How good do you have to be to be newpaper tog?

lawrie29

lawrie29

Balloons! Yay!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,051
Name
Lawrie
Edit My Images
Yes
I ask because of the photo at the top of this news story for the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12929250

The photo has cut the side of The Queens coat, Hers and Wills Shoes as well as cutting the RAF logo in half.

If it was posted on here it would be torn to shreds, and looks awful.

I appreciate that someone at the BBC could have done a bad job of the crop, but still, one would hope a picture editor would do better.

So considering this is a picture of the Queen and a future King, on the National Broadcasting Network, how good do you need to be?
 
To make money from photography you don't need to be good at photography, you need to be good at business.

Although being good at both is obviously ideal.

I've been crap shots making money, and great shots not.
 
Could be a number of things.

Could be a bad photographer and it was the only shot of the scene.

Could be a non tog that has taken it and again the only one of the scene.

More than likely, it's a very bad crop on the side of the BBC.

I am sure I've read on here about someone having a photo in the paper and it being a bad crop of it, when they posted the original it was much better.
 
You should see the standard of my local rag's photography, it has been mentioned before on here!
 
I notice the photo is actually credited to reuters.
 
What I find more disgusting is that the prince doesn't give his nan a hug. One of the reasons I am not so keen on the royal family, their lack of human emotion in public.
 
Papers will often crop a pic to fit the "hole" in the page, it may not be the picture editor making up the page.
 
awp said:
You can get a glimpse of the sort of conditions the photographers had to work under here:
Click to expand...

It's all too easy to judge decisions made in the field retrospectively, when you only look at the end product. This place looked like a cave too... maybe the bbc ed wanted to show more of the chopper, who knows. It's not art, but news photography doesn't claim to be.

The person that took the photo that you linked to was almost certainly a reuters staff or freelance photographer, and you don't get there by being crap.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
What I find more disgusting is that the prince doesn't give his nan a hug. One of the reasons I am not so keen on the royal family, their lack of human emotion in public.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree - I wish they'd ban hugging except in the privacy of your own home/wherever. A totally unnecessary gesture in public.
 
tirc83 said:
I wish they'd ban hugging except in the privacy of your own home/wherever. A totally unnecessary gesture in public.
Click to expand...

I don't see what harm it does to be honest, what next....ban kissing or holding hands!
 
tirc83 said:
Sorry to disagree - I wish they'd ban hugging except in the privacy of your own home/wherever. A totally unnecessary gesture in public.
Click to expand...

absolutely disgusting and despicable, indecent behaviour!
 
Mike Jackson said:
Sounds good to me. Enforced 3 foot separation at all times in public.
Click to expand...

And if any couple were to even glance at each other then they should get 20 years in jail!
 
Only 20 years in jail? that's a bit lenient don't you think?
 
tirc83 said:
Sorry to disagree - I wish they'd ban hugging except in the privacy of your own home/wherever. A totally unnecessary gesture in public.
Click to expand...


LOL if a Muslim had said that there would be uproar :)
 
Last edited:
you said the (M) word. watch out!
 
Quite, if if the "M word" is uttered its turns into a whole Father Ted and the Chinese community-esque episode.
 
lawrie29 said:
The photo has cut the side of The Queens coat, Hers and Wills Shoes as well as cutting the RAF logo in half.

If it was posted on here it would be torn to shreds, and looks awful.
Click to expand...


Its clearly been heavily cropped by someone working at the BBC, who's probably been there 6 months with the ink still wet on his Media Studies degree, and is only concerned with meeting the House Style, getting the story Live quicker than sky news & itn, and all the time trying to impress his equally visually-illterate manager (aged 25) so that his short-term rolling contract will get renewed.


The standard of writing for the text of the article is just as awful as the cropping of the photograph. In fact, its excruiticating, even by BBC News Online standards - its just quotes, sloppy journalism at its worst. :thumbsdown:
 
i submitted to a local paper , but also covers other parts of east yorkshire.

i submitted a football shot to the sports desk basically 2 players running towards a ball , was a nice pic untill they cut off the ball and also 1 half of the player instead of just resizing it

wasnt too pleased as it was my 1st published photo , i didnt even keep a copy it was that bad
 
I agree with some of the other posters. In my experience its been cropped by a picture editor to fit the hole.
I think the Getty images are worse! We all know what they look like, we wanted the setting and the occasion.
If you wanted the writing and roundle in shot you needed a more slanted angle. Move to the right and you get the sponson in the way, to the left and your out of the prepared "Corral".
Looking at the ITV link, I would say the RAF Ground photographer was the best placed, and quite right too. Fine body of men!
(And did ya all see t' "Secrecy guide" try and stop him? Its a coonspirecy I tell e)!:bonk:
 
Looking at the shot though, it's to fit a certain size on the page - it'll be a standard width/height. It's cropped so it's got the Queen and William in, the Royal Air force sign and roundel in. You could have fitted more in if you'd shrunk the picture but then the people wouldn't have been so prominent.

There's probably a feeling it's just for a website story, that won't be read after that day.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
What I find more disgusting is that the prince doesn't give his nan a hug. One of the reasons I am not so keen on the royal family, their lack of human emotion in public.
Click to expand...

Sorry but what a ridiculous comment. Who knows how they greeted each other in private before the press call around the helicopter.
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry but what a ridiculous comment. Who knows how they greeted each other in private before the press call around the helicopter.
Click to expand...

It was a tongue in cheek comment, seems some have lost their sense of humour.

However, I can't say the royal family are known for their warm and friendly behaviour. It all has to be 'proper'.
 
I can tell you exactly what the story behind this is and with some authority.
This is an MoD 'giveaway' image released through my old Agency. Probably taken by an RAF photographer. We used a lot of stuff from the MoD from Afghanistan and Iraq - some of it good, some not so good, some pretty appalling, but it was free so we took it.
The crop is pretty bad, but it may have been done to exclude other people from the image who shouldn't have been there, or as others have suggested to 'fill a hole' - though that's not really an issue with online editions...
 
Harvey_nikon said:
It was a tongue in cheek comment, seems some have lost their sense of humour.

However, I can't say the royal family are known for their warm and friendly behaviour. It all has to be 'proper'.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't read much humour into your original quote.
Interestingly,the only non formal royal family used to be the Dutch but they've returned to formal protocols overs the last few years.
Having been in the privileged position to meet the queen and other royals over the years, some of the 'rules' are just good old fashioned manners. Don't speak until spoken to, don't touch etc. The funniest was in an invite to a garden party. You could bring unmarried daughters over the age of 18 as a guest :)
Not met him since he married Camilla but Charles is a fascinating, warm person.

Sorry if I come over as a royalist, but I did once swear an oath of allegiance to her majesty and heirs.
 
Think you just have to be in the right place at the right time, especially for opportunist shots that make the dailys.
 
I used to supply the BBC but stopped doing so a couple of years ago. Their attitude is now "stuff professional photographers - we can now get free images from the public".

Hence the terminal decline in the quality of BBC stills imagery. A sad state of affairs (but fine for someone with a cheap DSLR who will do anything for a 'free credit')
 
cobra_lite said:
I can tell you exactly what the story behind this is and with some authority.
This is an MoD 'giveaway' image released through my old Agency. Probably taken by an RAF photographer.
Click to expand...

Someone didn't bother to watch the video then!
 
DemiLion said:
Fourth post in, the ITV link. It was a Press pit.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Currently not in the UK so unable to watch.
Doesn't mean it wasn't an RAF Phot though - they will have been there also...lol
Usually when you only get the Reuters/Getty/AFP byline, it's because it's a handout image. The terms by which we accepted handouts from MoD was that the photographer would get a full credit if he/she sent them to us direct (i.e we got 'exclusive' use of them) - they were accorded the same 'rights' as Agency or freelancers sending us exclusive material.
If the image came to us and everyone else then we would usually only put 'Reuters' or 'Reuters/MoD handout' to the image.

Any agency or freelance photographer usually gets a full credit - from Reuters anyway - AFP almost never give anything, but they're French so what do you expect...:lol:
 
cobra_lite said:
...but they're French so what do you expect...:lol:
Click to expand...

An awful lot of noise and indignation followed shortly by a complete capitulation with terms to the victor, if things follow their usual path? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top