Photographers as Artists,

I've deleted over my answer a couple of times now. Probably better to let someone else field this one.

 

So, say you have a baseball game. The photog turns in two pretty good sliding pictures and one of a kid connecting for a double.
And none of the pitcher who threw a no-hitter.
You're not going to call the photographer and say, "Ummm... what gives?"
(And, yes, this happened to me the other day)

For that reason alone I don't mind the photog asking if we need shots of anyone in particular. They're in and out in a few innings or a couple quarters and not in tune with the flow of the game a lot of the time. Or we might need a feature photo or someone other than Johnny Superstar who we've run 10 pictures of this season. Never hurts to ask, and it's easy enough to just say, "No. Just give me whatever."
If the photographer knows anything about his job, that question might influence what he turns in, not what he shoots.

 

I assume you called them back and got plenty of art options of said pitcher. There's no way that any half-sentient staffer, stringer or even team-mom-photographer wouldn't have a number of shots of a pitcher who threw a complete game of any kind.

 

And for the record, most of the photogs I've dealt with in my career have been reasonable and open about getting mug shots, pictures of players X or Y for an upcoming feature, etc., and that includes the "artistes" or otherwise difficult ones.

 

Amending my tale to say: If someone has a picture of Tom Jernstedt they will let me use, I'll sign a contract promising not to touch the crop.

 

Stories get cut every day. Writers complain about it, then move on.

Photographs get cropped every day. Photographers complain about it, then move on.

This is the industry we work in.

 

If the photog isn't taking a shot of the starting pitcher just as a fallback, I'm not sure he/she is doing his job.

 

Photographers complain more, though. And about dumber things.

 

The point of the art isn't just to look pretty. It's to help tell the story. As someone already pointed out, if a pitcher tosses a no-hitter, it's a no-brainer that he should be the main art. If a running back scores four touchdowns and runs for 259 yards, he's the main art, even if the best shot is of a receiver making a diving catch. You can save the best photo for the jump page. The package art should be about telling the story of the game, ideally augmenting whatever the writer turns in.

 

I agree with everything, except photographs aren't art. The longer we let photographers think they're artists, the longer they continue to believe they're high and mighty. If I write a six-inch story on a meeting, that's not art. If someone takes a picture of a quarterback dropping back for a pass, that's not art. This is art http://www.google.com/images?q=vincent+van+gogh&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Jx59TczkNuaF0QHegfnOAw&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=585.

 

This might be the most self-absorbed dumbass post here. Ever. And that's saying a lot.
Do you think your words are so perfect, that illustrating your masterpiece of a story is superfluous? That pictures don't tell a story.
You want high and mighty, look in the mirror. Your comments on this thread might take the lead in condescending crapola.

 

Stories could use pictures to accompany them. But a picture of a quarterback is art. A picture of the soldiers lifting the flag at Iwo Jima is. Something memorable is art. There's no sense in naming something rather easy to do as art. Vincent Van Gogh's paintings = art. Something Joe Schmo at Podunk News Press can do multiple times each week = not art.