Photographer
Michael McGowan
Posts: 3829
Tucson, Arizona, US
If you learn photo and video and you're the lucky photographer who is kept on the job, you'll get to do twice as much work, including editing the "free" video the company brings in. Yes, you'll have a job, but it'll be a job of going through the free product and trying to make it look halfway good.
Very few photojournalists actually get to do much photojournalism anymore. Cuts to staff and dumping of duties onto fewer and fewer people mean the shooters have less and less time to produce more and more.
It's sad, but the web is killing newspapers, because people won't pay for news. They get what they want online. What they don't realize is the money they spend for access doesn't get to the people who produce their news. And that means fewer and fewer reporters and photographers (even if they do learn video).
Thing is, at the same time newspapers and magazines are trying to punch up their visual appeal. Wonder when they'll give that up, too?
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
Michael McGowan wrote:
If you learn photo and video and you're the lucky photographer who is kept on the job, you'll get to do twice as much work, including editing the "free" video the company brings in. Yes, you'll have a job, but it'll be a job of going through the free product and trying to make it look halfway good.
Very few photojournalists actually get to do much photojournalism anymore. Cuts to staff and dumping of duties onto fewer and fewer people mean the shooters have less and less time to produce more and more.
It's sad, but the web is killing newspapers, because people won't pay for news. They get what they want online. What they don't realize is the money they spend for access doesn't get to the people who produce their news. And that means fewer and fewer reporters and photographers (even if they do learn video).
Thing is, at the same time newspapers and magazines are trying to punch up their visual appeal. Wonder when they'll give that up, too? Well, by learning video, not only will one have a better chance of working at a newspaper, but one will have a better chance of gaining new clients elsewhere too, as more and more clients are demanding stills & video. By being a first mover in learning to shoot both stills & video @ the same time, one can maximize one's revenues, brand, and future opportunities.
Photographer
FKVPhotography
Posts: 30064
Ocala, Florida, US
Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
really? care to prove that? seriously, quantify that statement with actual facts or admit you don't know what you are talking about. Don't know about video but learning how to write a basic story sure helps.....it no only got me one job but got another, as a restaurant critic to go.......it was a lot of fun while it lasted and not only got more of my photos published but made other editors aware of my added capability and when you're freelancing....that is a big deal!!.....since there were a dozen other photographer crawling up my butt trying to get the same assignments but they couldn't supply copy.....so guess who grabbed all the pearls.....LOL!
I made more money on weekends and holidays then any of the staff guys.....did all week!!!!
Photographer
Imageri by Tim Davis
Posts: 1431
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Michael McGowan wrote:
If you learn photo and video and you're the lucky photographer who is kept on the job, you'll get to do twice as much work, including editing the "free" video the company brings in. Yes, you'll have a job, but it'll be a job of going through the free product and trying to make it look halfway good.
Very few photojournalists actually get to do much photojournalism anymore. Cuts to staff and dumping of duties onto fewer and fewer people mean the shooters have less and less time to produce more and more.
It's sad, but the web is killing newspapers, because people won't pay for news. They get what they want online. What they don't realize is the money they spend for access doesn't get to the people who produce their news. And that means fewer and fewer reporters and photographers (even if they do learn video).
Thing is, at the same time newspapers and magazines are trying to punch up their visual appeal. Wonder when they'll give that up, too? I've never once edited another photographer's video. If anything my producer has me upload clips and I'm done. Things are different now. Revenue comes from a variety of sources. Instead of buying magazines people visit their local newspapers website. And on those websites are more than enough banners and other ads to generate revenue.
Photographer
Dan Howell Tearsheets
Posts: 572
Jersey City, New Jersey, US
HJM Photography wrote:
The raging, seething, anti-progress, anti-technology, anti-art, anti-business h8 has oft puzzled me.  I don't see a single person in this thread who suggested not learning video. My point which you missed repeatedly (reading problems?) was that you emphatically state that "A lot of photographers could save their jobs by learning how to shoot stills & video @ the same time," when the cold reality is that there has been a decline of photography jobs in newspapers for more than 10 years now. You clumsily avoided my simple and direct challenge to back up your statement. The simple-minded suggested that adding one component to a photojournalist's skill-set would stem the loss of literally hundreds of jobs nationally is flawed or at least 5 years too late. That ship sailed a while ago.
It's clear you have an agenda that prevents you from comprehending or at least stating information that is outside your experience or point of view. To demonstrate this so repeatedly seems, to me, to be more raging and seething than anyone else posting in this thread.
I suggest giving professionals in this industry at least an ounce of credit for recognizing the trends within the industry. It is frequently amusing to listen to non-participants pontificate about the inner workings of an industry based solely on their deductions, but you are tiresome. You are quite obviously on the outside looking in. You might want to try washing the window that you are looking thru.
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
cameraman K wrote:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A … M4GznbIUTA Old news I'm afraid.
Many of the younger newspaper photographers in the 1970s saw the implications of TV and mass market cameras, combined with the growing impact of stock houses and wire services, and left the business early on.
It's a trend as old as the Brownie.
Proofreaders, editors, copy writers (not copyrighters), type setters, and more have all gone to the big printing press in the sky, along with the presses.
Times changed. The printing press became of huge importance in the 1600's, and has been overshadowed by first TV, then the Internet (which is also killing off TV as we know it.)
Kodak is in bankruptcy court despite holding many of the basic digital patents - a monument to denial on the part of upper management. Sony took over Minolta. times change.
And times will continue to change. As companies and "content providers" seek more and more controls on the internet, we may see the rise of the "ad hoc" net that is truly out of anyone's control. What that will do to production business models is likely to make what mp3 did to the CD look like rape compared to seduction.
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
I don't see a single person in this thread who suggested not learning video. My point which you missed repeatedly (reading problems?) was that you emphatically state that "A lot of photographers could save their jobs by learning how to shoot stills & video @ the same time," when the cold reality is that there has been a decline of photography jobs in newspapers for more than 10 years now. You clumsily avoided my simple and direct challenge to back up your statement. The simple-minded suggested that adding one component to a photojournalist's skill-set would stem the loss of literally hundreds of jobs nationally is flawed or at least 5 years too late. That ship sailed a while ago.
It's clear you have an agenda that prevents you from comprehending or at least stating information that is outside your experience or point of view. To demonstrate this so repeatedly seems, to me, to be more raging and seething than anyone else posting in this thread.
I suggest giving professionals in this industry at least an ounce of credit for recognizing the trends within the industry. It is frequently amusing to listen to non-participants pontificate about the inner workings of an industry based solely on their deductions, but you are tiresome. You are quite obviously on the outside looking in. You might want to try washing the window that you are looking thru. lol
actually i am very much in the industry, directly competing with the NYT, and accomplishing a novel feat (the shooting of stills & video @ the same time) that they are also attempting, in a manner superior to the NYT:
http://blog.9shooter.com/2011/07/top-10 … et-is.html
h8 on bro. spew more h8 & venom on hardworking window washers, in addition to photojournalists.
Photographer
291
Posts: 11911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US
interesting thread.
having worked as a photographer from small town news to a los angeles daily and the associated press i'll give my take and people can think what they may.
newspapers are fast moving from being just newspapers to being media content providers. virtually every "newspaper" has moved to a branding statement away from paper and ink to bits and bytes.
as for the ongoing argument in this thread, let's put this to rest. video will not enhance the still photographer in the media shooting pool. true, newspapers are moving away from print to on-line content as their main focus, but on-line video in many cases is presented in partnership with local television sources or purchased from independents.
when those sources aren't available/applicable, content is provided by the average joe shooting from their camera phone and presented in youtube fashion.
the biggest drawback to thinking mr. nikon or mr. canon will be a viable resource goes to technical application. in larger (major) markets there are sat trucks rolling on breaking news from multiple sources, either television stations, networks or contracted independents.
newspapers aren't rolling those 1/2 million dollar trucks or buying "bird time" rather, they are purchasing it from other sources. additionally, newspapers aren't set up with editing banks or the personnel to view-edit-upload, let alone having the budget to equip and man a video operation to bring breaking news.
it is still a very segregated means of resource between still photography and video. nowhere was this shown more completely than when i worked the michael jackson / farrah fawcett death tours. the associated press and other sources had full crews of those shooting still and shooting video. the twains didn't meet as the technical resources needed just didn't mesh.
as for the dying breed of newspaper (media corporations) reducing the number of still photographers, it is entirely true. sources such as getty give media outlets the best of all worlds in images along with being instant and it's far less costly.
if one wishes to add video to their skill-set then it does become valuable. but one shouldn't think they can do that with their digital still camera. it doesn't work that way for real news, unless the objective is to become a youtube news star.
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
HJM Photography wrote:
well, you could use doug mills of the nyt's method:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/1 … e-at-once/
or our method:
http://9shooter.com
or compare the two leading methods & decide:
http://blog.9shooter.com/2011/07/top-10 … et-is.html God, you're still pimping that 9 Shooter crap? You're not the guy who's spammed DP Review, phot.net, Amazon, etc, are you?
Problems with this thing:
Holding a camera the way the girl does in the picture on the 9shooter site can be very harmful, straining the flexor and extensor muscles of the wrist and compress the radioulnar joint.
Professional photographers rotate their cameras very frequently.
If you hold the still camera properly, the video camera bangs into your chest.
Hanging the video camera underneath the still camera leads to unflattering angles (looking up noses) or getting blocked by obstructions that don't affect the still camera.
You've placed the video camera at a high motion point, making it the opposite of a stabilization system. This will increase vibration, or even make the vidicam swing back and forth.
Yeah, this is the way to do it.
![https://45surf.smugmug.com/Other/dslr-with-hd-video-dslr-stills/45surf-double-45-dueler-TM/swimsuit/728931993_bkGWP-M.jpg]()
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
God, you're still pimping that 9 Shooter crap? You're not the guy who's spammed DP Review, phot.net, Amazon, etc, are you?
Problems with this thing:
Holding a camera the way the girl does in the picture on the 9shooter site can be very harmful, straining the flexor and extensor muscles of the wrist and compress the radioulnar joint.
Professional photographers rotate their cameras very frequently.
If you hold the still camera properly, the video camera bangs into your chest.
Hanging the video camera underneath the still camera leads to unflattering angles (looking up noses) or getting blocked by obstructions that don't affect the still camera.
You've placed the video camera at a high motion point, making it the opposite of a stabilization system. This will increase vibration, or even make the vidicam swing back and forth.
Yeah, this is the way to do it.
![https://45surf.smugmug.com/Other/dslr-with-hd-video-dslr-stills/45surf-double-45-dueler-TM/swimsuit/728931993_bkGWP-M.jpg]() Lol! That model of the device is over two years old! What--did u save the picture on your hard drive? Lol!
Are u the stalker they deleted from dpreview for stalking and harassing me a couple years back and more recently? What was your handle there?
Dude! The video cameras have epic dynamic stabilization. There is no vibration! There is less camera shake than major motion pictures, so yes, the video may be too smooth. Soooo how many times have u tried this?
Lol! Shooting up peoples' noses? Do u stand 3 inches from your subject? Tell me, expert stalker, can u see up peoples' noses in the videos here: http://9shooter.com
U say pro photographers frequently rotate their cameras. Since you took a class on this, what is the frequency of camera rotation? Suppose I want 2 be a pro like u. What is the minum frequency (in hertz) that I must rotate my camera? Lol!
Will I be professionaly h8d on by all the pro h8rs if I don't rotate the camera with the proper pro frequency?
Photographer
291
Posts: 11911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US
HJM Photography wrote:
Dude! The video cameras have epic dynamic stabilization. There is no vibration! There is less camera shake than major motion pictures, so yes, the video may be too smooth. you write as though you are the youtube shooters i describe in the news biz.
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
291 wrote:
you write as though you are the youtube shooters i describe in the news biz. Go watch a major motion picture or indie flick or the bourne identity or csi. The camera is continually moving/shaking. Perfectly still cameras can be found on soap operas from the 80s.
Youtube gets more daily searches than yahoo or bing. Get your brand and your clients' brands on youtube!
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
291 wrote:
you write as though you are the youtube shooters i describe in the news biz. HJM Photography wrote:
Go watch a major motion picture or indie flick or the bourne identity or csi. The camera is continually moving/shaking. Perfectly still cameras can be found on soap operas from the 80s.
Youtube gets more daily searches than yahoo or bing. Get your brand and your clients' brands on youtube! So you are the guy who's spammed all of those forums. Good to get confirmation.
Also good to see you're still recommending people use your product in such a way that they can be injured.
![https://45surf.smugmug.com/Stills-hd-video-dslr-bracket/Stills-hd-video-dslr-bracket/9shooter-Bracket-Video-DSLR-HD/canon-eos-7d-laguna-swimsuit/1153682979_w9wiy-L.jpg]()
HJM Photography wrote:
Lol! That model of the device is over two years old! What--did u save the picture on your hard drive? Lol!
Are u the stalker they deleted from dpreview for stalking and harassing me a couple years back and more recently? What was your handle there?
Dude! The video cameras have epic dynamic stabilization. There is no vibration! There is less camera shake than major motion pictures, so yes, the video may be too smooth. Soooo how many times have u tried this?
Lol! Shooting up peoples' noses? Do u stand 3 inches from your subject? Tell me, expert stalker, can u see up peoples' noses in the videos here: http://9shooter.com
U say pro photographers frequently rotate their cameras. Since you took a class on this, what is the frequency of camera rotation? Suppose I want 2 be a pro like u. What is the minum frequency (in hertz) that I must rotate my camera? Lol!
Will I be professionaly h8d on by all the pro h8rs if I don't rotate the camera with the proper pro frequency? BTW, how old are you?
"U say pro photographers frequently rotate their cameras. Since you took a class on this, what is the frequency of camera rotation? Suppose I want 2 be a pro like u. What is the minum frequency (in hertz) that I must rotate my camera? Lol!"
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
So you are the guy who's spammed all of those forums. Good to get confirmation.
Also good to see you're still recommending people use your product in such a way that they can be injured.
![https://45surf.smugmug.com/Stills-hd-video-dslr-bracket/Stills-hd-video-dslr-bracket/9shooter-Bracket-Video-DSLR-HD/canon-eos-7d-laguna-swimsuit/1153682979_w9wiy-L.jpg]() lol! you are reciting a list of talking points you made up over two years ago.
the future is not spam.
nobody is getting injured, but you use this as your favorite talking point, as u think it will scare people and thusly kill the brand via false statements, libel, and slander, which you must cease and desist from doing.
why have u--a "pro" photographer who went to "school" for it--had such a vested, concerted interested in stalking and harassing me with your talking points and pictures from your hard drive from over two years ago, for the past two years? y do u have so much time on ur hands?
lol!
speaking of injuries, it is far more healthy to focus on positive things in your own work and life, than to devote your life to stalking/harassing others.
Photographer
ImageX
Posts: 998
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
It's clear you have an agenda that prevents you from comprehending or at least stating information that is outside your experience or point of view. To demonstrate this so repeatedly seems, to me, to be more raging and seething than anyone else posting in this thread. +10000.
Its a miracle that HJM hasnt been banned for the consant spamming and threadjacking. I'm almost embarrassed for him. Not quite tough because he actually thinks he invented the "novel" idea of attaching two
cameras together. LOL There is good reason that almost every one of his ridiculous threads are deleted by the moderators of this forum.
Photographer
HJM Photography
Posts: 1485
Malibu, California, US
ImageX wrote:
+10000.
Its a miracle that HJM hasnt been banned for the consant spamming and threadjacking. I'm almost embarrassed for him. Not quite tough because he actually thinks he invented the idea of attaching two
cameras together. LOL There is good reason that almost every one of his ridiculous threads are deleted by the moderators of this forum. Another thread stalker of mine ImageX! It's not spam to present new ideas and philosophies for obtaining stills & video @ the same time, while also presenting novel manners for augmenting revenue streams. Furthermore, my threads are not deleted, but rather, you will find them to often be the most popular threads. Also, you constantly participate in them yourself! Google your name with my name to see how much time you devote to my epic threads!
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid= … 63&bih=802
248 results ImageX! You are quite an accomplished stalker/pro-h8r and are to be commended!
Photographer
ImageX
Posts: 998
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
HJM Photography wrote:
Another thread stalker of mine ImageX! It's not spam to present new ideas and philosophies for obtaining stills & video @ the same time, while also presenting novel manners for augmenting revenue streams. Furthermore, my threads are not deleted, but rather, you will find them to often be the most popular threads. Also, you constantly participate in them yourself! Google your name with my name to see how much time you devote to my epic threads! I think your threads are hilarious. People are laughing at you and your agenda while you try to play it off as innovation. I especially like how you have been using the one single NYT reporter as your reference for years to push what YOU think is a novel idea. It is so dumb and funny that you are a running joke on this forum. An epic failure.... like your gadget. If it was so awesome and innovative, you sure as hell wouldnt be here making an ass of yourself so often. You would be busy making sure production meets demand. LOL
Photographer
TrianglePhoto
Posts: 582
Chicago, Illinois, US
Wow.
I can't believe I wasted the bandwidth to even look at that site...
One thing I did notice, I didn't see a single camera shown shooting vertical... that would be a pretty big drawback... In fact, a show stopper...
Photographer
MCmodeling
Posts: 749
Sonora, California, US
I did sports photography for a small town newspaper. They found out that they could save money by having parents take the photos. They figure why pay when you can get it free evan if the quality isn't there
Photographer
291
Posts: 11911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US
HJM Photography wrote:
It's not spam to present new ideas and philosophies for obtaining stills & video @ the same time, while also presenting novel manners for augmenting revenue streams. some call it spam. others call it for what it is. a lot of really uninformed information in this thread you've presented. time to get back to some real-world reality if you wish to be taken seriously.
Photographer
TrianglePhoto
Posts: 582
Chicago, Illinois, US
Ah - now I remember you - you were the guy who claimed 35,000,000 views....
tragic.
Photographer
MCmodeling
Posts: 749
Sonora, California, US
Oh and those that brought up doing video. How do you put video on a newspaper?
Photographer
ImageX
Posts: 998
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
TrianglePhoto wrote:
Wow.
I can't believe I wasted the bandwidth to even look at that site... I love the "patent pending" part. Its been pending for years now. LOL The patent office is laughing at him too.
Photographer
BlindMike
Posts: 9594
San Francisco, California, US
 Moderator Note! That'll be the end of that. Carry on and stay on topic.
Photographer
291
Posts: 11911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US
BlindMike wrote:
That'll be the end of that. Carry on and stay on topic. there is a member responding that clearly knows nothing of the reality of media. target that person if you target anyone in this thread.
Photographer
ImageX
Posts: 998
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
291 wrote:
there is a member responding that clearly knows nothing of the reality of media. target that person if you target anyone in this thread. 45surf and HJM are the same person. The mods are hip to his tactics and spam.
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
MCPHOTO wrote:
Oh and those that brought up doing video. How do you put video on a newspaper? Allot of papers have a Net presence nowadays, even our backwater little ivpressonline.com.
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
MCPHOTO wrote:
Oh and those that brought up doing video. How do you put video on a newspaper? Allot of papers have a Net presence nowadays, even our backwater little ivpressonline.com.
Photographer
ImageX
Posts: 998
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Someone already mentioned it but newspapers have been in serious decline for more than a decade. Its strange that someone would bring up video in regards to the topic of this thread. With that said, I watched State of Play last night. Good movie. It kind of had a side story of print vs online news.
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 12327
Baltimore, Maryland, US
The Nikon V1 can shoot full res stills and video at the same time. Since that's been determined to be the future of photojournalism, I'm assuming that all PJ's will be converting to the N1 before long.
Photographer
Jim McSmith
Posts: 794
Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
If I were going down the hybrid route I would rather have a good camcorder that shot stills than juggle two pieces of equipment. You don't need hi-rez stills cameras like a DSLR for web work. The idea would be just to grab a few stills between shooting the video. Just my tuppence worth.
Photographer
GCobb Photography
Posts: 15898
Southaven, Mississippi, US
Newspapers won't be going away for a while. Not everyone has a computer or something to read online news with. That part should be a no-brainer.
It should also be a no-brainer that everyone with as much as a camera phone is doing the staff photographer work for free. So yeah, those positions are being eliminated since they can get work for free from those who don't know any better.
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
GCobb Photography wrote:
Newspapers won't be going away for a while. Not everyone has a computer or something to read online news with. That part should be a no-brainer.
It should also be a no-brainer that everyone with as much as a camera phone is doing the staff photographer work for free. So yeah, those positions are being eliminated since they can get work for free from those who don't know any better. It isn't the point at which the last person decides to stop, it is the point at which subscriptions fall below a point that the paper is economically viable no matter how much they cut.
And the cuts usually mean an end to various features, and the quality, which results in more cancellations.
Most papers have survived into the 21st Century by being purchased by conglomerate medias, that operate the papers as loss leaders into other areas. No longer profitable alone, they have a catalytic value to their other businesses.
The Washington Post became unprofitable, and sold to just such interests - losing independence and shifting tone, cutting content, and dropping features and quality control measures.
I still subscribe to the Post, but the day is coming that it will no longer have relevance or use to me.
And they now charge more than most people are willing to pay as well.
So at some point, even if there are readers willing to subscribe, the paper folds. And that has been going on since the 1930's, accelerated in the 1970s, accelerated again in the 1990's, and we are now in the situation where print papers are similar to film - a forever waning market that will cease to have major influence or market penetration once legacy consumers have either switched or died.
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
So since I am not on Facebook, not only can I not read the article concerning something to do with journalism, I can't even look at the article to see if what is written is even valid or substantial.
I understand the irony might be lost on me. Maybe someone will write a blog about it and then their opinion will educate me............................................
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3570
Kerhonkson, New York, US
salvatori. wrote:
So since I am not on Facebook, not only can I not read the article concerning something to do with journalism, I can't even look at the article to see if what is written is even valid or substantial.
I understand the irony might be lost on me. Maybe someone will write a blog about it and then their opinion will educate me............................................ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl … ndependent
the article wasn't on facebook, just linked thru facebook...
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
Dan Howell wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl … ndependent
the article wasn't on facebook, just linked thru facebook... Thanks for the direct link.
I like the 'new newsspeak' in the blog that refers to the use of 'freelance contributors' aka 'people who send in pics taken with their phones' (I assume).
Photographer
Glamour by Glenn
Posts: 1033
Chattanooga, Tennessee, US
I've worked for newspapers and one of the big wire services. The last time I can remember feeling secure in my career as a photojournalist we used the Leaf Desk to transmit photos and Blix was a huge lifesaver.
Here are a few thoughts that are worth almost exactly what you paid for them:
A photojournalist does rotate his/her camera to recompose vertically or horizontally. I will often shoot something both ways to give my editor some flexibility when they are doing the layouts in Quark.
The paper I've been working for has come to rely more on reader submitted photos for spot news but they use us for planned events such as political events, concerts, sporting events, etc... Shooting video is often prohibited except by the network that is contracted to cover the event in the case of sporting events. At concerts no one usually shoots video unless the management has hired someone to film the concert. When video is allowed it is usually restricted to at most 30 second segments.
I'm writing more articles as well as contributing the photos since I've taken some writing classes.
Someone mentioned Photoshop skills being important. The paper I usually work for just wants the JPEG straight from the camera with no in-camera enhancements.
Photographer
3rdeyemedia us
Posts: 387
Los Angeles, California, US
Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:
really? care to prove that? seriously, quantify that statement with actual facts or admit you don't know what you are talking about. Personally although I have no facts on this I tend to agree with this statement and so does Nikon if you look at the Nikon D4 and their new point and shoots can now actually shoot photos and video at the same time.
By the way I shoot Canon 5D Mark II and I am making way more money shooting video than photos now days. But seriously looking at Nikon D4 :-). This will be absolutely excellent as a wedding camera and for music videos.
|
Moderator Note!
