18 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No.

1 • Winter 2006

Digital Camera Use Affects

Photo Procedures/Archiving
by Howard Bossen, Lucinda D. Davenport and Quint Randle

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.

T he 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 photog-
raphers:

__________________________________________
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.
 Bossen, Davenport and Randle: Digital Camera use Affects - 19

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 photojour-
nalists 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 encoun-
tered 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 documen-
20 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No. 1 • Winter 2006

tation 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, edit-
ing and archiving process is a complicated one with many factors contributing
to the collective historical record. Given this complexity, this research empha-
sizes 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 sensi-
tive to the sometimes indirect and unintentional consequences of new technolo-
gies and procedures.

Literature Review
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 sub-
scribers 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
 Bossen, Davenport and Randle: Digital Camera use Affects - 21

The lone study gauging photojournalists’ use of digital cameras was con-
ducted 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 newspa-
pers) 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. Photojournal-
ists 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 news-
room 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 newspa-
per archives in a digital world, but none have focused solely on preserving
visual images.24
Indeed, computer scientist Rothenberg worried that scientific data—irre-
placeable 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
22 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No. 1 • Winter 2006

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.

Research Questions
In order to address the objectives of this study, the following research
questions were asked:

RQ1:
To what degree have daily newspapers moved from using 35mm film
cameras to the use of digital cameras in more recent years?

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?

RQ3:
Are images recorded with digital cameras more or less likely to be saved or
archived than were images recorded with film cameras?

RQ4:
Is there a relationship between the proportion of digital images archived
and circulation size, staff size, archiving policy or other demographic variables?
 Bossen, Davenport and Randle: Digital Camera use Affects - 23

Method
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 pro-
vided as well.

Population and Sampling

The population for this study
was composed of photographers One hundred
employed by U.S. daily newspa- percent reported
pers. The sampling frame was an
e-mail membership list obtained that they used
from the National Press Photog- digital cameras to
raphers Association (NPPA), the
leading professional organiza-
some degree at
tion for news photographers. We their daily
felt that conducting the study in newspapers. More
cooperation with a respected
trade association would elicit a precisely, they
higher response rate than “cold used digital
calling” via a generic list of news-
papers. Plus, it would provide cameras on 95
potential outlets for real-world percent of all
discussions of the findings. How-
ever, the downside to any part- assignments and
nership like this is that not every film cameras on 5
newspaper in the U.S. has a pho-
tographer on staff who is an percent.
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.
24 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No. 1 • Winter 2006

Because some of the practices associated with archiving are organization-

based, 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.

Variables
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 competi-

tions, 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 photogra-
pher. 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 vari-
ables, including cir- Table 1
NPPA Categories and Example Assignments
culation size, staff
size, ownership type NPPA Category Example Assignment
and archive type and General News Political press conference
procedures. Spot News Auto accident
Feature Kids at a public swimming pool
The Arts High school play
Nature/Environment Spring flowers at a local park
Sports College football game
 Bossen, Davenport and Randle: Digital Camera use Affects - 25

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 in-
creased 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 comple-
tion, 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
26 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No. 1 • Winter 2006

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 < .01). The average number of shots taken for
an assignment with a digital camera was 94 (SD = 52), and the average for 35mm
was 70 (SD = 32). The category with the greatest difference was sports (a college
football game). The average in this category for film was 197 while the average
for a digital camera was 289, an increase of 92 photos. In the other assignment
categories, differences ranged from eight to 15 photos. [See Table 2]
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 senti-
ment 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.
 Bossen, Davenport and Randle: Digital Camera use Affects - 27

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 re-
ported 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 re-
spondent: Table 2
Number of Photos Taken at Assignments,
by Camera Type
Corporate policy requires us
to destroy all unused spot Assignment 35mm Digital T p
news images as soon as pos- General News 48 58 5.85 <.01
sible after immediate usage is Spot News 46 49 7.31 <.01
Feature 51 66 7.73 <.01
finished. So only published The Arts 48 58 5.03 <.01
photos of spot news events are Nature 32 40 5.47 <.01
archived. Sports 197 289 11.63 <.01
Average 70 94 11.35 <.01
28 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No. 1 • Winter 2006

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 newspa-
pers (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 percent-
age 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
Table 3
variables was no Archiving Policy Frequencies
longer significant (p
= .08). Description of Policy Percentage N
The study did We have no official policy 26% 93
not reveal a signifi- In the process of being developed 14% 50
cant relationship be- We have a good policy that works
Policy is in place, but not followed
49%
3%
174
11
tween newspaper Other 8% 20
 Bossen, Davenport and Randle: Digital Camera use Affects - 29

characteristics (i.e., newspaper circulation, types of news ownership or photog-

raphy 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 new-
ness 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 circu-
lation 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.

Conclusions
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, photogra-
phers 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 news-
room 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
30 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No. 1 • Winter 2006

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 circula-
tion 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 – photogra-
phers, 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.

Notes
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): 22-
23.
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
 Bossen, Davenport and Randle: Digital Camera use Affects - 31

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 Photog-
raphy, 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 & 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
Journa1 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, Disadvan-
tages,” 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 Photojournal-
ists.”
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
Journal 36, 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.”
32 - Newspaper Research Journal • Vol. 27, No. 1 • Winter 2006

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, <http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9802/editorial.htm> (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.”