Newspaper Websites

[shruggy63]

I've noticed a trend for newspapers publishing reader-submitted photos on their websites moving from small local publications to highly respected, international media sources. Okay, on the one hand you may be be providing free content for their websites but on the other you're getting kudos, a nice line on the CV & possibly more.
I, obviously, have to caution everyone about being sure they're copyright safe(!!!) but, personally, I'd quite like to have one of my pics on the London or NY Times websites.
I'll include a URL for the British Guardian newspaper because, imo, they're a very ethical organisation.
Green shoots frequently asked questions | Environment | guardian.co.uk
It's the FAQ page that leads back to the main pages that include a monthly assignment, etc.

[jdepould]

Vehemently disagree.

[Jim Bryant]

You and others are one of the reasons why newspapers across the United States and elsewhere have cut not only their editorial staffs, but photographer positions as well. As long a viewers submit free mediocre photography, the bean counters and publishers (most publishers and editors) receive bonus checks for saving budget. So, what you're doing is putting more money into their greedy pockets and give them a reason to layoff staffers.
I've been laid off from two different newspapers, one was a twice weekly and the other, a Hearst owned paper, the 159 year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which was the largest newspaper in Washington. But what the hell, you already have a full time job, and look upon photographer to make a little beer money or a free credit line.

[shruggy63]

I'm not a young guy/girl myself Jim but I'm sure you'll agree that the young up-n-coming guys should be encouraged? & I disagree that amateur photos in the papers are always mediocre, most times the bored, jobbing staffer will be less motivated to get the best shot?
Maybe the change from being a secure member of staff to the need to diversify within the spe******m of still photography is a good thing. These days a staff photographer would also be expected to be a video camera man & sound recordist too?

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by shruggy63

I'm not a young guy/girl myself Jim but I'm sure you'll agree that the young up-n-coming guys should be encouraged? & I disagree that amateur photos in the papers are always mediocre, most times the bored, jobbing staffer will be less motivated to get the best shot?
Maybe the change from being a secure member of staff to the need to diversify within the spe******m of still photography is a good thing. These days a staff photographer would also be expected to be a video camera man & sound recordist too?

True! Some of the staffers I know just get by day to day by producing only what's expected of them. But it seems that a lot of the photos I've seen submitted by non staffers are are just snaps. Why, because more than likely those photographers are not trained photojournalist that look beyond the obvious and try to come up with that's not been shot before.
Sure times are changing where a still photographer must produce multi media and video as well. They are teaching multimedia in schools now, but so far it hasn't been a requirement for all staff photographers to embrace. Only the young, smarts ones look ahead and learn as much as they can. Sadly to say, that's why so many photographers are out of work these days.

[shruggy63]

But a talented young un could be the next Weegee? If the current media could accept the starkness of those images. I've really enjoyed your thoughts mate & I've bookmarked your sites so I can look at your pictures. I'm pretty much a complete amateur photographer so I'd appreciate it if you kicked my arse in the critique section in a helpful way if I dare to submit again ;-)

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by shruggy63

But a talented young un could be the next Weegee? If the current media could accept the starkness of those images. I've really enjoyed your thoughts mate & I've bookmarked your sites so I can look at your pictures. I'm pretty much a complete amateur photographer so I'd appreciate it if you kicked my arse in the critique section in a helpful way if I dare to submit again ;-)

Who knows........I know plenty of folks, both young and old alike, who aren't photojournalist that are fine shooters because of the ease of digital photography. I'll do anything to help ya in the progress. Just email me at jim@jimbyantphotography.com Just let me know if you submit something and I'll be glad to kick your butt! However, you'll get some tips on how to improve as well.

[shruggy63]

Thanks big un

[Jim Bryant]

Welcome.............don't be shy!

[weldflash]

I shoot for a small town daily (no Sunday paper) and we also post reader's pictures online. We do a "reader callout," which is corporate mandated, to keep "readers personally involved" with the paper. Every couple of weeks, we advertise for reader pics of a different subject and they get published on a certain page at the end of that callout, then posted online in a photo album, by me. I am also the one that does all the internet stuff. We now have small point & shoot video cameras because we have to start putting video online as well. With cuts in staff, I also have to put together a page of the newspaper, as well as the internet stuff.

We do accept provided photos, like check presentations, ribbon-cuttings (yes, we're that small a paper) and the like. But that's fine by me because I hate to take pics of people just lined up. There comes a point where I just can't make an "firing squad" picture interesting anymore and I don't really care to. I'm at my best when I can get out in my car and find a picture, if I have time. But I manage to always have a shot everyday.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that big media corporations are the downfall of newspapers. We have to post our top stories online to a free homepage every single day. Why buy a real newspaper when you can read most of the front page for free?