🚀 go-pugleaf

At 06:28 PM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Our discusion is does a paper
>that requires the photographers to shoot advertising effect the paper's
>appearance of objectivity?

Other than the fact that literal objectivity is impossible...the short
answer is, maybe. I think shooting advertising is a conflict of interest.
If you are shooting for a business - and that's what you're doing if you're
shooting ads - it would be harder to go back and do something they find
negative. They'll expect you to cooperate, because that's the role they
have come to expect form you.

I think it shouldn't be done, but there are lots of papers that think
otherwise. And small papers don't have the luxury of hiring a separate
advertising photographers. It's their choice, and you have to deal with it
as best you can. I have always thought the ad pictures would be better
(bean counters, please read: sell more ads) if someone who specializes in
it is more enthusiastic in the execution and doesn't have to worry about
any conflict.

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

They've been moving a train car off the track and on to tires down here and
it's been a great shoot except for the pouring rain.

How do people keep their lenses unfogged and raindrop-free under these
circumstances?

                            Emily L. Ferguson - Cape Cod, Massachusetts
                                                      elf@cape.com
                             Photographer, English Country Dance leader

                                              Small brave carnivores
                                             Kill pine cones and mosquitoes.
                                             Fear vacuum cleaner.

from "Kitty Haiku"

>Other than the fact that literal objectivity is impossible...the short
>answer is, maybe. I think shooting advertising is a conflict of interest.
>If you are shooting for a business - and that's what you're doing if you're
>shooting ads - it would be harder to go back and do something they find
>negative. They'll expect you to cooperate, because that's the role they
>have come to expect form you.

My paper shoots all the ads in town.  There's no space for a commercial
photog in this town because of that.  Recently I've been invited to
consider the job described in the paragraph below.  Aside from the learning
curve I'm still conflicted about the ethics of the whole situation.  Not
only does our service rob commercial photogs of a living, but we are
grossly underpaid for doing the work, compared to the real world.
>
>I think it shouldn't be done, but there are lots of papers that think
>otherwise. And small papers don't have the luxury of hiring a separate
>advertising photographers. It's their choice, and you have to deal with it
>as best you can. I have always thought the ad pictures would be better
>(bean counters, please read: sell more ads) if someone who specializes in
>it is more enthusiastic in the execution and doesn't have to worry about
>any conflict.

I'd really like to hear some discussion about the ethics of this on this
list.  It bothers me a lot at my job.  Also if your paper has guidelines
for usage of reprints from ad shoots I'd like to see them.  Is there a
universal position, for instance, on reuse by the customer for advertising
in other publications, newsletters to customers of the business you shot
the ad for, citations and credits, web usage?  Does your paper pay you or
even just your tuition and costs to go to school to acquire skills?  Does
your paper have a table top studio set-up for this commercial shooting?

TIA

                            Emily L. Ferguson - Cape Cod, Massachusetts
                                                      elf@cape.com
                             Photographer, English Country Dance leader

                                              Small brave carnivores
                                             Kill pine cones and mosquitoes.
                                             Fear vacuum cleaner.

from "Kitty Haiku"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------44A48D4B9A0808DCDD4C620C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Seems like I've tried everything for keeping my cameras and lens safe from
the "Seattle sunshine." Umbrellas, towels, plastic bags, home-made covers,
hide it under the jacket, etc. It's always a challenge.

Best solution for me so far are the Tenba rain covers I discovered this
past winter--one of our wettest on record. They're costly (but much less so
than a trip to the repair shop), made of lightweight nylon and cleverly
designed to fit around a camera (slightly more awkward with digital bodies)
and lens with clear plastic located over the viewfinder. They fit very well
in a bag or pocket and go on and off pretty easily and dry fairly quickly.
They come in various sizes and you can skip the Velcro if you want and just
rubber band on the end of the lens. The downsides are few--the
controls are harder to get to, so they work best with auto expose and
focus. Inexplicably, they're not designed with a camera strap in mind, but
two minutes with scissors and duct tape solves that. That and a clean
bandana in the bag or pocket seems to work pretty well.

Elaine T.
Wetside, Washington
--------------44A48D4B9A0808DCDD4C620C
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="emthompson.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Elaine M. Thompson
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="emthompson.vcf"

begin:vcard
n:;
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
end:vcard

--------------44A48D4B9A0808DCDD4C620C--