Stomp


Status
Not open for further replies.

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#1
through stomp, my feeling is that sph gets photos from contributors at scenes. no need to send photographers to scenes, get on-site photos, probably free of payment, boost their circulations. what do you think?
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#3
The fact of the matter is, stomp doesn't make much $$, most online websites don't make much $$ from advertising, at least not enough to cover costs. I'm sure the CS admins will tell you the same.

So if they can't make $$, how can they pay for good photography.

Further, you don't need 10 MP sized images for web-sized images, neither do you need superb lighting control and direction, so they can get by with cheap handphone photos.

What's there to say? The world is changing. Luminous landscape just had a rant column about the micro-payment model in stock photography, apparently the same thing is happening in that industry.

The long run trend is clear. Photography is becoming commoditized, and everyone with a handphone can now take pictures. Pros who don't specialise are finding their markets under attack. Life has folded, and photojournalism is basically dead in the face of live CNN reports. If you want to charge for photography, you had better be able to deliver quality far above that of a handphone or a P&S, and you had better specialise (ie become a wedding, product, architectural, interior, car photographer, etc).



reachme2003 said:
through stomp, my feeling is that sph gets photos from contributors at scenes. no need to send photographers to scenes, get on-site photos, probably free of payment, boost their circulations. what do you think?
 

dkw

New Member
Dec 10, 2003
1,051
0
0
CCK
Visit site
#4
reachme2003 said:
through stomp, my feeling is that sph gets photos from contributors at scenes. no need to send photographers to scenes, get on-site photos, probably free of payment, boost their circulations. what do you think?
The world is flat, and getting flatter. If your business or the company you work for isn't already getting flat, it better do so in a hurry before your competition comes along and truly "flattens" you. As I see it, STOMP came about not because SPH had a deliberate policy to make its photographers redundant, but simply because the enabling technologies (i.e. cell phone cameras, wireless data transmission) had all become mature. In addition, the mindset of the folk in possession of those enabling technologies had moved right along as well. The end result? A new paradigm for gathering newsworthy items which the traditional methods may not even be able to keep up with. Of course, the off-shoot is the possibility that SPH can now reduce its fixed headcount costs by hiring fewer full time photographers. Why should that be a bad thing? SPH needs to keep itself trim and profitable or it may well put the rest of the organisation at risk.
 

shojibake

New Member
Dec 7, 2004
387
0
0
#5
Considering in singapore it's a virtual monopoly, all it smacks of is just trying to get on the bandwagon of technology. Like a wits idea gone bad.
 

xray

New Member
Jul 28, 2004
662
0
0
Singapore
www.hachisu.com.sg
#6
Unlike the BBC, Stomp has far fewer photograph contributions. The BBC has thousands and thousands flow in everyday, so the chance of getting good photographs is far higher.

Personally, I think Clubsnap has better photographs (goes without saying) of current events. Most of the time, we get excellent coverage of Singapore.
 

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#7
i am not talking about the quality of photography in the photographs submitted. far from it. from the photographs submitted to stomp and published in straits times, it is obvious.


xray said:
Unlike the BBC, Stomp has far fewer photograph contributions. The BBC has thousands and thousands flow in everyday, so the chance of getting good photographs is far higher.

Personally, I think Clubsnap has better photographs (goes without saying) of current events. Most of the time, we get excellent coverage of Singapore.
 

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#8
good thing that i do not make a living from photography.

waileong said:
The fact of the matter is, stomp doesn't make much $$, most online websites don't make much $$ from advertising, at least not enough to cover costs. I'm sure the CS admins will tell you the same.

So if they can't make $$, how can they pay for good photography.

Further, you don't need 10 MP sized images for web-sized images, neither do you need superb lighting control and direction, so they can get by with cheap handphone photos.

What's there to say? The world is changing. Luminous landscape just had a rant column about the micro-payment model in stock photography, apparently the same thing is happening in that industry.

The long run trend is clear. Photography is becoming commoditized, and everyone with a handphone can now take pictures. Pros who don't specialise are finding their markets under attack. Life has folded, and photojournalism is basically dead in the face of live CNN reports. If you want to charge for photography, you had better be able to deliver quality far above that of a handphone or a P&S, and you had better specialise (ie become a wedding, product, architectural, interior, car photographer, etc).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom