Eclipse success

Well, I've made my debut as a digital-era photojournalist...

I photographed the beginning of the eclipse, downloaded the images, edited
them, called the news desk of the Atlanta newspaper, got permission to
e-mail the images to them, did so... and one is published in today's paper.

You can see them at:
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#041027

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we want
to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures.


--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

Michael A. Covington wrote:
Well, I've made my debut as a digital-era photojournalist...

I photographed the beginning of the eclipse, downloaded the images,
edited them, called the news desk of the Atlanta newspaper, got
permission to e-mail the images to them, did so... and one is
published in today's paper.
You can see them at:
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#041027

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if
we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures.

Nice pictures.

"I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the best
ways to share your pictures with others."

And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional
photographers, unless you were paid.

Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require that
you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you out of
income from future uses?

I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of
rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers.

We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the moment. It
may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope has control, but
if you respect photography as a career, every little bit of friction can
slow the decline...

--
Frank ess

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Covington wrote:

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if
we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures.
....
"I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the best
ways to share your pictures with others."

And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional
photographers, unless you were paid.

Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I thought was
advantageous for me. People in numerous fields -- especially writers and
computer programmers, of which I am one -- have learned that giving away a
certain amount of work free helps to *promote*, not undermine, their
careers.

Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a newspaper could
easily be *starting* a career, not undermining somebody else's. Or do you
feel that nobody in the future should become a photographer, so that the
old-timers can have a monopoly on all the work?

Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require that you
relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you out of income
from future uses?

The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I am
well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign anything; I
simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the picture as news.)
Although not paid money, I was credited by name, and my book was mentioned.
To me, that is a valuable indirect advertisement.

Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing things
with my neighbors.

I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of
rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers.

We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the moment. It
may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope has control, but
if you respect photography as a career, every little bit of friction can
slow the decline...

Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is a way
for people to share their pictures and writings with the public thereby
"undermining" the careers of professionals?

And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur basketball,
etc., because all these things put "professionals" out of a job?

I don't think so.

--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

Apart from the point about the free market that I made in another message...

Note that I am not competing with the newspaper's staff. They don't have
astronomical telescopes as far as I can determine.

Note further that I often sell astronomical pictures commercially (for as
much as $500 for one-time use), and judging the relatively limited
commercial value of this particular picture, I thought it would be good PR
to give it to them free and get some free publicity from it.

Are you familiar with the concept of creating a market? Most local
newspapers are not aware that pictures like this *can* be taken locally. By
showing that it can be done, even if I don't get paid for a particular
picture, I increase the demand for such pictures as a whole.

--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...

Well, I've made my debut as a digital-era photojournalist...

I photographed the beginning of the eclipse, downloaded the images, edited
them, called the news desk of the Atlanta newspaper, got permission to
e-mail the images to them, did so... and one is published in today's
paper.

You can see them at:
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#041027

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we
want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures.

Fantastic job! These are really nice shots. I was out there last night
with my D70 and 70-200 VR and got mixed results that were somewhat mediocre.
I shot a bunch of pictures through the beginning to full eclipse. I have
yet to go through all of them and pick out the best ones. I wish I were
prepared and had a telescope.

Do you know if I can mount my D70 to the Celestron 5? Thanks.



Rita

Michael A. Covington wrote:
"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Covington wrote:

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if
we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the
pictures.
...
"I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the
best ways to share your pictures with others."

And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional
photographers, unless you were paid.

Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I thought
was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields -- especially
writers and computer programmers, of which I am one -- have learned
that giving away a certain amount of work free helps to *promote*,
not undermine, their careers.

Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a newspaper
could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining somebody else's.
Or do you feel that nobody in the future should become a
photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly on all the
work?
Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require
that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you
out of income from future uses?

The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I
am well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign
anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the
picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name,
and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect
advertisement.
Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing
things with my neighbors.

I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of
rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers.

We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the
moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope
has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every
little bit of friction can slow the decline...

Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is
a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the public
thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals?

And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur
basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out of
a job?
I don't think so.

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

Well said Mike.
But the subject Frank brought up is indeed a very complicated one, and a
hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or otherwise trade a
product is a manner that knowingly damages the economic well-being of those
that have invested (I speak of individuals, not corporations or rapacious
capitalists).
Frank seems to have a 'thing' about newspapers and I would agree when it
comes to the huge chain-type operations, not local community publications.
I predict a long life for this thread (G).
Regards.
Ken.
--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com

Ken Davey wrote:
Michael A. Covington wrote:
"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Covington wrote:

I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers
(if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the
pictures.
...
"I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the
best ways to share your pictures with others."

And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional
photographers, unless you were paid.

Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I thought
was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields -- especially
writers and computer programmers, of which I am one -- have learned
that giving away a certain amount of work free helps to *promote*,
not undermine, their careers.

Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a newspaper
could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining somebody else's.
Or do you feel that nobody in the future should become a
photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly on all the
work?
Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require
that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you
out of income from future uses?

The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I
am well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign
anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the
picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name,
and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect
advertisement.
Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing
things with my neighbors.

I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of
rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers.

We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the
moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope
has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every
little bit of friction can slow the decline...

Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is
a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the public
thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals?

And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur
basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out of
a job?
I don't think so.

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

Well said Mike.
But the subject Frank brought up is indeed a very complicated one,
and a hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or
otherwise trade a product is a manner that knowingly damages the
economic well-being of those that have invested (I speak of
individuals, not corporations or rapacious capitalists).
Frank seems to have a 'thing' about newspapers and I would agree when
it comes to the huge chain-type operations, not local community
publications. I predict a long life for this thread (G).
Regards.
Ken.

Thank you for your reply, Ken. I don't have a particular 'thing' about
newspapers; just about organizations who squeeze every bit of juice from
their employees, contractors, and freelancers and keep the profits from
the changes. What they publish, more and more often, is mediocre
pictures, many times freeze-frames from amateur video. The whole process
is eroding the quality of their products. I'd like to see the decline
halted, or at least retarded.


Mike, it seems to me you lost track of what I said and asked in my
message, and flailed around whipping up a suds storm of suppositions and
extrapolations all your own.

I say: people with respect for working photographers should _not_ give
away their work. It hurts current and future career photographers.

You say you received just compensation. Good for you. That's all you
needed to say, but clearly not all you had to say. Fine. Just don't
imagine any words, deeds, or actions into my posts. In the meantime,
maybe someone will reconsider a 'donation' to one cause, and support
another.


--
Frank ess

This is a sensitive area Michael, and that photographers who work
professionally are under a huge pressure that the images they take are
profitable. Newspapers have to sell newspapers.

Whereas something like astronomy is not profitable - it's an amazing
subject, but exisits "illegitimately". It's science, and needs as much
information as possible from any source.

It's not in newspaper's interests to accept work from amateurs - the media
would break down. Photos could be digitally altered, if not be totally
inferior! They need to be created by professionals. Photo-journalism is
not something we want to die out.

This message is no reflection on you Michael, so don't get upset! Love your
web site by the way... keep it up, it's all excellent

Whereas something like astronomy is not profitable - it's an amazing
subject, but exisits "illegitimately". It's science, and needs as much
information as possible from any source.

I should just clarify this. IMHO it's a case of mankind with God-given
intelligence trying to prove that God doesn't exist, and ultimately I don't
think it'll work (no matter how smart we think we might be) =)

From: "Frank ess"

I say: people with respect for working photographers should _not_ give
away their work. It hurts current and future career photographers.


I wonder if some day the newspapers will severely cut down on their photo staff
and simply accept donated photos from amateur photographers?

It seems that everybody with a phone-cam thinks they are a photographer these
days.
With so many DSLRs out there, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would
submit pics of local events simply for the publicity.
Many of them would be superior to the usual crap that our local rag publishes.

For example, when I'm shooting a high school football game I'll often see a
newspaper photographer roaming the sidelines with me. Sometimes it's a young
girl who will ask me which team is which and which direction they are going.
Without fail, I'll end up with many pics better than what appears in the next
day's sports section.
When I asked the photo editor about contributing he looked down his nose at me
and boasted, "All of our staff photographers must have a PJ degree."
Too bad many of them don't know anything about sports or how to take a decent
photograph. Guess they didn't cover that in PJ school.
Or maybe it's the outdated Nikons they use?