Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/09/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm sorry, but your bias against digital has nothing to do with the realities of day-to-day newspaper operation. Digital saves money, environmentally better, it's faster which means they can stay at assignments later and make better photos, and it's easier to move photos around, and get to the original in a database rather than a negative sleeve in a file cabinet. There are all sorts of advantages to digital. And my favorite, better color accuracy. The original is there, in the archive. Negatives can be faked, or lost to cover tracks. If you don't trust the photographer to act honestly with digital, you better not trust them with film. Not that the New York Times isn't without it's ethical challenges, but it lies more in refusal to pay their freelancers an adequate amount of money, and trying to strip them of the copyrights to their work. Pure and simple, it's greed. I would be much more worried about that forcing quality people to seek employment elsewhere and leaving only hacks to do the work. If you think I'm dreaming, then you need to check the pages of the Photo District News over the past 10 years. On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 08:28 AM, Afterswift@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 9/1/03 3:05:22 AM, royfphoto@aol.com writes: > > << A couple of the fellows said that > as a result of recent meetings that they were no longer allowed to > shoot > a shot that was set up (even though this was hardly breaking news). A > few months ago this would not have even been brought up. > Good for them and the editors that instructed them. There have been > some > bad lapses in judgment lately but there is a pretty strong desire to > correct these through self-policeing. > Roy Feldman >> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Roy, > > What has a true news organization got to sell? It's not only > information. > It's credibility. Why should I spend a buck everyday to buy The Times > if I doubt > the authenticity of what the writers or photographers produce? I might > as well > read one of the supermarket tabloids. I was appalled when the NYT went > completely digital in news. I still think that was a serious mistake. > They even > closed their darkroom, one of the best in NYC. I could understand > using digital > for international reporting, because that's the only way to be > competitive. But > for local news and feature stories I see no advantage in using digital > cameras. For a newspaper of record, that newspaper should keep a > record of its raw > material -- for at least its photos. What good is an archive if it's > digital > files are not only volatile but corruptible intentionally or otherwise. > > br > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html