Digital Camera Use Affects Photo Procedures/Archiving
While digital cameras are used on most assignments and more images are shot, a lower proportion of those images are archived compared to images shot with film cameras in years past.
The invention of photography enabled people to record the present and in so doing preserve it for future generations. This photographic record rapidly became the primary visual history, replacing painting, drawing and various forms of printmaking. Indeed, many famous etchings in earlier newspapers were based upon photographs because of the technical inability of newspapers to integrate photography. It took more than 50 years, from the announcement of the invention of photography in 1839 to the invention of the halftone process in about 1880, for photographs to be directly incorporated into newspapers and magazines.
Canadian photographer J. Fortune Nott described in 1891 the changes influenced by press photography:
One of the most noticeable characteristics of the past decade, has been the constantly increasing demand for illustrations that pictorially record events that have a social or historical importance.1
Almost 40 years later, the business manager of the New York Times, Louis Wiley, predicted that future generations would value the work of news photographers:
Whoever, two hundred years from now, writes the history of 1928, will have a valuable aid in the pictorial presentation of today’s news, customs, fashions, and personalities available in the files supplementing the written word.2
Wiley believed that great news images of the day should be carefully saved and stored. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Most prints and negatives were thrown away, sometimes because new owners cleaned house or a photographer retired or died. As a result, relatively few news photographs from the first several decades of the 20th century exist today, and the work of early photojournalists has been lost forever.
One of the most important and straightforward ways in which people understand the past is through historical visual images. Photographer Ralph Pyke stressed that it is the “responsibility of photojournalists to document society and to preserve its images as a matter of historical record.”3 Much of this preservation exists as the collective archives of newspapers.
The New York Times published its first photographs in the first issue of Sunday Magazine in 1896. One hundred years later, about two-thirds of the space in The New York Times morgue was devoted to photograph files-about 1,500 drawers. These historical documents captured the changes in society encountered through the passage of time-how people lived, where they worked and what they wore. Even the stature and faces of people changed over the years. Certainly many buildings, streets and towns are no longer recognizable. Times photojournalists documented bits of every-day life as well as celebrated events.4
The recent shift to electronic imaging represents photography’s most radical change since the medium was invented in the 1830s5 and has had an overwhelming effect on the creation and preservation of visual images. Today, The New York Times photojournalists, similar to most newspaper and magazine photojournalists, use digital cameras. Now, every time a shutter clicks, the image produced is not recorded and preserved as it was with film. Instead of the comparatively static, physical record created by film cameras, digital cameras produce electronic images that can be more easily altered or deleted. For example, photojournalists eliminate images captured at a scene because of undesirable composition, technical problems or limited storage space on the camera’s flash card. As the image reaches the newsroom, photographers, photo editors and designers delete additional images for various reasons. Then more images may be deleted when the visuals are transferred for storage to a digital image library because of legal worries or inadequate space.
Finally, preserved photographic images might be lost forever if archival software and hardware become archaic to future generations. Because of their physical nature, film negatives can be looked at and understood as easily in the future as they were in the past; however, digital images might not be retrievable nor translatable if the technology with which the image was captured, read and stored no longer exists.6 It is possible that the photographic historical documentation illustrating and explaining today’s society could vanish beyond the reach of upcoming generations.
The objective of this study was to examine how the transition of film to digital in newspaper newsrooms is affecting-at the photographer’s level-the creation and preservation of photographic records. The shooting, saving, editing and archiving process is a complicated one with many factors contributing to the collective historical record. Given this complexity, this research emphasizes recording (shooting) images and storage, while another study examines archiving policies and retrieval practices. Because the visual record begins with the photographer on the scene, the researchers went to members of the National Press Photographers Association to explore these issues. It is hoped that the results will help newspaper photographers and managers become more sensitive to the sometimes indirect and unintentional consequences of new technologies and procedures.
Presstime and other professional journals in 1990 related the startling announcement that Associated Press and United Press International would begin using digital technology to transmit photo images.7 AP supplied key newspaper clients with the necessary hardware, and two years later, all subscribers to both wire services had digital processing systems in addition to their chemical darkrooms.8
Within the next few years, photojournalists were using software and hardware, such as Adobe Photoshop on Macintosh computers, to process wire service and staff-produced images and were transferring them to computers with pagination systems or page-design software (e.g., QuarkXPress).
An industry trend had begun. By 1997, photographers at virtually every newspaper with a circulation of more than 7,500 did some type of digital imaging.9 By 2000, respondents at newspapers with circulations greater than 250,000 indicated that about 14 percent of their papers always used digital photography and 35 percent used it 90 percent of the time.10
Although photojournalists were quickly becoming skilled at processing digital imaging from scanned negatives, their expertise lagged at using digital cameras, usually because of the extremely high price of the equipment.11
As the quality of digital processing progressed, so, too, did professional and academic debates-mostly concerned with the ethics of digital manipulation,12 with a few focused on the storing and indexing of digital images.13
Only a small handful of academic or professional studies concentrated on newsrooms’ transition to digital photography.14 One study quantified the general move toward a convergence of digital processing, photography and video,15 and only one study included the measure of digital camera use, specifically.16
The lone study gauging photojournalists’ use of digital cameras was conducted nationally in 1997. Russial and Wanta found that almost all of the 225 responding daily newspapers with a circulation of more than 7,500 used digital imaging. Digital camera use was another story: About 29 percent (65 newspapers) used a digital camera, and 60 percent of these shot 10 percent or fewer photos electronically. Only eight newspapers shot 80 percent or more photos digitally.
Photojournalists use digital cameras because of economics, time lines and convenience.17 The cost of digital cameras is now more reasonable to smaller and larger papers alike.18 It is easier and quicker than ever before to shoot and send digital images at anytime from anywhere back to the newsroom. Photojournalists use flash cards on which the images are saved and do not carry and transfer rolls of film. Furthermore, photojournalists can sit at computers in the newsroom instead of being separated to work in a darkroom full of chemicals.
Photojournalists also are beginning to feel they are regaining control over their work. As early as the 1930s, photographers struggled to be recognized as artists and professionals instead of technicians needing to understand cameras, lenses, lighting, chemistry and equipment to shoot and develop photos while someone else, often an editor in the newsroom, decided on photo content.19 Now the photojournalist is increasingly acting as a picture editor, judging and deleting photos on location and in the newsroom.20
Some photojournalists also have control over the images that are archived. However, the conservation of digital images has brought about new problems in the preservation of photographs. Some problems, such as limited storage and awkward filing and retrieval systems are the result of new and immature technology; other problems include limited budgets and inconsistent policies. Furthermore, many images are deleted because of inadequate space on the flash card and/or the server used for storage.21 Photographer and consultant Peter Howe observed:
. . .in the era of digital photography, for example, the picture of President Clinton hugging an insignificant intern would never have been found. It simply would not have been preserved.22
Of great concern to photojournalists, librarians, archivists and historians is that the technology on which images are stored may no longer exist in the future.23 Thus, these historical recordings of society might not be retrievable. Several academic studies have discussed similar implications of losing newspaper archives in a digital world, but none have focused solely on preserving visual images.24
Indeed, computer scientist Rothenberg worried that scientific data-irreplaceable records of experiments-may age into oblivion when stored on formats that become obsolete faster than expected as they are replaced by new systems. Already close calls have included losing the 1960 U.S. Census data, the Combat Area Casualty file containing P.O.W. and M.I.A. records for the Vietnam War, Public Land Law Review Commission data and Department of Health and Human Services records.25
In an editorial to readers, Dirck Halstead, publisher of Digitaljournalist.org, said:
When we are privileged to observe and photograph the momentous events of our time, we have an unspoken fiduciary responsibility as individuals to protect and preserve that legacy.26
Thus, the present study sought to find out if the transition to digital photography is impacting the process of creating news photographs and preserving the historical record. Results will add to the literature on the effects of the adoption of digital cameras generally and newspapers specifically. It is hoped that this study will enable news organizations to better understand the impact that digital photography has on the news process and history. Perhaps managers will create better systems for photographic image management and preservation.
In order to address the objectives of this study, the following research questions were asked:
To what degree have daily newspapers moved from using 35mm film cameras to the use of digital cameras in more recent years?
In sum, and for various assignment types, are more shots being taken today with digital cameras, compared to what was shot with film cameras in the past?
Are images recorded with digital cameras more or less likely to be saved or archived than were images recorded with film cameras?
Is there a relationship between the proportion of digital images archived and circulation size, staff size, archiving policy or other demographic variables?
A 26-item online survey was sent to daily newspaper photographers. The variables included those defined below. Since this was an exploratory study, several opportunities for explanations and open-ended responses were provided as well.
Population and Sampling
The population for this study was composed of photographers employed by U.S. daily newspapers. The sampling frame was an e-mail membership list obtained from the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), the leading professional organization for news photographers. We felt that conducting the study in cooperation with a respected trade association would elicit a higher response rate than “cold calling” via a generic list of newspapers. Plus, it would provide potential outlets for real-world discussions of the findings. However, the downside to any partnership like this is that not every newspaper in the U.S. has a photographer on staff who is an NPPA member. Thus, this may weaken the generalizability of the findings. At several stages before administering the survey, it was pre-tested for internal validity through assessments from 18 daily newspaper photographers as well as a library archivist. Several modifications and improvements were made prior to its administration.
The NPPA e-mail list included 2,544 photographers working at U.S. daily newspapers. The full membership list was nearly 10,000 and included broadcast photographers and freelancers. According to the NPPA representative we worked with, a very high percentage of members list e-mail addresses in their membership records. All 2,544 newspaper photographers were e-mailed; a second invitation was e-mailed 10 days later. Returned as undeliverable were 97 e-mails, thus the actual number of potential subjects was 2,447. The eventual number of subjects who responded to the survey was 832, a response rate of 34 percent.
Because some of the practices associated with archiving are organizationbased, only one survey was selected for data analysis from any one newspaper. If more than one photographer from a particular newspaper completed the survey, then the most complete survey was selected for inclusion in the analysis. If there were more than two relatively complete surveys from the same paper, then one was selected randomly. This sampling method yielded an N of 362 photographers representing different daily newspapers.
The main variables addressed in the research questions were as follows:
* 35mm and digital camera use: This was defined and operationalized as the current proportion of overall assignments where either 35mm film cameras or digital cameras were used, with the total of the two being 100 percent.
* Shots taken: Based on category definitions from NPPA photo competitions, subjects were asked the number of photos taken at a typical assignment using a digital camera today and the number of photos that might have been taken at the same assignment previously with a 35mm camera. The example assignments were created with the help of a former Associated Press photographer. Example assignments and NPPA category types are shown in Table 1.
* Self-editing: In the preview mode on digital cameras, photographers can edit shots while still at an event. This was defined as the proportion of overall shots a photographer deletes from memory or a flash card while at an event. Subjects were also asked why they self-edited at an event.
* Proportion archived: Because a variety of archiving methods and systems, this was defined as, according to the photographer, the overall percentage of the original, individual shots taken at an assignment that were eventually archived. This was determined separately for digital images (the present) and 35mm film (the past, prior to the adoption of digital cameras). Subjects were asked to estimate the percentage of their original shots that were eventually archived.
* Newspaper variables: Research question four included several self-report demographic variables, including circulation size, staff size, ownership type and archive type and procedures.
Description of Respondents
The average circulation for represented papers was 112,477 (Median = 50,000).27 Photo department staff size was seven (Median = 5). About 78 percent (n = 281) were chain-owned, 83 percent (n = 299) were morning circulation and 17 percent (n = 63) were evening papers. Respondents included staff and lead photographers (65 percent ), photo editors (20 percent ) and others (15 percent).
Results and Discussion
RQ1: To what degree have daily newspapers moved from using 35mm film cameras to the use of digital cameras in more recent years?
One hundred percent reported that they used digital cameras to some degree at their daily newspapers. More precisely, they used digital cameras on 95 percent of all assignments and film cameras on 5 percent.
This study found that during the last six years since the Russial and Wanta study, the diffusion of digital cameras into newspaper newsrooms has increased dramatically, nearing 100 percent at participating newspapers. And, based on several comments made by respondents to the survey, one can reasonably conclude that the conversion will be 100 percent in the near future. Comments ranged from “We have been a 100 percent digital photo staff since 1995,” to “We went completely digital in May 2003 and already have covered the costs of the cameras,” to the observation that the newspaper the respondent worked for was “one of the only papers in the country to still shoot film and not supply all photographers with digital equipment.”
While the conversion to the use of digital cameras may be nearing completion, the photographers offered interesting and insightful comments regarding the effect of the adoption of digital technology on reporting and freelancing practices. In several instances, photographers mentioned that reporters were issued point-and-shoot digital cameras so that pictures could be made even if a regular photographer was not available. They also noted that the abandonment of film made it more difficult to deal with their freelancers, many of whom had not converted to digital cameras due to the cost. One photographer said that the staff still kept a film processor around for this purpose. Another commented:
We are now a totally digital darkroom which is in a way bad [because] if freelancers bring in good spot news we cannot process it. Rather than them having to scramble and find a one-hour lab open [during] weird hours on a weekend or evening they usually go to [the] competition first, have it developed there and then offer us seconds.
Several photographers also commented on the short, useful life cycle of digital equipment compared to 35mm cameras, and a few indicated that they always kept a 35mm camera body and film with them in case of a problem with the digital camera. The reliability of the digital cameras and the high cost to fix them were also concerns expressed by the news photographers.
So while the use of digital cameras is very high, photographers’ comments illustrate that unresolved issues are making some aspects of the conversion difficult.
RQ2: In sum, and for various assignment types, are more shots being taken today with digital cameras, compared to what was shot with film cameras in the past?
In total and across the individual categories, photographers reported shooting more images with digital cameras compared to their previous film camera use (T = 11.35, df = 325, p
Photographers are shooting more photos with digital cameras than with film cameras; they averaged about 24 more photos (34 percent) per assignment across the example assignment types. The difference is most apparent in sports photographs where the number of photos taken for the sports assignment was nearly 50 percent more than when film was used. Respondents attributed the increased number of images shot on assignments mostly to cost, time and ease.
The reason most often cited for shooting more frames was the absence of additional expense for additional images (unlike in the film world, where each frame has a distinct per unit cost). As one photographer noted, “The use of digital photography has allowed our small staff to produce more photos for publication and save expenses.” Other common statements reflected the sentiment that digital photography has freed up photographers’ time that was otherwise involved in darkroom work: “I shoot more with digital because of less time to process and edit.” Still others noted how easy digital photography has become. For example, one respondent observed:
One of the benefits of digital photography is the ability to shoot in abundance. It makes it wonderfully easy to go back through events and find pictures for file use.
In addition to cost, time and ease, photographers tied the increased number of images shot on an assignment to issues of image quality and archiving. One respondent summed this best:
Obviously, we shoot a lot more but archive a lot less with digital, but we’ve all come to the conclusion that we also work harder and come back with better photos overall because we can look at the images before we leave an assignment and then get something better.
The results of RQ2, which were supported by respondents’ comments, clearly indicate that more photographs are being taken with digital cameras. But do more photos mean that more images are being saved?
RQ3: Are images recorded with digital cameras more or less likely to be saved or archived than were images recorded with film cameras?
For 35mm, the average number of photos taken was 70. The estimated archive percentage was 85 percent. Thus, 60 photos from a typical film shoot in the past would be archived. On a present-day shoot with a digital camera, the average number of photos taken was 94, with 72 percent ending up being archived (68 photos). Thus, digital images are less likely to be archived than film images. However, because more shots are being taken with digital cameras, even though a higher proportion is being discarded (not archived), the net effect is that the number of stored photos is possibly increasing in size, not decreasing.
Another way of examining this question is to compare the percentage of subjects who reported that every photo was archived for either digital or 35mm images. For 35mm images, 61 percent (N = 216) of the respondents selected “every 35mm image was archived.” But for digital shots, that figure was only 41 percent (N = 145), a third less. Conversely, the figure for “every published photo and some unpublished ones” being archived was twice as high for digital photos (48 percent, N = 174) than it was for 35mm images (24 percent, N = 85). Thus, for 35mm, every image is more likely to be archived, whereas for digital, the likelihood for “the published image and some unpublished ones” is reported at a greater frequency.
In the digital world, some decisions regarding what is worth saving or discarding are made near the time of making the image. As one photojournalist put it:
Because I tend to shoot a lot more with digital as compared to 35 mm film, I try not to burden my photo editors with too many pictures to edit. I make my own initial edit and turn in the few photos that deal directly with a story/feature, etc.
In most newspapers, only a selected portion of a photographer’s take is kept. According to another respondent:
Corporate policy requires us to destroy all unused spot news images as soon as possible after immediate usage is finished. So only published photos of spot news events are archived.
Thus, it is these “good ones” that may be viewed as the digital equivalent of the photo editor circling the potential shots with a wax pencil on a proof sheet and then news editors picking the one they like. In the days of 35mm, several of those may have been printed and then those prints and the negatives were generally saved, although not necessarily methodically filed. Also, with film some “bad” images get saved simply because they are physically between good ones. But today, with digital photography, the ones that are not saved do not go into a negative sleeve-they are simply deleted.
Previous studies have shown that newspapers with different circulation sizes adopted digital processing at different times.28 Thus, it is possible that archiving standards also may differ according to newspaper characteristics. This issue was explored with the final question.
RQ4: Is there a relationship between the proportion of digital images archived and circulation size, staff size, archiving policy or other variables?
To answer this question a variety of demographic and policy variables were compared to the overall proportion of digital images being archived.
* Circulation Size: There was no relationship between circulation size and the percentage of digital images being archived (p = .07, N 355, r = .08).
* Chain Ownership : There was no difference in percentage of digital images archived between chain-owned newspapers (n = 280) and non-chain newspapers (n = 30) (p = .16).
* Who Does the Archiving? A one-way ANOVA was used to see if there was a relationship between the percentage of digital images archived and the person primarily responsible for archiving, such as the photographer who shot the assignment, the photo editor or the librarian. There was no significant difference (F = 1.86, p = .12).
* Archiving Policy: The various states of archiving policy are shown in Table 3. However, there was also no difference in the percentage of digital images archived and the status of the newspaper’s archiving policy as perceived by the photographer (F = .68, p = .60). Of special note here is that the newspapers with photographers responding “we have a good policy that works” were not archiving any more than the “we have no official policy” papers.
* Staff Size: There was a slight relationship between staff size and percentage of digital images archived (r = .11, p = .02). However, when the effects of circulation size were controlled through a partial correlation, the relationship between these two variables was no longer significant (p = .08).
The study did not reveal a significant relationship between newspaper characteristics (i.e., newspaper circulation, types of news ownership or photography staff) and how many photos or what type of photos (i.e., published or not published) were archived. Perhaps there is little correlation because the newness of the technology itself has not prompted many news organizations to fully contemplate work flow issues related to the adoption of the technology nor the best ways to manage the technology.
It is also possible that there may be a non-linear relationship: Large circulation newspapers are doing a good job of archiving because they have more resources, while at the other end of the spectrum smaller newspapers don’t have a lot of images to archive so they can do it in a simple manner. They burn the data each day to CD or DVD, but they get the job done. In the middle, however, are the medium-sized newspapers that have a significant enough volume of images to archive to make it complicated, but don’t have the necessary resources to do it “the right way.
While acknowledging some weaknesses in our sampling frame and of recall surveys in general, this study documents the increasingly higher diffusion of digital cameras at U.S. daily newspapers. It also shows that photographers shoot more images and delete more images while on assignment than when they used film cameras. They delete images while still at the scene, when they return to their newsrooms and at the point of archiving. Thus, although more images are being shot with a digital camera than a 35mm film camera, many more images also are being deleted. But in the end, results indicate that more total images are likely being stored with digital imaging today than with film images in the past.
What was not specifically explored in the research questions, but which emerged in respondents’ comments, is that in addition to shooting more photos when using a digital camera, photojournalists are also working differently. Picture editing now begins with the camera and on the scene. Also, photographers are taking on some of the tasks traditionally performed by picture editors. One can surmise that just as pagination technology transformed the structure of newsrooms, the workflow of digital photography will further transform newsroom structures. Furthermore, newsroom procedures on archived images vary greatly, with photojournalists not understanding the management’s policies, which sometimes seem to work to the detriment of the organization itself and future generations.
It is important to point out that one of the main concerns expressed by the responding photographers is directly related to the longevity of any electronic format. Because prints and film are physical, being able to look at a printed image or negative five, 50 or 100 years from now will not require any special technology; however, the stability of electronic storage media is untested and software keeps changing. This issue, more than any other, emerged from the qualitative comments as the one that needs to be addressed, if the historical record news photographers create on a daily basis is to be preserved for future generations.
This study did not find significant correlation between the size and circulation of a newspaper and how that newspaper was utilizing digital cameras and archiving systems. It is possible that with the change from older technologies to digital ones, paradigms have shifted and we need to better understand the new paradigm to ask better questions. Also, the potential for error exists when asking people to recollect.
Comments from the photographers certainly point to a paradigm shift in working methods. An examination of respondents’ comments suggest it would be fruitful to develop a study that more fully explores how digital photography is changing the way images are recorded, edited and archived for future use.
Additional studies should address concerns from all involved – photographers, achivists, historians, etc. – regarding the longevity and stability of digital storage and retrieval systems. And while “corrupt files” can happen with film too, one photographer lamented:
The scariest part of the digital age is corrupt files. With film, this didn’t happen unless you screwed up. Now your files can just be corrupt for no apparent reason. This happens about once a month or so, but is pretty significant since that could be THE picture of your career.
Other issues may also play a role. For example, being able to associate searchable caption information directly with a particular image may make an electronic archive more useful-more searchable and retrievable-than older archiving methods that simply store the images.
Thus, as digital cameras become the normal tool for picture-taking, it appears that many photographers are concerned with the changes in work procedure that has led to the deletion of images at several stages. Another worry is the technological integrity of how images are being stored or archived for future generations. Are they heading for obsolescence?
Historians would contend that all images need to be saved. Often, it is not until later that their historical value can be understood by future generations.
1. Michael C. Carlebach, American Photojournalism Comes of Age, (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997), 2.
2. Carlebach, American Photojournalism Comes of Age, 5.
3. Ralph E. Pyke, “Digital Images and Photojournalism,” PSA Journal 64, no. 7 (July 1998): 2223.
4. Even the reverse side of a print with its rubber stamps and scrawls tell a story-the originating photographer or agency, dates, background information and editorial markings. Luc Sante, “The Morgue is Alive: In The Times’ Sprawling Archives, the Articles Deliver the Facts. It’s the Pictures that Tell the Stories,” The New York Times Magazine, 9 June 1996, 92-93.
5. John Verity, “Does Film Have a Future?” Business Week, 15 November 1993, 1.
6. For example, most people no longer have the equipment or software to read computer tapes, 8-inch floppy disks or 5-inch floppy disks.
7. “AP, UPI to Replace Newspapers’ Photo Receivers With Electronic Darkroom Systems,” Press Time 12, no. 3 (1990): 63; “AP Drops a Bombshell,” News Inc. 1, no. 3 (1990): 7. George Garneau, “Picture Desk Update,” Editor & Publisher 123, no. 7 (24 February 1990); see also Dona Schwartz, “Objective Representation: Photographs as Facts, ” in Picturing the Past: Media, History and Photography, eds. Bonnie Brennan and Hanno Hardt (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 158-181.
8. AP Leaf Picture Desks were installed to receive Photostream, its new high-speed digital transmission system. Jim Rosenberg, “Wirephoto Update,” Editor 61 Publisher 125, no. 11 (14 March 1992): 3, 31-33.
9. John Russial and Wayne Wanta, “Digital Imaging Skills and the Hiring and Training of Photojournalists,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75, no. 3 (autumn 1998): 593-605.
10. Bradley Wilson, “Whither Thou Goest?” News Photographer 56, no. 1 (January 2001): 16.
11. Digital cameras in the early 1990s for photojournalists cost in the area of five figures. See also Pyke, “Digital Images and Photojournalism.”
12. Early studies include Sheila Reaves, “What’s Wrong with this Picture? Daily Newspaper Photo Editors’ Attitudes and Their Tolerance Toward Digital Manipulation,” Newspaper Research Journal 13/14 (fall 1992/winter 1993); James Kelly and Diiona Nace, “Digital Imaging and Believing Photos,” Visual Communication Quarterly 1, no. 1 (1994): 18. See also Edgar Shaohua Huang, “Readers’ Perceptions of Digital Alteration in Photojournalism,” Journalism & Communication Monographs 3, no. 3 (2001): 149-182.
13. For example, Helene Cohen Smith, “Electronic Photo Archiving,” Editor & Publisher 127, no. 10 (5 March 1994): 18-19, 23.
14. Shahira Fahmy and C. Zoe Smith, “Photographers Note Digital’s Advantages, Disadvantages,” Newspaper Research Journal 24, no. 2 (spring 2003): 82-96; Susan Zavoina and Tom Reichert, “Media Convergence/management Change: The Evolving Work flow for Visual Journalists,” The Journals of Media Economics 13, no. 2 (2000): 143-151; John Russial, “How Digital Imaging Changes Work of Photojournalists,” Newspaper Research Journal 21, no. 2 (spring 2000): 67-83; Byron Hindman, “Bridging the Photographic Past and Future,” PSA Journal 65, no. 8 (August 1999): 8-9.
15. Bradley Wilson, “Whither Though Goest?”
16. Russial and Wanta, “Digital Imaging Skills and the Hiring and Training of Photojournalists.”
17. Hindman, “Bridging the Photographic Past and Future.”
18. Digital cameras generally cost from $200 to $3,000. Jefferson Graham, “Digital Cameras Don’t Always Deliver Smiles: The Problem: Shutter ‘Lag’ Can Miss the Moment,” USA Today, 21 January 2002, sect. D, p. 3.
19. Russial, “How Digital Imaging Changes Work of Photojournalists.”
20. Fahmy and Smith, “Photographers Note Digital.”
21. Fahmy and Smith, “Photographers Note Digital.”
22. Peter Howe, “Photojournalism at a Crossroads, Nieman Reports 55, no. 3 (fall 2001): 25-26.
23. Raymond Lorie, “Preserving Files on Minds of Researchers,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1 October 2002, sect. E, p. 3; Jeff Rothenberg, “Preservation of the Times,” Information Management Journal36, no. 2 (March/April 2002): 38-43; Tom Hubbard, “Archived Images Valuable Asset,” News Photographer 55, no. 11 (November 1999): 1-7; Cathleen Bourdon, “Digital Destruction,” American Libraries 30, no. 5 (May 1999): 104; Stephen Manes, “Time and Technology Threaten Digital Archives,” New York Times, 7 April 1990, sect. F, p. 4. See also Fahmy and Smith, “Photographers Note Digital.”
24. For example, Victoria McCargar, “Losing the First Draft of History: Newspaper Archives in a Digital World” (paper presented at AEJMC, Miami, Fla., August 2001); John E. Newhagen, “Above the Fold: The Implications of Micro-Preservation to the Analysis of Content Importance in Newspapers” (paper presented at AEJMC, Miami, Fla., August 2001). However, these archival problems are included in Fahmy and Smith, “Photographers Note Digital” and Russial, “How Digital Imaging Changes Work of Photojournalists.”
25. Jeff Rothenberg, “Ensuring the Longevity of Digital Documents,” Scientific American 272, no. 1 (January 1995): 42-47.
26. Dirck Halstead, “Photojournalists and Responsibility for History,” digitaljournalist.org, February 1998, (23 June, 2005).
27. Both the mean and median were somewhat larger than those found by the authors in a study published recently in Newspaper Research Journal, but not extraordinarily large. In this sample, morning papers were represented more heavily than evening papers compared to numbers published by the Newspaper Association of America. This may be due to membership proportions of the NPPA or because larger papers – using digital technology – may have been more likely to respond. Quint Randle, Lucinda Davenport and Howard Bossen, “Newspapers Slow To Use Web Sites for 9/11 Coverage,” Newspaper Research Journal, 24, no. 1 (winter 2003): 58-71.
28. Wilson, “Whither Thou Goest,” and Russial and Wanta, “Digital Imaging Skills and the Hiring and Training of Photojournalists.”
Bossen and Davenport are professors in the School of Journalism at Michigan State University, and Randle is an assistant professsor in the Department of Communications at Brigham Young University.
Copyright Newspaper Research Journal, Department of Journalism, University of Memphis Winter 2006
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved