ie mobile phone photos or video footage being used in papers or on TV news. anyone else hate this as much as me? i know things like youtube and blogging etc have made 'authenticity' more important than the actual quality but still, the quality is really poor, not really what i want to see on the bbc news or on the front page of the guardian.
― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Monday, 13 April 2009 11:41 (seventeen years ago)
It can be annoying but if it's the only image or footage of an important event, why not? It will swiftly become less of an issue as quality of image capture on phones catches up, at least to some extent, with that of consumer digital cameras and video cameras.
― dubmill, Monday, 13 April 2009 11:46 (seventeen years ago)
http://www.shakingthrough.net/images/books/da_capo_best_music_writing_2002_cover.jpg
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 13 April 2009 11:47 (seventeen years ago)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G_Zxup7esU
― OK, fine, yes, I Goggled it (Pancakes Hackman), Monday, 13 April 2009 12:36 (seventeen years ago)
***sigh***
― OK, fine, yes, I Goggled it (Pancakes Hackman), Monday, 13 April 2009 12:37 (seventeen years ago)
wow i somehow managed to never see that one before.
― Ludo, Monday, 13 April 2009 12:45 (seventeen years ago)
As long as newsworthy footage or accounts are paid for by the provider at normal freelance rates, I have no problem with it.
― suggest bánh mi (suzy), Monday, 13 April 2009 13:50 (seventeen years ago)
re: the JFK footage, i should prob say that DIGITAL UGC is aesthetically awful most of the time.
― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Saturday, 18 April 2009 11:14 (seventeen years ago)