It’s time to move legal notices online

There are important reform bills in California and New York, and perhaps elsewhere, that would allow online-only publication of legal notices.

Newspaper publishers are predictably fighting the bills, one of the last reliable revenue streams for print newspapers.

But what they’re really arguing for is a right to maintain a monopoly on what has essentially become a government subsidy of their operations.

It’s a position that is hostile to taxpayers and consumers by blocking free market competition and potentially saving governments money.

Below is an FAQ I’ve prepared as a handout for local government officials in my coverage area and I would encourage my fellow New York online publishers to use it or something like it too build local agency support for the New York bills that are currently hung up in the Government Organizational Committee.  To get these bills moving forward, it will take the support of local government officials, who are always looking for relief from unfunded mandates.

Information supporting Assembly Bill 6058 by Assemblyman Steve Hawley and Assembly Bill 8075 by Assemblyman Kevin Cahill.

Q. How will this change the current law.?

A. Currently, government agencies can only place legal notices in printed newspapers to satisfy various public notice requirements.  These bills would allow agencies to place notices in qualified local online news publications.

Q. Would agencies be required to post notices online?

A. No. The agency could choose whether to publish its notices with a qualified newspaper or a qualified online news source, or both, or with a local news organization that provides both print and online publication.

Q. What is the purpose of these bills?

A.  These bills will end what is essentially unfunded mandate.  Currently, print newspapers have a monopoly legal notice publications. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in New York agencies have only one or two qualified publications available for legal notices. This bill would allow for competition in the market place leading to lower prices and cost savings for taxpayers.

Q. What do these bills change?

A. There are dozens and dozens of laws on the books that govern the publication legal notices.  Generally, the definition of what constitutes a newspaper is taken from the language of the general construction law. These bills add to the definition of what constitutes statutory publication to include general online news publications that cover a defined geographic region and have been in continuous operation for at least one year and publish news on a daily basis.

Q. Won’t this bill hurt the profitability newspapers?

A. That’s up to newspapers.  It’s up to publishers to manage their businesses better in a more competitive environment rather than rely on what has become a government subsidy of their operations.  For many newspapers, these bills will actually add to the profitability of the newspapers because those newspapers will be able to retain much of the current legal publication business at current rates but save money on ink and paper by publishing the notices online only.

Q. How will citizens benefit from online legal notices?

A. Online publication opens up a wealth of opportunities for legal notice enhancements, from maps, links to related data, searching, greater and wider distribution (think Google), and continuous archives.

Q. But not everybody has access to a computer or the Internet. Won’t this deny those people an opportunity to view legal notices?

A. The flip answer is, not everybody reads a newspaper. The truth is, neither paper nor online have a monopoly on readership. Just as anybody can borrow a neighbor’s paper or go to the library to read a paper, every body has a friend or relative with online access and the library offers free online access.  For people with a real interest in online notice publication, such publication is equally accessible both online and in print.  The online advantage, if any in this regard, is that the notice is still easily available days later if you happen to throw out your newspaper before seeing an important notice.

Q. Government agencies all have their own online sites now. Why should agencies pay a third-party for publication?

A. Third-party publication is essential to maintaining accountability and transparency.  The third-party publisher is responsible for ensuring the notice, once published, is not altered in anyway and provides a barrier to those who might tamper with a legal notice.

Q. Won’t hackers be able to alter or damage a legal notice published online?

A. First, professional news organizations provide a high degree of security for their sites. It’s a vital and essential part of their businesses. This makes any computer break-in necessarily sophisticated.  The people with motivation to alter public notices are not usually the people with the tools and knowledge necessary to hack into a web site; and typically public notices are not the kinds of online information that hackers target.

Q. I’ve heard of some government agencies running into difficulty with the local papers that have reduced publication cycle making it hard to get notices published in a timely manner.

A. It’s true. In New York, some government agencies have found that as formerly daily newspapers drop publication days, they have to plan ahead to get notices published within the legally proscribed time line.  This bill will allow those newspapers to move their legal notices entirely online and better meet the needs of the government agencies within their coverage areas.  These bills also prepare for the inevitable day when newspapers no longer publish a printed product on any day of the week.

To support these bills send a letter to Assemblyman Steve Englebright, chairman of the Governmental Operations Committee, LOB 621, Albany, NY 12248.

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , | Leave a comment

Why Patch will never be profitable

Patch faces to huge obstacles on its path to profitability: The first is expenses; the second is revenue.

Expenses: Tim Armstrong is absolutely right that a great deal of the expense of a print publication can be wrung out of local news coverage. Not only do you get rid of industrial age presses and trucks along with paper and ink, it also takes a lot less staff — because of the efficiencies of online publishing — to cover a community.

Reportedly, AOL is spending $160 million a year on Patch. That’s a lot of money, and I don’t just mean because that’s more money than a lot of us will ever see in a lifetime. I mean, it’s a lot of money because the Patch content model shouldn’t be that expensive.  That means Patch is spending about $190,000 per each of its reportedly 864 sites.

In the one-reporter-per-community model, expenses should be $140,000 or less per site. (I’m also including in that some expense for sales and support.)

Of course, Patch isn’t spending $190,000 per site. It’s spending less than that, and the remainder of its $160 million annual expenditure is going to overhead.  Some of that is legitimate, such as infrastructure, programmers and technical support. By legitimate, I mean, there is some level of expense on technology for every local news site.

But some of that money is part of the unsustainable expense of running a large chain news organization.  For Patch, it’s regional editors, regional sales managers, supervisors for the regions, executives over them,  HR departments and legal and regulatory departments (necessary for a publicly traded company).

These are all expenses that the local independent site doesn’t face and raises the bar much higher for Patch overall to become profitable.

It’s a major factor of expense that advocates of “scale” in local news often overlook.  News isn’t a widget. It isn’t a washing machine or box of software. It isn’t an industrial product. In industry, scale is vital because the largest part of the expense of making the product is just turning the machine on.  In news, each new piece of product (a news story, say) costs essentially the same amount of money as the previous piece of product. There is no expense savings in producing more product, there is only more expense.

The same analogy applies to each individual news org you create (each of the 864 Patch sites).  In trying to scale a national news organization, you’re not saving money by scale. You’re scaling up your expenses, both in local staff and then in the national and regional staff (as pointed out above) to run the company.

Expense is the Catch-22 of trying to scale local news.

This expense was masked in the newspaper industry because every newspaper that is now part of a national chain was a HUGELY profitable, family owned newspaper at the time it was absorbed into a chain.  That profit helped feed the beast of corporate overhead, thereby masking the real expense of creating the chain.

In fact, the problem for newspapers today isn’t so much that individual newspapers lose money; it’s the fact they’re still saddled with the expense of being chain owned.

Revenue: According to Ken Doctor, Patch executives claim 1/4 of its 864 sites is making at least $2,000 per month, and Doctor is somewhat rhapsodic over the figure. He sees this bit of revenue growth as a “rocket launch.”  In reality, $2,000 is nothing.

With The Batavian, we went from practically no revenue in March 2009 to more than $4,000 a month four months later.  And that’s with one person covering the news and selling the ads, and in a market that is far more economically challenging than any Patch has launched in.

The successful independent sites I know are all doing at a minimum $10,000 per month.

Clearly, Patch is struggling to sell local ads, which should be the bread-and-butter of its strategy.

If somehow, every one of the 864 sites managed even just $10K per month, that’s still only $106 million a year in revenue, far short of the $160 million in expenses weighing down the chain.

To achieve break even, each Patch site needs to do more than $16,000 per month in total sales. That is a very achievable number with the right business and sales model (which I don’t believe Patch has, but that’s another topic).

So the problem Patch faces is burdensome and unnecessary corporate overhead expenses and a failure, so far, to generate any meaningful amount of revenue.  Patch should be much further along on the revenue side than it is and that spells trouble for investor patience.

CLARIFICATION: Shortly after posting, I should add.  I think each of Patch’s 864 markets is capable of generating at a minimum of $500,000 in annual revenue. I just think time will run out on Patch before the chain breaks even.  Also, as Patch generates more sales, expenses will increase.  That will further delay the break-even point.  If Patch were to survive, fix its business and sales model, achieve maximum velocity, we’re probably looking at a company with $250 million in annual expense and $500 million in annual sales (at the current size of the company).  I assume investors would be happy with that performance.  I just don’t see how they sustain the losses to get there.

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged | 4 Comments

Paywalls create opportunities for local news entrepreneurs

It seems like paywalls are popping up all over the place these days.  In recent months Lee, GateHouse and Gannett, for example, have all announced or are implementing paid subscriptions for digital content.

Nobody is rooting for these newspapers to fail as they try to prop up flagging business models, but as a matter of business reality, when an incumbent business moves deeper into sustaining innovation it opens up opportunities for disruptors.

In every market where a newspaper puts up a paywall, an opportunity is created for an entrepreneur to start a local online news business.

Here’s an outline of three possible approaches (and depending on  conditions in each local market, there may be other models or variations — the key is for an entrepreneur take a close look at his or her market, and his or own strengths and weaknesses, and figure out the best bet for success).

The important thing to remember is that history has shown — including quite recently — that consumers will flee to a free alternative content sources when available.

A key rule of disruption is to target the customers undervalued by incumbents. Clearly, any news site that puts up a paywall is telling the community, “there’s a lot of people in this town we don’t value.”  That creates pure opportunity for the disruptive entrepreneur.

In small markets: Start a local news site.  Concentrate on breaking news, some enterprise and feature content, lots of what’s deemed “hyperlocal” news. Successful examples, of course, would include The Batavian (my own business, for those who don’t know).  This can easily be done as a two-person operation.

In suburbs: Perhaps the entrepreneur lives in a suburb and doesn’t want to tackle the larger metro area. The effort here is more hyperlocal (typically, a suburb is undercovered by definition, even if it has a good print weekly). Overlapping emergency jurisdictions and jurisdictions that take in much larger areas can make breaking news harder to cover, but not impossible, but just being embedded in the community and showing great passion for it is a huge competitive edge. Successful examples would include West Seattle Blog (which also shows how to do breaking news in a suburb) and Baristanet. (Authentically Local is another great resource for finding examples of successful, independently owned local news sites. You’ll also find other successful sites that do variations on the quick outline of approaches posted here.)

In Metro Markets:  A metro presents a decision fork for the entrepreneur, with the question being, “do you have money in the bank or not?”  It becomes much harder to bootstrap an original reporting site the bigger the market.  There is simply so much more to cover in a metro, and if you can’t give readers a sense of having a good handle on the community, they won’t find your effort appealing.  With that in mind, below are alternatives for an effort that is funded and one that isn’t.

Boostrap in a metro: Pure, or nearly pure, aggregation.  Not to pick on my friends at the Democrat and Chronicle, but if I lived in Rochester, I would be taking a serious look at how to take advantage of Gannett’s plan to wall off the D&C, so I’ll use Rochester as an example.  Rochester is blessed with some fine TV news stations. There is also local radio news and local bloggers who do various forms of reporting and aggregation. In other words, it’s a news rich environment.  A good aggregator could bring all of this coverage into a home page for the community sort of site and give people who don’t want to pay for the D&C an convenient place to go for as much if not more local news than they could get from the D&C’s web site. A good example of a local aggregator is Newzjunky.com in Watertown, N.Y. While this is a smaller market, it shows the potential. In fact, NJ’s successful eventually forced the Watertown Daily Times to take down its paywall in 2008, which should serve as a cautionary tale for publishers putting up paywalls now.

Bootstrap in a metro II: Aggregation could be supplemented by original reporting.  If you’re a one or two person team, you won’t have time to cover the whole metro, but why not cover a portion of it?  If it were me, I’d get a scanner and concentrate on breaking news, even going out to the scene of bigger events.  A reporter with a strong background in city government might concentrate on City Hall as a specialty, or an education reporter might spend a lot of time on schools and the school board.  Or maybe the reporter would do only a couple of big enterprise stories pure month. Aggregation supplemented by original reporting would create a stronger draw for readers.

Funded in a metro:  No advice here on how to get money to hire staff, but if I were an entrepreneur with some backing, I would start a series of local news sites, each with their own area of coverage. There would be a blog for crime and courts, a site for breaking news, a site for city hall, a site for education, a site for environment and infrastructure, a site for business, etc.  Each editor would be a co-owner in their own site, giving them a greater stake in its success.  A series of separate sites, instead of one big one, would open more revenue opportunities and diversify the risk (some sites might work, while others wouldn’t, giving the group publisher greater flexibility in how to adjust during the start-up phase).  There would also be an umbrella site that would act as an aggregator of not just my own group of sites, but the other free news outlets in the market.

In all of the bootstrap models briefly outlined here, there are examples of independent publishers finding at least enough success to support themselves (and maybe a staff member or two).  Nobody yet has shown that these independent sites can grow into larger operations, but I believe that growth is only a matter of time and inevitable.  The point is, whether you’re an entrepreneur who would just be happy with a ma-and-pop operation, plenty of successful examples already exist.  If you have bigger ambitions, there’s no reason not to believe those ambitions can’t be realized. The money is there to be made if you want to make it.

Newspapers are turning to paywalls not because they’re great business models, but because lack of vision and lack of execution over the past decade and a half has left them in a desperate bind to just try and survive. Being in business for yourself is a great lifestyle if you can stomach the hard work and unavoidable frustrations.  As newspapers crumble, there should be entrepreneurs ready to pick up the pieces, if for no other reason than our communities deserve good local news coverage. And a little (more) competition is always good in any market.

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , | 12 Comments

Advocates of pay walls should consider the fate of the New York World

At the time it was built (1890), the New York World skyscraper was the tallest building in the world.

First, let me remind you of a post November, 2009, in which I quote Walter Lippmann:

We expect the newspaper to serve us with truth however unprofitable the truth may be. For this difficult and often dangerous service, which we recognize as fundamental, we expected to pay until recently the smallest coin turned out by the mint. … Nobody thinks for a moment that he ought to pay for his newspaper.

Second, a summary of the situation faced by the New York World in the 1920s:

So by every measure the acolytes of the Church of Journalism might apply to the sanctity of a newspaper, the World met the standards of absolute divinity.

So what killed the World?

It wasn’t bad journalism. It wasn’t cuts to the editorial staff. It wasn’t competition from the New York Times (the death of the World created a vacuum for the Times to fill). It wasn’t a change in the public taste.  It wasn’t new technology (radio news was just barely invented when the World closed in 1931).

According to The Golden Age of the Newspaper, by George H. Douglas, in 1925, Joseph Pulitzer II made a fatal mistake.  He raised the price of the paper from two cents to three.

No other New York newspaper followed suit and circulation plummeted. In  1931, Roy Howard bought the World and laid off its remaining 3,000 employees.

People may pay for home delivery. They may pay for a nice package of reporting, entertainment and advertising. But history has shown time and again: They won’t pay for news.

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Photo: A snowy night in my back yard

Snowy Night in My Back Yard

Snowy Night in My Back Yard

To me, a night like tonight is a perfect winter night. Such nights are rare enough in winters when much snow falls. They are rarer still on mild winters, such as the one we’ve had to endure so far in 2012.

The snow falling is thick and wet, but more importantly, there is no wind, so it falls gently.

It’s the kind of snow that sticks easily to tree branches and fence posts, but more importantly, tomorrow we are likely to see some nice snowmen around town.

We need more nights — and days — like this before spring arrives.

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Ten things journalists can do to reinvent journalism, the new list

For no particular reason, I found myself looking at Google Analytics and decided to open the calendar all the way back to 2007.

I discovered that the most popular post I’ve written in that time (and probably since I started blogging in 2002) is “Ten Things Journalists Can Do to Reinvent Journalism,” published Feb. 16, 2008. It’s been viewed more than 40,000 times.  If I go back month-by-month since 2008, it is consistently among the top 10 posts for each month.

So, I just re-read it, and I found, not surprising, given nearly four more years of experience, I don’t agree with everything it says.

The first two points could be summed up as “don’t treat journalism as an ego feed.” Setting aside for a moment that I’m the last one who should lecture anybody on ego, that overall point is something I still agree with.  The reader needs to come before your own journalistic pride.  The point I would dispute is the importance of being first with a story. I used to think readers didn’t care about who is first with a story. Since starting The Batavian, I’ve learned that readers very much pay attention to consistently is first with stories and they award points to news organizations that get the scoops.  When I was a print reporter, no readers ever seemed to care about such matters, but for online news, it’s a critical bonus.

There are some points, of course, I still agree with, and there are items that I would state differently, which leads to  a new list of “Ten Things Journalists Can Do to Reinvent Journalism.”

  1. Start your own online news site. You’re not going to make dent in the universe working for a newspaper company, or any chain news organization. Get out now. Pursue your own passion and your own dream, stick to it, and you will accomplish something that matters.
  2. Connect to the community you serve, whether it’s geographic or focused around an interest. Be passionate about that community and do your best to meet all of its informational needs. Make sure your site is indisputably essential to the community you serve. Readers trust news organizations that look out for their interests.  Be that kind of news organization.
  3. Cover the big and the small. Focus on people, not government actions and process (though, obviously, this can’t be ignored).  A continuous stream of news will include stories about dead deer, city council hi jinx, cows in the roadway, misappropriation of funds, great-grandma’s 100th birthday, etc. Focus on people more than politics.
  4. Be a real person. Your byline matters. You will be a more trusted source if people have some sense of who you are. You don’t need to open up every aspect of your life to public disclosure, but sharing selective details helps people connect with you and makes them more interested in what you report.
  5. Publish what you know when you know it and let stories unfold incrementally. This also brings your readers into the process, adding information, providing new tips, correcting errors.
  6. Be absolutely ethical in how you handle information.  Be as truthful and accurate as humanly possible. Part of the new information ethics, however, is also about correcting others errors where you find them.  Don’t let misinformation spread, because it spreads too quickly these days.
  7. Be transparent. Be transparent about who you are and what you believe. Be transparent about your news process. Truth is transparent. Always be truthful.
  8. Forget old-school objectivity. For readers to connect with you, they need to see your passion. Let readers in on what you care about.  It’s impossible to report and write a truly objective story anyway, so be transparent about your point of view.
  9. Give the readers what they want. Feedback is very important. Seek it out and pay attention to it and provide the kind of coverage readers seem to enjoy.
  10. Don’t give the readers what they want. Sometimes, you need to give them a little castor oil along with the candy and ice cream. At the end of the day, you’re not truly carrying about the community if you’re not also providing the kind of truthful coverage that might make some people uncomfortable.
Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , | 20 Comments

Twelve Photos from 2011

In the Pines

In the Pines, Genesee County Park, Bethany, NY (Nikon D7000)

These are what I consider my 12 best pictures from 2011.

Batavia Waste Water Treatment Plant

A gull at the Batavia Waste Water Treatment Plant, Batavia, NY (Nikon D7000)

Elba Barn Fire

Firefighter takes a break from fighting a barn fire in Elba, NY. (Nikon D90)

Hindu Wedding

A bride celebrates her marriage during at traditional Hindu wedding in Batavia, NY (Nikon D7000)

Marty Stuart

Marty Stuart tuning up back stage prior to a concert in Le Roy, NY. (Nikon D7000)

Mud Races

From the East Pembroke Volunteer Fire Department's annual mud races. (Nikon D7000)

Running Deer

A deer running past a pond in the City of Batavia park off Donahue Road. (Nikon D7000)

Starr Farm

Starr Farm, Pavilion, NY. (Nikon D7000)

History Museum Canon

History Museum Canon, at the Holland Land Office Museum, Batavia, NY. (Nikon F4, Kodak Ektar 100 Film)

Pachuco in our backyard

Pachuco in our backyard (Nikon F4, Kodak cn400BW film)

Fall Cemetery, Le Roy

Fall Cemetery, Le Roy, NY. (Nikon D7000)

Wintry Woods

Wintry Woods, Alexander, NY. (Nikon D7000 -- the first day I owned the camera).

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged | 2 Comments

A prescriptive look at the news business

The clip above came to mind while scrolling through comments on Dean Starkman’s CJR piece, Confidence Game: The limited vision of the news gurus.

As Starkman points out, there’s two camps in the game of predicting where the news game is going and how it will survive.  There’s the Future of News Crowd, a group of academics and business elite who proclaim everything is changing, the world is falling apart and the old models will not work in the fully digital future.  The other camp is the Journalism for Democracy gang (Starkman’s phrase).  This is the group that us digital types have often dismissed as “printies,” dinosaurs who decry the changes in media markets and demand, “somebody must pay.”

I believe in, more than ever, the middle ground.

There will be no radical shift in the news business (though, I myself, fretted about it in my newspaper company executive days).  There is an evolution going on, not revolution.  Newspapers may die (and maybe they won’t), but the news business, and journalism, will survive.

The main thing both the FON and JFD groups miss is a sense of history, hence the Bogart clip.

Since early in the 19th Century, the news business has been constantly evolving, and each step of the way, there has been somebody to mourn the passing of an era, from the six-penny publishers losing out to the penny newspapers, from the muckrakers being superseded by the professional journalists, and then you had the advent of radio and TV and the death of evening newspapers, and finally, the digital age.

Each step of the way, the old school reacted with fear and loathing.

But somehow, each step of the way, new and better forms of journalism emerged.

Some of the greatest work in newspaper history came after broadcasters began competing for listener and viewer attention and local advertising dollars.

If you study the charts on newspaper readership and circulation declines, newspapers have suffered more from the changing demographics of America and changes in their own business structure than the rise of new technology.

Newspapers have been hurt by three things:

  • World Wars.  Both the first and second big wars caused great migrations around the country, mostly toward the west, as workers went to factories to find wartime jobs and military personnel found new ports of call on the coasts.  This created a less rooted society, which hurt local newspapers as people felt less connected to their communities, and therefore less interested in what the local daily or weekly had to offer.
  • Professionalization.  The rise of journalism schools and the sense that all reporters and editors needed to be “professional journalists” turned newspapers away from being interwoven in the fabric of their communities toward disconnected observers that need not be troubled with the consequences of what is covered, or not; and, more so, gave a sense of entitlement to reporters that they need not bother with the trifles of community life.
  • Chains and IPOs. Once a newspaper (or radio or television station) becomes part of a chain, it’s profits are no longer its own.  A certain layer of revenue gets sent back to corporate HQ to cover corporate expenses (corporate HQs are by definition incapable of generating revenue to support their own operations) and the local profits must be shared with corporate overlords. This means money that once stayed in the community to reinvest in journalism is now ripped away from the place where it could do most good for the health of the community and the news organization.  The introduction of publicly traded newspaper companies in the 1970s brought a whole next level of evil in the chain ownership structure.  With shareholders to please, insane profit margins needed to be maintained.  The news business — and it is a business — is not of sufficient structure to make rapid enough change or introduce new quickly commoditized products (the way a traditional manufacturer can) to maintain those profit margins.  The best newspapers can do are invest in themselves to improve and maintain quality.  In the publicly traded world, that’s not possible.

The news business was in decline before the Web came along.  Like the proverbial frog in hot water, nobody noticed how these structural changes to the news business were leading to irreversible long-term declines.  In fact, it looked like things such as chain structure (so bean counters could create “efficiencies of scale”) and a more professional work force (which also made reporters more like factory workers, more interchangeable), were in some ways beneficial (professional reporting is better, after all, than gossip mongering).

If my thesis is true — and obviously, I believe that it is — then digital represents more of an opportunity than a threat.

And the opportunity lies with those businesses that are addressing the structural flaws in the American media landscape.

  1. Local ownership.  Only local owners can address two of root causes of the news business decline. First is a connection to the community and a commitment to the community. Second is that revenue is not frittered away on support of a wasteful corporate infrastructure.  So called “scale” has no place in the news business. Local news operations by their most eloquent definition can’t scale.  Regionalism is one thing, national scale is a pipe dream.
  2. Start ups.  A start up doesn’t have the baggage that goes with legacy.  A start up can come out as a pure digital play and build a business around realistic cost and revenue projections. Digital is a different medium from paper or air. It calls for a different approach to news and business. The start up owner has the flexibility to experiment and fashion a structure that better fits the environment.
  3. Reinvent journalism. The independent editor has the freedom to change the rules of the game, re-evaluate all of the sacred cows that have been erected in the high church of journalism and decide what makes sense and what doesn’t.  The reinvented journalist can once again be a booster for his or her community, can care about the health of the local business community, can more effectively point out the rights and the wrongs in the civic sphere, and can engage his or her community in ways that are meaningful and hopefully attract more people into a new engagement with the very places they live and work.

There’s a lot of talk in the pundit class about the “sustainability” of local online journalism.  To me, it’s a ridiculous topic to theorize about.  Of course, local online journalism will be sustainable.  Each stage of journalism, from the penny press to the arrival of television, local journalism has remained sustainable.  Those who navel gaze lack a sense of history.

Think back to the original penny press publishers — they had no concept of professional journalism and certainly couldn’t imagine paying for it with classified ads, especially with big profitable verticals in jobs, cars and real estate, nor could they imagine full page spreads from department stores, nor did they think much about special sections and Sunday morning inserts — all of the things that went into making modern newspapers powerhouses of revenue and investigative, watchdog journalism were not invented for decades after the penny press was born.

We don’t know how online journalism will evolve, but it will evolve.  It will find ways to make more and more money to pay for more and more journalism.  The audience is there for it, local businesses will always want to connect with that audience, and entrepreneurial minded people will find ways to put the pieces together.

Recommended reading (books that influenced the thinking behind this post)

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , , | 11 Comments

First Roll with Nikon F

Nikon F

Nikon F

To go with my purchase of a Nikon F4 (paid for with my sales of some used mobile phones), I also bought a Nikon F.

The Nikon F was introduced in 1959 and remained in production until 1973. While it wasn’t the first SLR, nor did it introduce any great innovation, the Nikon F was the first SLR to combine all of the advanced features in one camera found piecemeal in other SLRs.

For more than a decade, most professionals carried Nikon F SLRs.

That’s why, when I decided to spend some money on film cameras, I knew a Nikon F had to be the fully manual camera in my collection.

I spent more than three weeks watching Nikon F auctions on Ebay.  There are an amazing number of dealers that will price these cameras at $500, $800, $1,000, even $3,000 for these cameras.

I bought mine for $165.

Unless you want a mint Nikon F to sit on a shelf, I can’t see paying more than $200 for one of these cameras. They’re just not that uncommon and there aren’t that many film shooters left in the world.

Below are shots from my first roll of film through the camera (Kodak BW400cn).  My primary goal was to blast of a roll in a day or two just to ensure the camera still worked properly.  I’m pleased with the results, though I find, at least so far, the camera meter seems to encourage a bit of over exposure (exposure on these shots corrected in PhotoShop).

Wayne Fuller, Batavia's legendary broadcaster.

Wayne Fuller, Batavia's legendary broadcaster.

Maybelline

Maybelline

Old Olds

Old Olds

Birch Bark

Birch Bark

Bare Tree in Le Roy

Bare Tree in Le Roy

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , | Leave a comment

The practicalities of shooting film

Holland Land Office Museum Canon

Holland Land Office Museum Canon

Reader Scott Atkinson left a comment a few days ago asking that I do a post on the “practicalities of shooting film.”

This post will answer his specific questions, plus a couple of others.

Why film?
The best place to start is asking first, why do you want to shoot film? Answering this question will help determine the direction you want to go with your photography.

For me, I saw film as an avenue to help me become a better photographer. Because digital frames are essentially an infinite supply, it’s easy to fall into a “spray and pray” approach, whereby you put her camera in burst mode and hope you get something good from the half-dozen frames or more you fire off.

With infinite digital frames, you can often take multiple shots of the same subject using various settings and then pick the one that works best. This limits the need to think ahead, or think much at all.

Now, both of these results from the infinite supply of frames can be (and were for me) great learning aids; however, I still felt in order to get my photography to the next level, I needed to learn to slow down. I realized film could help me to think ahead, to “pre-visualize,” as Ansel Adams learned to do.

Film offers a limited supply of frames. While film isn’t expensive (typically less than $5 per roll, plus another $7 for processing), it’s still an expense. There’s either 24 or 36 frames in a roll. If you take the same approach with film that you do with digital, you can run through a roll of film in minutes if not seconds. That gets expensive quickly.

The other advantage of film in helping you slow down and think is the lack of an LCD screen. You can’t “chimp” (the practice of constantly checking your LCD screen while shooting). With digital, the LCD screen will tell you if you got the shot and whether it’s properly exposed (check and trust the histogram). The screen isn’t a great aid in checking focus, but take enough shots, at least one of them should be sharp.

With film, you must think ahead.

In carpentry, the rule is “measure twice, cut once.” With film, everything needs to be measured twice: Exposure, depth of field, focus and composition all need to be thoroughly considered.

Exposure is a practical matter (any picture is ruined by under or over exposure, and unlike shooting digital RAW, there’s little latitude for post-process correction with film), but it’s also a creative decision, from choosing aperture for creative use of depth of field to how light and shadows will play with the subject.

With film, I check my exposure meter multiple times, thinking through my exposure options because my goal is to snap but one frame of the subject.

In slowing down, I must be very careful with focus (it turned out actually to be a blessing a few years ago that I needed cataract surgery, returning my right eye to 20/20 vision). On my older cameras, I’m working strictly with manual focus.

When it comes to composition, again, I slow down and “measure” two times or more. I look at every corner of the frame through the view finder before tripping the shutter.

Every element of the photograph, then, with film must go through a “measure twice, cut once” process.

This kind of practice can’t help but make you a better photographer.

You may have your own reasons for shooting film. It could be argued that film provides a visual appeal (no matter how many PhotoShop plugins you buy to simulate film) that you simply can’t get with digital. Some will argue as well that film is inherently sharper on your in-focus areas, that digital can never be truly “tack sharp.” You may think getting into film, especially larger format cameras, may be a better creative outlet for you.

Whatever your reason for shooting film, it will effect your decisions on what you buy and how you proceed.

Pumpkin on the Porch

Pumpkin on the Porch

Buying a camera
If you don’t already own a film camera, you will need to buy one.

You can still buy brand new film cameras. The advantage of new, of course, is you’re getting something under warranty that should work as expected right out of the box. New can be either more expensive or cheaper than used, depending on the used model you target.

Ebay is the first place that comes to mind for buying used equipment. On Ebay you’ll find the greatest selection at the greatest price variance. Other options include Craigslist and established Camera shops (both in your home town and online, such as Adorama). A camera shop can be a reliable place to buy used equipment. If you have time and patience to hunt, there are second-hand stores, garage sales, estate sales and local auction houses to consider. These are the same avenues Ebay dealers use to find their equipment, so if you know what you’re looking for, you can find some good bargains.

The most practical place to shop, get a good deal and have a good camera in your hands quickly is Ebay.

Whether you want Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta or some other brand, you can find an SLR to get you started.

If you have only $50 to spend, you can find a perfectly good starter film camera on Ebay for $50, with a lens.

Better cameras, such as pro-level (in their day) Nikons cost more.

But be careful. There are many dealers trying to get $500 to $3,000 for top-line Nikon cameras. You don’t need to spend that much for a working Nikon F, F2, F3, F4 or F5 (all the pro cameras of their day). I paid $180 for my Nikon F and $240 for my Nikon F4 (both, body only).

Before buying any camera on Ebay, read the product description well. Ethical sellers will tell you if they’ve tested the camera and what they found. Most dealers selling working cameras will offer money back if it turns out it doesn’t work.

There’s a wide range of Nikons available. I think if you have the $200+ to spend, get the Nikon F4. It was a break-through SLR when it was released and was hugely popular with pros back in the day. It has a great auto-focus motor, is well designed and all of the controls are tactile and easy to reach.

I’ve seen recommendations for the Nikon F100. These seem to go from $150 and up. They were the “enthusiasts” camera of their day (like the D90 or D7000 today).

If you want to go manual focus, the Nikon F (pro) or the Nikkormat (enthusiast) are great choices. Pricing is only slightly less than the F4 or F100.

The prices I quoted above are without lenses. Getting a camera with one or more lenses will drive up the price significantly, but you’re going to need to get at least one lens.

With Nikon, you definitely want to own a 50mm F1.4 (or thereabout). It’s a workhorse lens, generally great, great glass and is practical to get started with. If you want more lenses than what comes with your camera, or buy a camera without a lens, read this page from Ken Rockwell on Nikon lens compatibility. It’s critical to know what lenses work with your camera before making a lens purchase.

Mini Golf Benches

Mini Golf Benches

Where to buy film?
There are still drug stores around that sell film. In my town, both CVS (where I go) and Rite-Aid offer one-hour processing, so they sell film. As much as I dislike Walmart, Walmart also sells and processes film. From what I’ve read, though I haven’t tried it, Walmart also gets beyond mere C-41 processing (more on this in the next section). I’ve read, for example, that you can get 120 film (medium format) processed through Walmart (I imagine they also sell it).

Retail stores typically have a more limited selection. I love Kodak’s Ektar 100 color negative film, but I can only buy it online. There are about a half-dozen different C-41 films I’ve found in online shopping. I haven’t tried them all yet, but every film has its own characteristics and best uses. You will want to experiment with a variety of films and see what you like best.

Where to process film?
As mentioned above, there are still drug stores around that offer one-hour processing.

Typically, the one-hour shops are providing what’s called C-41 processing. C-41 refers to the chemicals used in the process. There are both color and black and white films that can be processed in C-41. When you buy online, check the specs for the film. It will tell you the kind of processing required. If it says C-41 and you’re going to a drug store, the film will be fine.

I’ve not checked to see if Walmart offers anything other than C-41. If they do, it probably requires the local store to send the film out.  This will mean you won’t see your pictures for a week (but slowing down is what film is all about).

The first time you go into your local one-hour shop with a roll of black and white, the staff there may tell you they can’t process it. Explain to them C-41 processing. In my local store, the first time I went in I didn’t know about C-41 and was initially turned away. Fortunately, a staff member came in later who knew everything about processing film in his store and he got it taken care of for me.

You will save a good chunk of change if you get your pictures back on CD without also paying for prints. Getting prints doubles the price of processing and you don’t need them. My one-hour place will provide a contact sheet (or what passes as a contact sheet — they call it an index card) at no additional cost. You want to play with your photos on your computer anyway. You should leave instructions that you don’t want your photos corrected for exposure or color before being transferred to CD. You’ll also get your negatives back, which is kind of cool. I also ask for TIFF rather than JPEG on the disk. TIFF isn’t quite like getting a RAW file, but it does give me a little more data to work with in post processing.

Broken Sidewalk

Broken Sidewalk

What about a darkroom?
I would love to have my own darkroom, but the expense isn’t something I can afford right now.

For a darkroom, you need an enclosed space that can be made completely and totally dark with running water and vents.

The advantages of a darkroom is you can process a wider variety of films (depending on what equipment and chemicals you want to buy and deal with). You can get beyond C-41, but you can also get beyond 35mm film.

It’s also still true in the art world that the photographs that command the highest prices are of prints made by the photographer.

If you or I want to continue shooting film for many years, a personal darkroom may become absolutely necessary. Eventually the one-hour processing shops are going to go away. It’s unavoidable and inevitable. I’m planning on installing a darkroom in our too-low-ceiling basement some day. The day will come where it’s either that or stop shooting film (well, mail order will be an option, probably, but that will likely be expensive).

So, for anybody thinking of making the jump from digital back to film, I hope the information here proves helpful.

And if you don’t know about my photoblog, it can be found at VuFindr.com.

Peeling Paint

Peeling Paint

Share on TwitterShare via email
Tagged , | 4 Comments