NY Times article on contact sheets

[BrianShaw]

Sorry

That’s very Canadian of you.

 

[BrianShaw]

Good grief. Im logging off for the rest of the day…

 

[Chuck1]

That’s very Canadian of you.

That would be soorry

 

[drkhalsa]

I subscribe to the New York Times for about $4 a month, especially for moments like this when an article I'm interested in comes along.

 

[Don_ih]

Whatever is important to you.

In general, the New York Times is not going to be important to me. It's hardly a "local paper". But i would gladly pay for access to certain articles. It's something they could implement - and something they all should. No one can pay the monthly or yearly subscription fee to every publication online.

You don't buy a donut shop if you want a cup of coffee.

 

[Pieter12]

In general, the New York Times is not going to be important to me. It's hardly a "local paper". But i would gladly pay for access to certain articles. It's something they could implement - and something they all should. No one can pay the monthly or yearly subscription fee to every publication online.

You don't buy a donut shop if you want a cup of coffee.

I'd love to buy a donut shop for the price of an NYT subscription! Maybe even offer the Times for free to read while in the shop...

 

[MattKing]

For me it’s the passive-aggressive, if not completely aggressive, sniping on subscription that makes me dig in my heels. Not at all consistent with what the owner conveys. A few years ago it was an aggressive Montrealer. Always seems to be a Canadian…a shame indeed.

And I’m not even sure what kind of cock-eyed logic brought that on…

The comment was intended to highlight the irony of comments about the need to pay for content if one values it.
I have no objection to people deciding not to pay for a subscription here - that is a choice everyone is free to make.

 

[Don_ih]

I'd love to buy a donut shop for the price of an NYT subscription! Maybe even offer the Times for free to read while in the shop...

You miss the point. It's a matter of scale. If I want one article a year, there's no reason to get a subscription - but I'd gladly pay for that article.

I wouldn't buy a bookstore to get a single book.

The day after the Quebec referendum, I bought a single copy of a newspaper. I didn't get a subscription. I didn't buy a newsstand. I didn't buy a printing house. I didn't buy a paper mill. I bought one copy of a single issue of a newspaper.

 

[Paul Howell]

Well AP and Reuters are still free with Ads, AP is a not for profit, as is BBC which is $23 a month. my last standing local paper is $40 a month for print $20 for digital. The Atlanta Constitution is no longer in print, $9.99 a month for digital.

 

[Pieter12]

The comment was intended to highlight the irony of comments about the need to pay for content if one values it.
I have no objection to people deciding not to pay for a subscription here - that is a choice everyone is free to make.

Big difference its the content here is created for free by the participants. The NY Times has journalists and staffers to pay.

 

[koraks]

Are we going to discuss contact sheets or business models for online media?

 

[gary mulder]

The article is a nice flight into a lost paradise where the connection between photograph and print was shaped by a craft. Craftsmanship now more and more replaced by software.

 

[BrianShaw]

The article is a nice flight into a lost paradise where the connection between photograph and print was shaped by a craft. Craftsmanship now more and more replaced by software.

It depends on what you mean by “software”, and “craftsmanship” and “craft”.

The article really was a nice recollection of the former ways! I miss grease pencils…

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What was the article about?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

How do you get news?

Some are willing to pay to support publishing. Those that aren't will just have to miss out.

... and some are simply willing to pay other media outlets rather than the NYT.

Like many others, I canceled my subscription to The New York Times and The Washington Post because I think they lost touch with the fundamentals of what journalism should be about — and I won't go further into that since it would inevitably skew this conversation towards the political.

But I strongly believe well-done journalism should not be free. That's why I pay for The Guardian, even though it's free, and Le Monde.

If there's one thing that's needed today it's good journalism, and well-paid journalists.

Which of course includes photojournalists .

 

[BrianShaw]

What was the article about?

Contact sheets

 

[Mike Lopez]

Contact sheets

Well done.

 

[reddesert]

I enjoyed the article. Thanks for posting the link. It discusses contact sheets and uses examples of contact sheets from the Times archives related to several more or less iconic photographs taken by NYT staff photographers, and how the contact sheets reveal something of the thought process of the photographer - for example, which subjects were they interested in, framing, exposure.

If I may digress to the publishing-model discussion, I don't object to the posting of a link that winds up paywalled. I don't have to read everything, and sometimes it will become available another way. Or in this case, you could probably get to the newspaper at the public library. Not every article can be free.

Often on Photrio, people recall nostalgically the good old days of meaty, substance-filled articles in say Darkroom Techniques or View Camera or Popular Photography. You had to pay for subscriptions to those magazines, and if you didn't have one, dig it out of the library (if they even subscribed), and the reasons there were good articles was because the magazines had a budget to pay writers and editors. (I am sure someone who was there BITD will say they didn't pay the writers much! But it was something.) The rise of free internet content has rendered that model unsustainable, and there is a lot of free stuff on the internet, some of it good - but something was lost.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

I enjoyed the article. Thanks for posting the link. It discusses contact sheets and uses examples of contact sheets from the Times archives related to several more or less iconic photographs taken by NYT staff photographers, and how the contact sheets reveal something of the thought process of the photographer - for example, which subjects were they interested in, framing, exposure.

If I may digress to the publishing-model discussion, I don't object to the posting of a link that winds up paywalled. I don't have to read everything, and sometimes it will become available another way. Or in this case, you could probably get to the newspaper at the public library. Not every article can be free.

Often on Photrio, people recall nostalgically the good old days of meaty, substance-filled articles in say Darkroom Techniques or View Camera or Popular Photography. You had to pay for subscriptions to those magazines, and if you didn't have one, dig it out of the library (if they even subscribed), and the reasons there were good articles was because the magazines had a budget to pay writers and editors. (I am sure someone who was there BITD will say they didn't pay the writers much! But it was something.) The rise of free internet content has rendered that model unsustainable, and there is a lot of free stuff on the internet, some of it good - but something was lost.

Yup, free internet killed photojournalism and the press in general.

Very nice piece about contact sheets, how important it was, and still is !