Reuters using bad cellphone pics?

Maybe they've been doing it for a while but this is new to me...

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …es-praise-high-fives.html

-I'm pretty sure that the news industry has been willing to use whatever quality available to "get the shot" since the dawn of photography in newspapers.

-The article you link to has some bad photos, but many )most) were not taken with a cell phone near as I can tell from the depth of field.

Looks like only the training session was taken with a camera phone. My guess was no cameras allowed.

The bad-quality photos was from the video also available on that page.

pwm2 wrote in post #17053476
The bad-quality photos was from the video also available on that page.

Yeah seems like it is more of an issue with capturing a still form the video (which was no that bad)

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17053451
-I'm pretty sure that the news industry has been willing to use whatever quality available to "get the shot" since the dawn of photography in newspapers.

.

so many PJ pics are from cell phones because everyone has one

watt100 wrote in post #17054907
so many PJ pics are from cell phones because everyone has one

Smaller, lighter, easier to carry, and you can upload the photos straight to the paper's servers automatically without having to actually do anything (Just be careful what ELSE you/someone else photographs with that phone...), and as an added bonus, almost no training needed to use one 'well enough'.

Good photography is hard and therefore expensive, but media is happy to endlessly report that nothing is happening, but you should stay tuned and listen to us blather on about this nothing anyway, and profit margins are slimming. Not really surprising a news media outlet is willing to cut corners and trim costs.

pwm2 wrote in post #17053476
The bad-quality photos was from the video also available on that page.

Ok I missed the video that was towards the bottom of the page, so that explains that.

But now I am wondering who decided to pull frames from the video..? Daily Mail or Reuters?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17053451
-I'm pretty sure that the news industry has been willing to use whatever quality available to "get the shot" since the dawn of photography in newspapers.

Yes because content trumps all, especially for breaking news. But in this instance I personally feel that the frames pulled from the video don't add anything - especially since the video is available as well.

Not to mention the fact, the difference in quality compared to the actual photos is quite apparent.

joeblack2022 wrote in post #17055234
Ok I missed the video that was towards the bottom of the page, so that explains that.

But now I am wondering who decided to pull frames from the video..? Daily Mail or Reuters?

More than one newspaper I know about likes to grab frames from video since video doesn't do well as their "front page" material on their web sites or in actual print.