Contrast in staff Photogs vs. outsourcing

Interesting article comparing today's Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times cover photos for the Cubs World Series win last night:

http://petapixel.com …imes-covers-world-series/

The Trib's pic is much better both in composition and execution (The Sun-Times photos focus is off IMO).

The big difference is that the Sun-Times ditched in house photographers and the Tribune still has staff photographers.

That has to be embarrassing, I mean imagine being in the same area of the staff photographers that have the big Canon or Nikon lenses, and your having to get the shot with an iPhone. 108 yrs and your paper can only produce a distant wide-angle shot.

Nothing to do with laying off photographers or not.
1. Better selection, they picked a poor photo, that lies with the editor.
2. Better position, maybe third party had poor access

Was there a third party photog from the same spot? It has nothing to do with quality of photog, more poor "journalism" from petapixel..

To your points:

the selection of photos available to the editor may well have been hampered by who they outsourced the photos from our which writers they had shooting with their smartphones. A good chance that the source in this case which were a rival publisher weren't willing to sell their really good shots.

The access available was quite likely hampered by who they outsourced the photo from or had shooting it

Running your own in house team gives you better control of quality of photos (gear, selection of personnel) and access to take quality photos.

smythie wrote in post #18177743
To your points:

the selection of photos available to the editor may well have been hampered by who they outsourced the photos from our which writers they had shooting with their smartphones. A good chance that the source in this case which were a rival publisher weren't willing to sell their really good shots.

The access available was quite likely hampered by who they outsourced the photo from or had shooting it

Running your own in house team gives you better control of quality of photos (gear, selection of personnel) and access to take quality photos.

They got it from AP shooter, who happens to be in house for another publication. Clearly wasn't a cell phone photo, just a poor photo due to angle. I imagine AP (or other) having a image close to Chicago tribune's photo.... Just not picked.

or available to be picked

smythie wrote in post #18177945
or available to be picked

I see the photo as similar to the Muhammed ali pick standing over a beaten opponent, probably the most memorable sports photo ever. There are multiple versions of that photo, all similar. The people that got lucky with the angle got the most epic picture ever.

if you go google "AP cubs win", it looks like they have every angle covered, even a photo near that of the tribune. Basically a slightly wider, version by Matt Slocum can be found, exactly the same as the tribune version, but tells even more of the story, as you see the guy to the right's reaction. Cropped to the same aspect ratio, the photo would be exact same minus the editing.

I agree with the thought that it was the result of what one editorial room chose over the other. Looking at the other images in the linked article suggests they just don't care about photography - wether that has anything to do with their bottom line has yet to be seen.

What I do question is wether staff photographers are good for the business of photographers in general. When I worked full time at a newspaper and AP wanted us to cover a story there was an added assignment fee it was like a nice little perk to a full time salary that already paid health and provided those big lenses. However PJs who started to work freelance were using that AP assignment rate as their rate not considering their true CODB. Poising the waters for the rest of the industry while allowing publications to perceive the value of photography as nothing more than a fast food meal.

Without staffers, AP shouldn't expect to pay assignment rates that don't cover the cost of having ten to fifteen thousand dollars worth of equipment on location(in harms way, soda pop from excited fans is not friendly) plus health and all the other expenses relating to being a true independent contractor.

Personally I am completely ok with publications removing their staff photographers but then if they do want photos then they need to pay a independent contractor's CODB. How many text only blogs get read?