the issues in photojournalism

greetings all...

i'd like to ask some questions in photojournalism, i'm appreciate if

u could answer the following questions and give me more advice

around it...

1. how do u think the tension between photo editor and photographer?

do you think if your picture editor has visual aspect of

storytelling?

2. what's the big difference between (press)staff photographer , the

photographers working in agencies, and the freelancer?

3. what kind of manipulated pics do you think can be acceptable in

photojournalism?

4. What??s your oponion on the increasing use of digital camera in

photojournalism?

5. How do you think the role as a photojournalist currently,

especially in UK? or the difference between in UK and US?

6.What do you worry about today??s photojournalism mostly?

7. Do you have any advice to keep highest level photojournalism?

1.) Don't understand your first question.

2.) Staff photographer has a more regular income.

3.) Only the most minimal dodging and burning, and cropping.

4.) Digital camera is a tool for recording an image. No difference from a film camera in principle.

5.) No difference between US and UK IMO.

6.) It pains me to see photojournalists blending images and using digital manipulation beyond the scope of realism.

7.) Show it as it is.

i'd like to explain my first question, according to some photographers' complain, they said their picture editors' tastes were without visual aspect in terms of photography... which another question is arising here, what can be a quality news photograph?

i've read some research report on "the photojournalism in UK and it's altered images", the problem in UK now, is that the press agencies have less and less staff photographers, and the quality newspaper like Guardian who seldom send photographers for newsreporting. instead, more and more photographers have their own news agencies, but they can't have much finance to be suvival....

1. A picture editor has to see the picture in the context it will be used. What's suitable for the paper, and goes with the text. The photographer has to give them choices.

2. If your income is based directly on pictures published then you are more likely to shoot with (what you think are) the wishes of the picture editor in mind.

3. Materially adding or removing things from the scene is not acceptable. "The camera never lies" may be a true statement, but it certainly can deceive. When we manipulate a picture show it doesn't show what was there that is a problem.

4. There is no material difference between digitally captured images, and images captured on film and then scanned. The major change in digital is on of speed.

5. 6. I don't worry about it.

7. Your job is to tell people what was there (not simply to record it).

Question One -- the fact of the matter is that everyone works for an audience and for a photojournalist that audience is the photo editor. The photo editor controls access to the newspaper/magazine for the photojournalist. The photo editor and the photojournalist may well have different values when it comes to evaluating photographs, but the photo editor makes the choices. Tension here is inevitable and perhaps contributes to creativity, or perhaps not. But what is true is that the photojournalist needs to anticipate the values of the photo editor and provide images that address those values; otherwise, one's images don't get into the paper and after a while those paychecks stop coming.