First of all. I don't believe photo"Journalists" should really be using much photoshop. As it is journalism and altering the picture makes it not "real or unbiased"
Then a photo should never enter the darkroom either if it's used for journalism? There is a difference between post-processing and manipulation. Think about it. How does a photo get cropped? Or the DIP dropped for publication purposes? How does it get converted to grayscale since you can't shoot in grayscale for newspapers and it's not a good idea to do it generally.
I believe that pictures are what makes people pick up most publications. Although it doesn't have to be a *great* picture, just of a topic that interests people. Although most newspaper readers, read the newspaper no matter what picture is on it. Most people are more likely to pick up a magazine with a pretty picture. Newspapers are more likely read by subscribers.
if you haven't studied jrnl i wouldn't expect either you or mackenzie to know how newspapers are sold. Let's just say that while newspapers are read about subscribers that's really not the point. Not all newspapers have subscribers. Some are free and go door to door. And how is each article chosen? Those with a good, yes, good picture, are more likely to be read then others.
And as I said previously you don't HAVE to have the gear, but if you are really into photography and depending "What kind" you may eventually end up with a lot of money invested.
I have a $1000 camera w/kit zoom lens
a $300 telephoto zoom lens
a $160 used light meter
a $100 camera backpack
a $200 used off camera flash
about $1500 of studio equip and that is just with 2 AB 800s and softbox, umbrellas stands, etc.
another $1000 of backdrop stuff
Now of course that is because I do want to do "studio" photography and you can't do that kind of photography without the equipment which is pretty expensive.
glad you specified studio. i can't stand it when ppl are made to feel like they can't take good pics becuz they don't have the gear
Not to mention I don't even know how much money I spent last semester buying Velvia 100 slide film and having it processed and getting prints. And I have $150 used Nikon film camera with a lens for it.
I want to buy a $1600 lens, I need to buy a new camera, so that I can have my D70 as a back up. Not too mention the other studio equip. Although I understand not everyone wants a studio. But if you like taking pictures of people, or products, and such then you may want one and the stuff is expensive.
But I was taught by "photographers" not photojournalists. I took a documentary/photojournalism class and I admit that is not what interests me. I much prefer landscape/nature/people photography.
And I am MUCH more critical than just about anyone when it comes to pictures. I took a class where it didn't matter how proud you were of the photo, when it came time to show in class, the teacher would always have a "however....such and such would make this a much better photo." And he was the state photographer of Texas. And I took classes from art photographers (one of which actually had worked in just about every kind of photography there is), and they are probably the most critical of any photographer. So I imagine it might be quite a bit different than having a photojournalist program.
I am sorry, it is just frustrating when every person who owns a P&S camera thinks they can be a professional. Even getting an SLR will not make you a photographer. And some people think the camera is what will make you a photographer. I know my mom didn't like to tell people my degree was in photography, because it sounds like such a blow off major. But I worked my butt off and it is a lot more difficult than it seems. Its not about pointing and clicking a button. It is about soo much more.
I never said it was expensive right off the bat. And I never said the D40 isnt a great camera. I think it is a great camera to start with. I just thought I would point out that if you get really into it, then you will usually start to want more, and all that money adds up.[/QUOTE]