So you know that feelin' when you know you had a good shoot. There's a smile on your face. A bounce in your step. You drop everything to upload the images and three star them almost immediately.
...this feeling was ruined for me today when I picked up a copy of the student daily. Not only was the back page photo grey - legit, no tonality whatsoever - but the edit was atrocious. I knew I had better photos than the ones they ran; I had posted them on facebook! ::insert mental screaming here:: I am sick of subpar editing! and learning nothing more than the latest mix of Cher and DJ Unk! I want someone to see where I'm not seeing, to give me suggestions, and slam my framing (or lack thereof). I want someone to transfer my card, hand it to me, and tell me "you're good."
Well said. Can't tell you how much that bothers me too.
No doubt, sports are a little hard to edit. Frequently you do need that shot of that one play or that one player doing just the right thing. It's hard if you don't come back with the shot they need. Editors frequently have a choice of publishing a sub-par shot that shows what they need to depict, or pissing off the sports editors and publishing a shot that is good, but doesn't go with the story.
Which is better for the paper? I don't think there is a hard and fast rule. Ultimately, the situation should never exist. It's the photographer's fault if they didn't cover the story well enough to come back with the photos that are needed. It's hard to complain if you didn't do your job right.
On the other hand, if you did do your job; did come back with that shot that tells the story of the whole game, and the editor still picks a different shot … well, then. He better have a damn good reason. If he doesn't then he's not doing his job.