# Sports Illustrated photo staff gone



## imagemaker46 (Jan 23, 2015)

Sports Illustrated has laid off all their staff photographers.  The six photographers were told this morning.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 23, 2015)

Wow!  That really is a sign that the times, they are a' changin'.  I thought they'd be the last ones to do something like that.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 23, 2015)

they should have migrated over to iphone techonology sooner.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 23, 2015)

Next will be NG I guess. I guess they will hire them as independent contractors with a personal services contract ... Lowering overhead with no beanies. I wish all the bean counters get fired and outsource that department.


----------



## waday (Jan 23, 2015)

Sports Illustrated Lays Off All Staff Photographers  | NPPA


> As early as last summer there were rumors of pending staff cuts at Sports Illustrated as well as at other Time-Life publications because of the company's plan to move this year into new quarters downtown. The new floorspace is considerably smaller, and it will seat far fewer people. The magazines are moving because they can no longer afford the rent where they are, one of the magazine's contributing photographers was told by an SI editor.



Ha.


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Wow!  That really is a sign that the times, they are a' changin'.  I thought they'd be the last ones to do something like that.



Changing?

I am 30 and Haven't bought a magazine in 10 years. People younger than me have never bought a magazine.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Wow!  That really is a sign that the times, they are a' changin'.  I thought they'd be the last ones to do something like that.
> ...


 Really?  I love magazines.  Still, even on-line periodicals need images.


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

tirediron said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Yeah but you also love trains that were built when dinosaurs roamed the earth so your opinion is skewed.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


 You've just figured this out?


----------



## sm4him (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Wow!  That really is a sign that the times, they are a' changin'.  I thought they'd be the last ones to do something like that.
> ...



Nonsense. Perhaps people LIKE YOU haven't. I have two sons, one is 22 and the other is 24. They have both bought a substantial number of magazines over the years; the youngest in particular would greatly prefer to have a print magazine, book or newspaper in his hand than something electronic.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 23, 2015)

I'm 29 and still read Popular Photography.

It seems sad, but in reality, these folks will still have jobs as freelancers and be contracted to work with SI/Time-Life, I'm guessing. They still need images, and they're not about to train someone with zero photographic experience.


----------



## runnah (Jan 23, 2015)

sm4him said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Like me? You having a go?


----------



## sm4him (Jan 23, 2015)

runnah said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Nope. If I were "having a go" at you, there'd be no doubt. 
I literally meant "like you." People who are similar to you, who tend to like the same sorts of things and whatnot.  The real point was that I don't think you can lump everyone under the age of 30 into a group who couldn't possibly be interested in buying magazines.
Some of them do, some of them don't.  The best ones do. 

However, your REAL point, I believe, was that print magazines are a dying thing, and THAT I can't really argue with. I'm not happy about it, but it's true.  And less circulation = less advertising dollars = less operating budget = bye bye photo staff.


----------



## JoeW (Jan 23, 2015)

I'm stunned.  Generally, print journalism outlets have been taking on the chin.  Some I thought that there would be some national publications that were high on graphics (NGS, SI, etc.) that would continue b/c they had national markets, were very visually oriented (unlike a newspaper).  And don't write this off to age or generation b/c there are some print sources seeking to have a go of it online...or by providing content to other people as well.  

I really don't like this trend.  I think there is value in having editors.  I think there is value in vetting content (be it print or photo or video).  The more we go to blogs, websites, content aggregators, free lancers to provide content, the more susceptible we are to content manipulation and distortion.

Right now, print media is casting about for a business model that makes sense.  Saying "outsource your photographers" isn't a business model, it's just cost cutting.  I have yet to see anyone come up with a model that seems to work or make sense..so it's a tough time to be working for print and visual media.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 23, 2015)

imagemaker46 said:


> Sports Illustrated has laid off all their staff photographers.  The six photographers were told this morning.



Well if the offer to fly me to Tahiti and ask me to shoot a bunch of supermodels free of charge I'm going to do the principled thing and tell them to go pound sand.

Ok, no, not really.  I can't really back that up...  lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 23, 2015)

JoeW said:


> I really don't like this trend.  I think there is value in having editors.  I think there is value in vetting content (be it print or photo or video).  The more we go to blogs, websites, content aggregators, free lancers to provide content, the more susceptible we are to content manipulation and distortion.



Well not saying this applies to Sports Illustrated per see, but considering how few media outlets there are out there that don't distort content anymore I don't really find this all that surprising.  Not much value in "editors" that edit things to fit their point of view and vet things based more on bias than fact.

A quick note to the peanut gallery here, not making a political statement here and have no interest in a politically based discussion.  But it should be noted that the standards applied by a lot of major media outlets are, well terrible.  So I can't say as I'm terribly shocked that people would have less trust in such things and find them of less value than perhaps they did in the past.


----------



## KmH (Jan 23, 2015)

National Geographic has been using freelance, rather than staff photographers for quite some time now.

Career FAQs -- National Geographic

I'm surprised SI was still using staff photographers.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 23, 2015)

Being in the sports side of photography you'd think I would be looking at all the sports magazines, to be honest the only time I look at Sports Illustrated is waiting for the dentist.  There was a time I would go through the magazine, it was when the SI photographers were covering the same events I was(usually the Olympics), I wanted to see what they came up with, most of the time I wasn't too impressed, considering they would have a photographer dedicated to one sport.  The SI photographers always had the best spots, when I worked as photo co-ordinator at several World Championship events, I made sure they were in priority spots along with the wire services.  I got to know a lot of these guys, and while I feel sorry they have lost their jobs, they will continue to find work shooting sports for the magazine.

The world of sports photography changed when Reuters stopped covering it, when Getty took over, when NewsWire took over, when USA today/newswire took over, when everyone started paying some of the worst sports photographers I've ever known to cover pro sports.

Sports Illustrated has always had some of the best photographers in the world, not all of them, many came from AllSport, which was sold to Getty.  Some of them built their reputations on working for SI alone, it came with being able to get the best positions, the best gear and shooting hundreds of rolls of film for one single frame.

Am I surprised that it happened, yes and no.  Am I sorry it happened, absolutely, not just because it means people are out of work, but because photographers have been tossed out to save a multi million dollar business money.  The SI swimsuit edition is a billion dollar magazine since it was started.


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

sm4him said:


> [Nonsense. Perhaps people LIKE YOU haven't. I have two sons, one is 22 and the other is 24. They have both bought a substantial number of magazines over the years; the youngest in particular would greatly prefer to have a print magazine, book or newspaper in his hand than something electronic.


I looked to see who agreed with you......... I knew it was Lenny before I even looked lol!!


----------



## snerd (Jan 23, 2015)

I bought a subscription to my first magazine in 20 years.......... Outdoor Photographer. It is nice to hold it and feel the pages. I even don't mind all of the ads, as they're pertinent to me. However, I bet I'm the exception nowadays. I am totally set up for E reading. This purchase was just an impulse buy. Probably won't renew.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 23, 2015)

Honestly, I don't buy magazines, I look through a few, mostly the hobby magazine I'm interested in, car magazines,  that's it. I don't look look at sports magazines.  I looked through a Photo shop magazine and was going to buy it until I saw it was $35.


----------



## Warhorse (Jan 23, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> Next will be NG I guess. I guess they will hire them as independent contractors with a personal services contract ... Lowering overhead with no beanies. I wish all the bean counters get fired and outsource that department.


Gary A. nailed it!


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 23, 2015)

My feet are on the only free space on my coffee table that has photography magazines stacked 12" high .... I haven't read a single one BUT I don't intend on tossing them until I do! They've been stacking up for a year or so.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 24, 2015)

I looked up sports illustrated in a well known search engine to see the quality of the sports images. Imagine my surprise seeing endless pics of swimsuits. Is it a sports magazine or soft porn?


----------



## snerd (Jan 24, 2015)

407370 said:


> I looked up sports illustrated in a well known search engine to see the quality of the sports images. Imagine my surprise seeing endless pics of swimsuits. Is it a sports magazine or soft porn?


Every year is the Annual Swimsuit Issue. Once a year like the one you saw.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 24, 2015)

> Every year is the Annual Swimsuit Issue. Once a year like the one you saw.


Where are the pics of sports?


*Ahem....  let's keep their copyright in mind, even if their jobs are gone, okay?*


----------



## JoeW (Jan 24, 2015)

I think people are missing the point somewhat by focusing on the "I don't buy magazines" vs. "I still do."  Clearly the internet is still popular and most magazines and newspapers that I know of, have a bigger "visual" presence (i.e.: they show more of their photographic work online) than they do in print.

SI has a substantial online presence.  Maybe you haven't read their magazine at all.  But while I have, I can tell you that I'm on their website on a regular basis.  So there should still be a rationale for staff photographers...you'd think.

But either the online business model doesn't make sense.  Or we're reaching the point where all photographers are considered sub-contractors (and not employees), people to hire for piece work or an event and then that's it.  And the implication of that is:  you'll basically have two tiers of "professionals"...guys who have it made, have a national presence and their name is their brand....or people who are starting out, have day jobs (other than photography), and struggle to make ends meet.  And not really much in-between.  Granted, I'm painting with a very broad brush...I'm speaking mostly of photojournalism and sports work here.  But this is going to make it much tougher to make a career out of this kind of work.


----------



## JoeW (Jan 24, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> JoeW said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't like this trend.  I think there is value in having editors.  I think there is value in vetting content (be it print or photo or video).  The more we go to blogs, websites, content aggregators, free lancers to provide content, the more susceptible we are to content manipulation and distortion.
> ...


I think the perspective you're taking here IS political.

Look, anytime you edit, you take a perspective.  By having a magazine called "Outdoor Photography" you immediately take a perspective (b/c you don't look at "Indoor" photography).  But they implication that everyone is biased, that editors always seek to slant things is, I think, a very extreme political claim.

In my experience, working with an editor, you get another set of eyes (usually with more perspective) who pushes you to get more complete (or at least more diverse) perspectives.  Photos (for media anyway) rarely exist solely for themselves, they're often editorial and thus accompanying text or a story.  And the editor is often there to make sure the story is clear to everyone.  This becomes especially critical when the photographers aren't employees of the media outlet but are subcontractors, guys hired b/c they were cheap and local.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 24, 2015)

The cuts were to save money, they save themselves having to pay out benefits to photographers that are all making six figure pay cheques.  It has nothing to do with the quality of the work.  They also laid on writers.  SI has been using a lot of freelancers over the years.   These guys will walk away with hefty payouts.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 24, 2015)

Corporations are all trimming, but it's not clear who they think is going to buy their products, in the long run.

A bunch of broke freelancers and contractors cobbling together a bare living with a stream of overlapping temporary gigs is what all workers in all fields will eventually be, of the trend continues.

These people won't buy SI because it's a luxury they cannot afford.


----------



## KmH (Jan 24, 2015)

It seems that users of commercial and editorial photography today willingly accept images that have much lower quality than what had been industry standard.

And again - NG was YEARS ahead of SI as far as eliminating staff photographers.


----------



## snerd (Jan 24, 2015)

407370 said:


> > Every year is the Annual Swimsuit Issue. Once a year like the one you saw.
> 
> 
> Where are the pics of sports?


Who cares?! It's the swimsuit issue!!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 24, 2015)

I hadn't yet read the article to realize who it was, names I'm familiar with thru following/learning about sports photography and thru Sportsshooter - Bill Frakes, Robert Beck, David Klutho, Al Tielemans.

To read that is astounding, I don't even know what else to say.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 24, 2015)

Yes I do, the standard now of major sports publications will be whatever crappy photos that can be obtained cheap, taken by whatever nincompoop with a camera who managed to get credentials to gain access and act like hot sh---stuff. Sarcasm intended.

In an ironic twist, I happened across this article. (Walter Iooss is an icon, probably past the point of having to make a living at it.)
John Biever, Walter Iooss, Mickey Palmer, Tony Tomsic: The four photographers to shoot every Super Bowl - NFL - SI.com


----------



## snowbear (Jan 24, 2015)

Outsourcing has been going on for a while.  Getty is the turn-to for PJ images.


----------

