the job isn't what it used to be.

 

I truely believe that within 10 years, staff still photography at most newspapers will be a thing of the past. Why

waste money on still cameras when HD digital video can and will give you perfectly usable photos. I'm talking current

print sizes right now, most photos (unless an incredibly huge news event) are printed at less than 9 inches wide at

200 dpi. Our paper won't even take a photo larger than 12 inches. You can easily reach this with a 3-5 meg camera.

 

However, the job of "photojournalist" is evolving. Even if news organizations completely dump their print media

(something I don't think will happen in a long, long time), there will still be a place for "photojournalists". Remember,

television cameramen are photojournalists, web video people are photojournalists, and yes, as a freelancer, you will

still be able to get photos in papers and on the web with still cameras.

 

I might make a comment that Mr. Lobdell is looking at the world with a bit of sour grapes right now. Sam Zell is

making a shambles of the Times, but not all papers are that dire. Our group is actually doing well. The best thing that

can happen to the Times would be for Zell to not be able to make his next balloon payment and be force to give up

the paper. I can't believe that someone wouldn't step up and take over the paper with much less debt and make a go

of it.

 

Jerry

Both Bruce and Jeff have valid points.

 

The field is not actually dying however, just in a state of flux. Still photography will soon be a thing of the past in photojournalism. In the near future (probably about 5 years or so for our paper) photographers will be shooting everything on hi-def digital video cameras and frame grabbing for the print media. But Bruce is right in that many, many photoj people are being laid off.

 

Now, you want to work in the field and it's contracting so what do you do? First is build a crackerjack portfolio with both still and video images. Also include audio slideshows. If you want to focus on newspapers, then dump your agent. Not only is an agent not needed to contact newspapers, but he could actually be a detriment to you (Photo Editor: "What the hell do I want with an agent, let me meet the person, not some surogate!") If you want to work the club and celeb scene, then the agent might be of help, but really, if you have no experience in the field what you really need to do is get out there and start doing stuff on your own to build up a portfolio and network.

 

Actually, if I was going to go into photojournalism right now, I would mostly concentrate of video and video editing with Final Cut. I would look to the small newspaper groups who have suburban newspapers. They are more likely to use untried and untested photographers. Figure on working for spec to begin with. Then they might start giving you assignments. But honestly, unless you can land a staff position with a large paper or get an incredibly full plate as a freelancer, I don't think you'll be able to make a living off this in NYC.

 

As for a "steady stream of work", well, once again, you are starting about 20 years too late. I suspect that most newspapers will soon be dumping their photo departments altogether and going to contract for hire where they'll put a person on contract for 2-3 (or maybe more for the most experienced) days a week with no benefits and hire a bunch of people to get around the IRS and there are certainly many photographers who would do that just to get some work right now.

 

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but the industry is going through a shakeout period right now and no one really knows how things are going to come out.

 

By the way, in addition to LA and NYC, I would add Vegas for celeb photography. It's become the party place for celebs in the tv/movie industry as well as sports celebs.

 

Jerry

Ronald,

 

In my case, my answer would be...it depends. Mostly, I try and use manual exposure, but as David says, if the

lighting conditions are constantly changing, it's better to set it on auto. I do generally use auto-focus since my eyes

aren't as good as they used to be. Also, the focusing screens in the new cameras are not very good for manual

focus, no split image. However, occassionally, I do use manual focus. A couple of weeks ago, I was shooting a

horse competition, and since I mostly use spot auto-focus, I couldn't keep the riders in focus as they were all over

the frame. So, I switched to manual focus. Due to my eyesight, I still missed some photos, but it was better then

trying to keep the rider centered in the frame for every shot.

 

BTW, I once edited some film from a photographer at the Los Angeles Times who had gone to a Raiders game with a

stool, an F3 Nikon and a 600 f4 lens. He just sat at one end of the field and shot the whole game from there,

including

the close goal. In other words, from about 10 yards to 120 yards. I don't think there were more than 6 or 8 out-of-

focus frames in all 8 rolls he brought back. I couldn't believe it!

 

Jerry

Gerry's comments about rental cars on the islands is a good point. I lived on Guam for a while and many rentals

had trunks popped. My advice is as above, bring along a small p&s that you can take with you. Also, you might ask

the rental company if they have a car that's a bit "distressed". Anything to make it look like a local drives it.

As mentioned above, always put cameras (or anything else you don't want people to see) in the trunk as you leave

a parking lot. When you want to take photos, take it out and only put it back when you leave.

 

Jerry

I have the polaroid tripod that Alex mentioned. It was originally made for the SX-70 camera. I found one in a photo shop years ago. I have used it extensively when I travel. Very useful when you have a table, wall, or even a car fender (engine off, of course).

 

Jerry

Personally, I'd go with a Nikon F100. That way you get the autofocus and a damn fine camera. Although the Leica sounds like a good deal too...

 

Jerry

Hi guys!

 

I've been wrestling with hdr myself since begining to push the envelope with digital photos with the purchase of my D300. There was an editorial in the latest copy of News Photographer (the house organ for the National Press Photographers Association) concerning the use of hdr in news photography. Making a long article short, the author stated that, AT THIS TIME, the use of hdr in "news" photos is unadvisable. That this may change as time goes on is up in the air. However, one has to look at hdr at the "art" of photography rather than the "documentary" of photography.

 

I mean, I've been in the news business since 1976 and what we used to do with prints in the darkroom is now not considered to be allowed with photoshop. So, what's realism and what's not? Burning out backgrounds and selectively bleaching portions of prints is not realism and we did it all the time.

 

The only problem I have with using hdr for news photos is that in the time it takes to get the required number of images, your scene may change leaving "bluriness" in the completed photo.

Okay, thanks guys. That Sandisk deal at B&H sounds like a good deal, but like Richard, I like to use the smaller cards.

 

Jerry

Hi guys!

 

Fry's Electronics has a sale on 4gb Kingston CF cards for $25. Anybody use

these? Any problems?

 

Thanks for the info!

 

Jerry

Hi Dave,

 

You could always call the Associated Press. They are always looking for good news photos. Their office in Tokyo handles photos from Asia, Australia and Pacifica; London office handles Europe and Africa and New York handles North and South America. I don't have any of their foreign numbers handy, but the New York office is (800) 845-8450.

 

Jerry

There's a nice place in Waimea Bay called the Waimea Valley Audubon Center with all sorts of plants and birds--would be great for the kids. Also, be sure to take a walk in old Honolulu, quite different than Waikiki. The drive around the island is great and there used to be some fresh-water shrimp places on the east side of the island. A trip to the cemetery is a must along with Pearl Harbor. The cemetery is quite somber, but there are loads of information about the campaign in the Pacific during WWII. Also, the hike up Diamond Head is rewarding if you're up to it.

 

I've only been to Maui in addition to Oahu. Lots of fun nature stuff to do on Maui. A snorkling trip to Molokini Crater would be great. Also walk around Lahaina, the Pioneer Hotel (hope it's still around) is the oldest hotel in Hawaii. Haleakala Crater at dawn is a sight to behold and a must for any photographer. Also the trip to Hana is fun, with something like 100 bridges to cross in 30 miles or so.

 

Personally, I think you've got too much equipment. You'll spend a lot of time just trying to figure out what to use and when to use it. (but that's just me, I like to travel light)

Are you sure it's 11 lbs and not 11 kg?

FYI, Valley of Fire is only about 45 minutes north of Las Vegas on I-15. You can get good light there if you leave by 430am or so. It's also good in the afternoon. There is another beautiful place just north of St. George called Snow Canyon. There is a small natural arch in a riparian area in one of the many canyons to hike inside the state park. Lots of good photos in Snow Canyon (and no, you will not see any snow there!)

 

Jerry

If I'm going to an area that I know to be a bit unsafe, I always work with another person. That way, we can watch each others' backs while shooting.

 

There was an instance in So. Utah recently where a couple went out to photograph wild horses in the winter. When they didn't return, everyone thought that they had been the victims of foul play. Surprise was that they showed up 10 days later after being caught in a snow drift and having to walk out. But the threat was there, otherwise we all wouldn't have thought the worse.

 

My wife suggests that when I go out in the wilderness (which isn't so wild anymore--at least the four-legged variety) that I take our dog with me as she can sense something going wrong much sooner than I do.

I have two sigma lenses. The 15-30 is an excellent lens, very sharp but it is quite a handful. I also have a 28-105 and it is not such a good lens. Focusing is inprecise and if you tilt the camera down any amount, the lens will slide out to the 105 setting. I'm planning to replace the 15-30 with a 10-20 for my digital cameras and replace the 28-105 with a Nikon 24-70.

I used to work for a mid-sized daily and we had to provide our own gear which we got a quarterly allowance for and any repairs were paid for by the company. No one ever lost any equipment on the job, but I think they would have partially covered the loss if it had occurred. Now, with digitals costing as much as they do, I think most papers provide a body or two and a few lenses, even small dailies.

 

The daily I work for now provides all equipment and they are very generous, however I'm a photo editor and don't have any company owned equipment. Occasionally, I go out on assignment and do use my own equipment. The company would stand good for any repairs or losses I would incur though.

 

As for using your photos for self-promotion, I agree that I've never seen a paper or wire service who wouldn't let you do that. Just no sales.

Back in 1995, I decided I needed both some new bodies and a few new lenses. I had the Canon F series, 5 bodies and 12 lenses, none of which would be any good to me due to Canon changing it's lens mount. So I was in a position where I had to get a whole new system. I worked for the Associate Press at the time as a photo editor and since they had all Nikon pool gear then, I decided to go with Nikon. It really was a toss-up for me, however I felt a little bitter at Canon for not figuring out a way to use the old lenses on their new bodies.

 

AP switched over to Canon sometime a few years ago, but I don't work for them anymore anyway. One of my friends who still shoots for them now wants Nikon after the Nikon rep loaned him a D3. He says the high iso is unbelieveable. So maybe they will switch back to Nikon.

 

I really think it 6 of one/half dozen of another. See which system fits what you shoot and go with it. For my friend, the D3 is what works best for him, but would that really help a studio photog?