“Too Expensive” or ‘Not Worth It” – There is a Difference

canyon-rim

From Seth this morning:

“Culturally, we create boundaries for what something is worth. A pomegranate juice on the streets of Istanbul costs a dollar, and it’s delicious. The same juice in New York would be seen as a bargain for five times as much money. Clearly, we’re not discussing the ability to pay nor are we considering the absolute value of a glass of juice. No, it’s about our expectation of what people like us pay for something like that.”

And that is the problem – and the solution.

If people are complaining that your photography prices are “too expensive” they may be telling you loud and clear that what you are offering is not ‘worth it’ to them.

That your work is “too expensive” gives absolutely no actionable response. We don’t know what that means. Whether they are low on money or are comparing your pricing to their brother-in-law’s new portrait hobby.

But if they say “your work is not worth – to us – what you are asking for it” then we have something to go on. We can ask why they do not value it more. We can look into creating a value that surrounds the imagery by creating a better story about it. The story is the thing that makes it different.

Things that are ‘worth it’ are usually accompanied by stories that create the value. Without a good, compelling story, it is just a photograph… and that may not be worth it to anyone.

What’s your story?

Are Photographers “Lonely”?

Do we think that by having a great twitter feed and a bunch of cool likes on 500pixies or GPus is the same as having buds? Friends?

People to hang out with – and NOT at a keyboard while in our underwear… real interactions.

I can say unequivocally that the difference that being connected 24/7 has made in the photography business (BEYOND the cameras) is profound.

My studio in Phoenix was always the center of a lot of social activities. Models, MUA’s, stylists, photographers, people in the arts… they would drop by, especially on Saturdays. Just to chat. Just to hang out.

It was a really fun time.

Now… not so much. The studio is there, but the people are hooked to their devices, their networks… and the effort it takes to go ‘somewhere’ is not worth it because when they get there, everyone would be on their devices anyway.

Sad.

Watch.

Why I Like My Nikon Df, And Don’t Care What Others Think

Why I Like My Nikon Df, And Don’t Care What Others Think

Yeah, it seems strange to write an article on why in particular I really love my Nikon Df. Why would anyone give a shit what someone else likes as far as a camera?

And yet, they do. And I kinda get that on some level.

I have heard this camera derided as being too “retro” by people who like the Fuji X-100… yeah. OK. (I love the Fuji as well, but this is not about the Fuji… so I am digressing.) I have read the litany of complaints from those who list no video, dials, slow to operate… blah blah. Yeah, them ‘grampacams’ are like that.

So let’s start out with what I do not care about. If you do care about all this stuff, then this is definitely NOT a review you want to read.

– High ISO (for me, shooting ends so there’s more time for drinkin’…) Shooting at 267,842 ISO means little to me.
– File size. Meh.
– Speed of the camera controls. Actually, I LIKE that they slow me down. More on that later.
– Ergonomics. Fits my hand just fine.
– Controls. Seem easy enough to me. I am fairly smart and can learn to twist a dial. Try it… not that hard actually.

So what do I care about?

– Image quality. Dayam this thing rocks.
– The size/weight of the kit. I already have a bigass kit of Canon DSLR’s in a huge roller bag. We good.
– The way the camera invokes a shot in my mind.

The way the camera itself invokes a shotand that is IT, man. THAT is what I love about this camera.

Some background… I have been a photographer since before dirt was completely made. I have been a photographer since the Kodachrome days. And being a photographer meant that we had different formats of cameras for different types of work.

In my line of work, a generalist with a specialty of people, that meant a lot of kits.

I have an 8×10 Deardorff, a 5×7 Linhoff, a 4×5 Toyo and 5 lenses for that group. I also had a full set of Mamiya RB67’s, a Hassy Superwide, and a bigass kit of Nikons with 4 bodies all motorized.

When a brief would come in, there would be choices to be made. Film, processing, location/studio?

But usually there would be the first inkling of the system choice. Was this to be a view camera shot, or was this a shoot that simply called for 35MM? Should we go MF with the Mamiyas, or could it be time to haul out the big Deardorff?

The images in my head were inexplicably tied to the camera I chose. The camera I chose was absolutely indicative of the images I would make.

Fast action fashion? 35MM probably.
Portraits of cowboys on location? Medium format… even view camera possibly. And the choice would dictate the kind of work that would be produced.
Food would usually mean the view cameras, and model work would usually mean the 35 system.

Personal projects were many times created with the format of the camera in mind – sometimes chosen first. Along with the film of choice.

I did a shoot of old mines in southern Colorado on 8×10 B&W, and the next week shot Navajo coal miners in color on the Mamiyas. A week on the road for Motorola shooting executives in out of the way places was a 35MM shoot, and following that we shot stills of the first cellphones on both view camera and medium format. I would even pre-visualize the final print, as well as the look of it from the choice of film and format as well.

Contact prints of the 8×10 negatives were stunning, and the prints coming off the Mamiya were amazing… and different.

Choices.

Shooting with a view camera is slow, deliberate and exacting. Each exposure takes a considerable amount of time. Focus upside down and backwards on the ground glass – under a black cloth, tilt the lens board, shift the back, adjust and focus again, shut down the aperture, prepare the shutter, insert holder, pull dark slide, wait for camera to settle, make exposure, insert dark slide, remove holder… prepare to do it again. Slow. Deliberate.

And the work that was created was deliberate and exact. There was no ‘rushing’ when using a view camera. A tripod was absolute, as was the preparation before going out to shoot. One shot at a time. One shot.

Medium format was a bit faster. We had a roll of film and a winder tool to advance it to the next frame. But this camera had something else that was unique: We held that camera at waist level, looking down into it. I had viewfinders for eyelevel work, but honestly used them rarely. It was the configuration of the camera that was tactile to working with it that made it part of the choice.

I liked looking down into my SuperWide Hasselblad, and the Mamiyas. I had a stack finder (a vertical tube to look into that kept out the ambient light) but still looking down.

Working with the medium format cameras was also deliberate, although we could move quicker than with a 4×5, and occasionally shoot off-tripod, it was still more meticulous than the 35MM cameras. We had fewer lenses to work with, and yet that too was part of the creative attraction. The big, bulky medium format cameras harkened to me a particular kind of photograph. There was something that the tool brought to the making of the image that I simply cannot explain, other than to say it was real.

The 35MM’s were the most dynamic. Shooting from eye level on a wide assortment of lenses, the work tended to be looser, more fluid… like the tool in the hand of the photographer would allow. Because of the faster cameras, I would make images in bursts (not really easy to do with a 4×5) and from places with difficult access (not easy with the MF cameras). The 35’s were an extension of my eyes. The MF’s an extension of my brain.

The view camera was an extension of my heart.

$(KGrHqMOKpIFJd!toh7IBScjT4QEl!~~60_57

I don’t know if I have explained it well enough for others, and really, not a big deal.

I loved that tactile /creative part of the process. Still do.

Sometime along 2000, it all went away.

The DSLR replaced it all. Food shooters, architectural shooters, fashion shooters, portrait and product shooters all began to use the DSLR for ALL of the work. And the work started to show it. There was something missing from my imagery that was – at the time – unexplainable to me. I did not see the loss of the formats as big of a deal as it invariably was. I have learned over the years that it was indeed a love lost quietly, in the stills of time.

I think it explains my Df attraction.

df

I love it precisely because it is NOT another big DSLR. It is slower to operate, with deliberate dials and knobs. That slows me down, and it makes me think differently about the image. Holding it feels different as well. It is the first DSLR (SLR) that I have been happy with without a grip. Seems to fit my hand well, and feel very good in the way it handles both at the eye and in the resting position.

I would not have purchased a Nikon (although I do love the D700/D800 and secretly have pined for a D3400 in Ferrari Red… ). It would not have been a move up, but simply another big DSLR that – for all their differences – is really not any different than what I already own.

But the Df feels different and that makes me think differently about the photographs I would use it for. The lenses I have for it are all old model AF so they are tiny in comparison to their bigger, newer siblings. I like that as well. A tiny bag (in comparison) with four lenses and I am out the door. No shoulder stress, and no bag on wheels to find a place for.

The slowness, the deliberateness of the camera means a slower, more deliberate approach to the images. Earlier this week I went out to shoot a project for a client. I knew that the Canons were the right choice. Tomorrow I am doing a set of environmental still life and the Df will be on my shoulder. This coming weekend is the Renaissance Fair with my daughter. Nikon V1 is the chosen tool… great images, fast and easy to carry.

I would like to have a Fuji X-100 as well, and a fixed lens 35MM equivalent rangefinder… more choices for different ways of shooting.

So now I find myself with a big DSLR Canon kit (6 lenses – 20MM – 200MM), a single Nikon Df kit (4 lenses – 28, 35, 50, 85) and a Nikon V1 with 24-200 35 equivalent zooms (2). Different strokes and different approaches.

Not the same as before, with all the widely differing variances of tools, physical sizes, film choices, processing choices and more that was such a big part of the mystique, but it will have to do and for the most part, it does rather nicely.

So there you have it. My big reason for the Nikon Df is that it makes me think differently about the images I want to create because it IS different.

Nothing to do with the ‘retro’ of it, or the cool dials, or the amount of megapixels, or the shutter speed or buffer or yaddayaddayadda…

Yeah… big deal, eh?

(Oh, I like the new Sony Quattro system as well. So sue me.)

sony

“Everyone is a Photographer Now…”

Photography:

A recent quote by photographer Mary Ellen Mark has had some angst-driven controversy:

““People are bidding on something that has no value. I thought it was a joke, so I just took a cell phone picture of a real photograph. It is easy to take a good picture and so hard, almost impossible, to take a great picture. It takes years of labor to do this well. Photography is a craft, an art, a point of view. Instagram is not meant to be fine art or a beautiful object; it is social media—a means of communication.”

Yes.

And no.

As photography itself becomes ubiquitous, and slides farther and farther from the ‘craftsman’ column of definition, those practitioners of the craft will bitterly hold on to it – as a drowning person will a life-preserver.

They allowed their self-worth to be determined by the tools, the experience and the learning that they put into the creation of the image.

What used to take days now takes a half second. Or less.

What was a long and somewhat arduous road of practice/failure/practice is now an escalator with rest stops and arcades along the way.

What used to take a year’s salary to purchase can now be done on the phone you use to find out what time it is, or where the local diners are, or check on your favorite sports team’s score. Oh, and make calls too.

Those that fought for every new advance in film ability, or camera technique feel as though their very being was wasted. What good is it climbing up the mountain if at the top there is a parking lot with a mini-mall.

I always cringe when I hear someone say something along the lines of “everyone is a photographer now” with a bit of venom or resignation in their voice.

Yes.

Tis true… but I don’t think that is bad. On the contrary, the amount of imagery, what that imagery is used for and how it is perceived is wonderful, uplifting and socially, personally exciting.

As with anything that has to do with technology, the changes usually end up making the process easier, the outcome more predictable, and the learning curve flatter. This is a sword with two edges – it has always been so.

I think she is right about one thing.

Photography is now communication. Language. A link between people and peoples.

Photography is no more in the residence of those who built it, painstakingly slow and with precision. That was photography as a ‘child’ – to be taught with rules and guidelines and arduous facts.

Photography is now a young person striking out on its own… and it has new rules, new tasks, new sensibilities.

Growth and maturity means a new entity.

What we called photography will endure, but it has a lot wider embrace, and a far deeper pool of practitioners.

That’s cool.

Reposted from Facebook.
What’s Wrong With Photography? Nothing… Its Photo Writers We Should Question

What’s Wrong With Photography? Nothing… Its Photo Writers We Should Question

A review of an article written for F-Stoppers by Lee Morris.

The Nikon DF Represents Everything Wrong With Photography

Or does it?

I have a bad distaste for the bullshit club. The elitists who sit on the sidelines telling others what ‘should be’ without getting in the game. I have never held professional critics to high acclaim either… once it becomes a profession there is a compelling NEED to slam artists as the critics greatest fear is to be thought of as going ‘too lightly’ on someone who was less than stellar.

Add to that the need for the critic themselves to be thought of as far more sophisticated, and far more in tune with the art than the average schlub and you get film critics hailing slop like “Gravity” while passing on films that do well because they  were loved by the ‘masses’ – or to critics – ‘the dirty unwashed…’

Enter this terrible article by F-Stoppers written by a photographer named Lee Morris. It was a bitter, mean spirited article that sought to place Mr. Morris as that ‘on high’ photographer passing the judgement wand over those who didn’t quite ‘measure up’ to his high, high standards.

A NOTE FROME ME (EDITED IN)

Look, let me be clear. If you have a camera, and you like that camera, you can keep that camera. No one will be taking away your camera and forcing you into another camera.
Thank you.

“The Nikon DF Represents Everything Wrong With Photography”

We could wonder at this statement as something to marvel at, but really – what does it mean? What is wrong with photography anyway? I did not know that the wheels were off the rails in photography, did you? But – hell, it’s an online journal and we all know the importance of link bait. Pulled me in – guess it works, eh?

“Are we excited about this camera because of the photography we will be able to capture with it or are we excited because we will look trendy and fashionable holding it?”

Reading a little further in the article, one wonders who ‘we’ is. Clearly not him.

And the question asked begs another question… Why are you so concerned? Does it matter to you what the reason is for another’s interest?

Motive is now a point of contention when wanting to buy a camera?

Really?

“Cameras look the way they do today because they have been made to fit comfortably in your hand. I’ve never heard a professional photographer complain that a camera was too big or too heavy.”

What? Cameras look the way they look today because some designer built them that way based on design points that were measured and specced based on lots of reasons. Ergonomics is only one… And really? If you wanted an ergonomically created camera, it would most definitely NOT look like a DSLR. They are built to look like film cameras. They even have a ‘film chamber’ style – box/back/lens to them.

I take from the statement about weight that he doesn’t remember the very successful campaign that Olympus did with the release of the OM and the OM2… all about weight. The Nikon F3 was smaller than the Nikon F2 – and lighter – and those were features.

That apparently no one wanted – at least in Mr/ Morris’s world.

Personally I have heard many a photographer – me raising hand – that would like to see a less bulky camera, although I do love the feeling of my motor driven old F2’s. Manly men type of machines.

And things change.

“It’s always been really strange to me that this whole micro 4/3 explosion has happened because I feel like I have a pretty decent camera built into my cell phone.”

OK. What do we do with this information, sir? You don’t get it, much of the rest of the photography world does. I guess you… don’t. Feel free to not purchase a micro 4/3 camera. It’s allowed.

“If I want to take a professional picture, then I’m going to grab my professional camera.”

No such thing, Mr. Morris.

Define a “professional” image.

Define a “professional” camera.

Really cannot be done. Professional photographers have been making images on everything from home-made pinhole cameras to the most expensive one-off’s ever created (think the massive Polaroid machine). There simply is no definition of either that makes any sense at all.

But what Mr. Morris is saying is that he feels more “professional” when he has his big DSLR in his hand. Fine – but isn’t that what you are telling the rest of us is ‘wrong’ with photography? That need for ‘show’?

“So please don’t try to tell me you need a DF because it’s so easy to travel with and then strap a 70-200mm to it.”

Ummm… OK… no, wait. I have to tell you that I won’t be finding it easier to travel with and then strap (strap?) a bigass zoom to it. I don’t use bigass zooms. I use really small primes. Don’t tell ME what lenses I have to use… fair?

And really, what if I did? Would that diminish your photographic experience or  life in any way… at all? Have you ever seen a 600MM on the front of a D4? I have… that massive lens makes the camera seem terribly small – and holding it quite a challenge.

So what?

“There is also no way that holding this camera with your fingers will ever be more comfortable than a full-handed grip on today’s cameras.”

So you are an expert in my fingers now? I shot with an F3 for nearly a dozen years. I am perfectly capable of knowing how my hands grip that camera… with love and affection. And no, they never got tired or irritated or – whatever.

So to that statement I simply say – “way”.

“I think it’s safe to say that this camera’s buttons were not chosen with ergonomics or speed in mind, they were chosen to make it look like an old camera.”

Hmmm. maybe. Why do you think speed is important? Not every photographer is into ‘speed’. You want to see speed, use “P”. Lots of photographers – me for one – like the idea of slowing down the process. I never had a winder for my Hasselblad… I LIKED cranking it. It made me pause between shots for a breath. I had motors on my F3’s and would fly through film – a roll in a few seconds in a lot of shoots… only to be handed a second camera from an assistant frantically rewinding and loading the first. And I would choose the large view cameras when I wanted to make sure that things slowed way down.

Those choices were important to me. They were important to a lot of photographers. In fact, up until the F4, whether to motorize the advance of the film was a choice we made as well. And lots of shooters like Eugene Smith chose lighter cameras over the weight of those early motors. Yeah – weight and size did matter to them as well.

“Do you know why older cameras had a mechanical shutter release cables? Because they hadn’t invented better technology like self timer, infrared, or radio triggers.”

Better? Never had the battery go out of my cable release, never had any interference issues with my cable release, and I never had to make sure I had the right frequency on my cable release.

Better sir, is a term not suited for this discussion.

(And the self timer is quite old in camera construction… makes me wonder how much the author really knows about this stuff.)

“When I saw a picture of this camera being used with a physical shutter release cable it was proof that my theory was correct: so many people don’t care about pictures anymore, they just want to be “photographers.” “

Another whiner. Soooo concerned about how many people are photographers… You know what, Mr. Morris, it is exactly that point that makes me excited. I LOVE that there are lots of photographers. I LOVE that others have found the absolute joy of image making, and are finding ways to express themselves. I don’t find it an abomination, nor do I think there is something ‘wrong’ with photography because of that newfound expression.

I genuinely feel a bit sorry for those photographers who seem to be so put out by the fact that their art is enjoyed by many others. And, Mr. Morris, we are ALL photographers now. Get used to it.

When I saw that cable release, I thought about the tactile thrill of holding that shutter button and pressing it at the exact moment when all came together in my viewfinder. I had a physical connection to the camera that was real. I do not feel that when connected by wireless – and there are most definitely a time and place for that wireless connection.

We get to make that choice. Choice is good in my world.

“Using an outdated/obsolete device to take a picture makes you more of an artist today.”

No, sir. It simply is a choice my hands and heart makes. You may feel free to not ever use these old, antiquated tools. I would like to make the choice TO use them if I wish. That OK with you? If I ask nicely?

“This product exists to appeal to the same people who have gone out and bought film cameras recently because they are “too artistic” to use digital like everyone else.”

(I promised myself to not go to my usually outraged voice, but this statement pushed me to the edge of that promise. Deep breaths…)

That statement is so arrogant, so self-centered and so desperately out of touch with the subjects he is talking about that it brings into question his bona-fides. “Like everyone else…”

Does he know about artists like Richard Rinaldi, or shooters like Jennifer Boomer?

Wait… no, he doesn’t. Never mind. Let’s move on.

“You may not shoot video, you may not care about video, you may hate that still photography and video are merging. It doesn’t matter what your opinion on video is, the fact is that removing features from a product does not make a product “revolutionary.” “

I have not seen that term used with this camera. Have you? We call that a “straw man” argument. And maybe the ‘revolutionaly’ approach is the size and the way the features ARE laid out – even though not to the liking of Mr. Morris.

I am glad I do not have to worry about my opinion on video while reading HIS opinion on this camera. So many opinions… I would get lost.

“If Nikon had a logical reason why this camera couldn’t shoot video then I would be fine with it but we all know with a simple software update the camera could shoot amazing video like every other DSLR.”

More arrogance (unfounded I am afraid) on display.

It doesn’t have video. I don’t want the camera to have video. I want the camera to be the camera. I have video on nearly every other camera, and I simply do not want it.

I still have the right to NOT want something, don’t I Mr. Morris? Is there a form that I need to submit to be allowed to want what I want?

“When I first saw this camera I have to admit that I was excited, and for many reasons I still am. But I had to ask myself why?”

No. Really. You didn’t.

“Is this camera going to help me take better pictures?”

An interesting question, Mr. Morris. Does any camera in your opinion help make a ‘better’ photograph? I am not in that group. I think that the photographer makes the image, and the image is all I care about. A crappy photographer with a Rebel can get a 5DMKIII and guess what – still shitty photographs, just sharper a bit.

And online it makes no difference anyway. And so many photographers are simply shooting for online delivery that the idea that a Rebel cannot compete with a 1D in a 900 pixel wide image is laughable.

But I am not laughing.

“Is my photography business going to improve if I buy it?”

Nope. Would your photography business improve if you bought a Hassy? If the answer is yes, move heaven and earth to get it. I simply cannot imagine what piece of gear could improve one’s business. Dollars for marketing, or a studio in a better neighborhood – maybe. But a camera?

“Am I only excited because this camera looks different than other current cameras, or does this product only appeal to me because it reminds me of the first camera I ever owned?”

I don’t know. If it was, is that wrong?

Are the people who lovingly restore their vintage cars everything that is wrong with transportation today?

Are those who ride the older style motorcycles, the retro Triumphs and BSA’s and Indians everything that is wrong with motorcycling today?

Are those who listen to music on vinyl, preferring it to the CD everything that is wrong with recorded music today?

Or are they folks that make a choice. They choose something that may remind them of a time when the camera was an extension of their eye, and did only what we wanted it to. When part of the process was to choose the film type, the ISO, the processing baths… when the camera was simply a tool for the eye to look through and the brain to calculate… the heart to feel.

Perhaps it is something that brings them closer to a time that they remember and love… like a sentimental Hallmark card, or watching Costner plow the field waiting for someone to come.

That is isn’t what is wrong with photography today.

What is wrong with photography is everybody getting all vexed over what someone else is doing. What is wrong is that we have a whole new crop of people TELLING us what is good, what fits our hand, what will not be worth it to us.

TELLING us instead of allowing us to make choices based on our own needs, wants and desires.

“I’m honestly really excited that Nikon is doing something “different” but at the same time I would hate to see this camera, which I believe in many ways is a massive step backwards, become the best selling “pro” camera simply because it looks cool. We buy things every day because of the way they make us feel and that’s fine. I believe this camera will bring a lot of people a lot of joy. I just don’t want you to forget that we are supposed to enjoy photography, and not just being fashionable photographers.” (And yeah, I left out the link to the author’s workshop in the Bahamas… will let you go there on your own.)

I am staggered by the arrogance and the fake humility on display here. He is trying to ‘save’ us from the pitfalls of buying a camera because we like it, or how it looks, or because we can stand around with it and a bottle of Pabst Blue Ribbon listening to our AM radios and singing DooWop? It’s OK… we don’t really need saving. We are capable of making a $3000 camera purchase without being totally, you know, clueless.

Seriously.

No, there is nothing wrong with photography today. The problem is with photographers.

And possibly photo media… ya think.

Always has been.

EDIT… I was accused of removing a comment that was not favorable to me. I assure you I did not. Here is the screen shot for those of you who may have been told that I did. You can scroll to the comment on your own, but I thought this was really a cool way of adding a little graphic to the fun. Heh.

chuck

On the Sun Times Firings… One Month Later

On the Sun Times Firings… One Month Later

(NOTE: I do not get any newspapers, nor am I at all interested in newspapers as they are printed… If I want yesterday’s news, I can listen to it on the radio. Newspapers are desperately trying to find a way to keep going without changing what they do. It is not possible, but they will continue to be surprised by every new trend that comes along until they shutter the doors, and sell off the furniture. Not if, but when. That is my personal opinion and of course may shade what I write.)

This may not win me any friends, but I have somethings to say about the Sun firings that I gotta get out. A comment on another thread got me thinking about it like this:

The Sun-Times fired all their staff photographers.

They were indeed the first to do this en-mass, but do remember that the NYT and LAT and SF Chronicle made massive cuts a few years ago. Also add ESPN and a few weekly magazines to the list. I think I read something about Sports Illustrated as well, but not sure if it was the entire staff.

The Sun may be the first newspaper to fire the entire crew, but they won’t be the last. Not by a long shot. Many other papers are down to only a small handful, and whether they fire them or let them retire will be a matter for the owners. (I have no doubt they will NOT do the honorable thing, most of newspaper owners are assholes. While that is not a scientific acknowledgement, I believe it to be true.)

Some say it is all about the bottom line, but I think in this case the bottom line is change.

Spot news has changed. The people on the scene now have technology that can record both video and photographs, and – they are there NOW. A PJ must be dispatched, sent across town, awakened… whatever, but they are usually NOT on the ground when the spot news is breaking.

Most people do not have any discerning taste regarding spot or hard news shots. Just watch the incredibly lame and terrible video that passes for local news any evening. Kids in garages could (and do) make better. How many people call the newspaper to complain about the tonal range or excessive sharpening of that shot of the car accident on Main? Sure, G+ photographers do, but who else?

As to the ‘beat’ photographer… the guy or gal who checks in at the local cop station and hangs around waiting for a grab shot or two… no one cares anymore. That was of interest to the public at an earlier time, it is not anymore.

A quick snap of an iPhone of the mayor giving a press conference is fine for most dailies. Think of the shots where the PJ’s are all lined up with cameras in the air shooting a talking head giving a press briefer… do we really need Pro’s for that anymore? The shots are generally tepid to boring.

Photo from this article which you should read as well.

iPhones in the hands of reporters can make tepid, boring photographs just fine. Add one of them cool camera phone filters and – wow. But I digress…

In this PP article, they show cover/cover comparisons of the Trib and the Sun side by side. And while the Stanley Cup covers can be held up as a “see we told you so” moment, the rest of the comparisons seem to be not so harshly decided. The Sun continues with the same sort of stuff it had before.

Is that surprising? It is disappointing?

Do YOU have a subscription to the Sun-Times?

Just asking…

I do not pretend to like this new trend, but I do recognize that it is a trend that will not be reversing any time soon. Every major story in the past 3 years has been covered by folks on the scene with camera phones and P&S’s, the PJ’s coming last to the scene.

The plane in the Hudson didn’t wait to sink till the PJ’s got there from Midtown, nor were any PJ’s on the scene in Boston when Muslim terrorists blew up innocent people. Riots in the streets of Cairo, to shootings in the streets of Washington DC, the people there have it… stills, video, the whole shebang. By the time the PJ gets there, they body is covered and the cops are taking statements.

That was enough then, it isn’t now. It won’t be going back to the old ways.

The world has changed… and PJ’s better change along with it.

Or risk being the subject of nostalgic documentaries made by those who did.