Leaving for Brook's

[el_fang]

<i>"So the conversation evolved into very basic issue of digital workflow and someone (you) suggesting there was only one way."</i>

<p>Looks like English is another of your weaknesses. I never said there was only one way. But in today's photojournalism environment, digital is the standard, like it or not, as others have also pointed out. You want to use film, fine - it's a free country. But some fair warnings about the potential pitfalls are warranted because I've seen them happen, especially with regards to meeting deadlines.

<p>You see, Rene, in the real world of modern photojournalism, not all photo shoots happen in the morning. News doesn't wait for anyone, and some assignments happen late. Regardless, the deadline is set because the page editors need the photos to do layout in the evening. The papers are printed overnight. If YOU as the photog miss the deadline, YOU are the bottleneck in the system. Everyone down the line is held up, and thousands of $$$$ in extra hours are paid out for them to hang around and wait for your photos. You think the beancounters are going to tolerate even one stunt like this? Of course not - the reality is, they will just go ahead without you because they can't afford to lose that kind of money. You, on the other hand, will start falling down the photo editor's list FAST next time an assignment comes up.

<p>Perhaps I made one mistake - I assumed that Luke will want to earn a living with photojournalism. If he doesn't, and he only wants to shoot for himself on his own dime and time, then it doesn't matter what he uses - Holga, Leica, Lomo, whatever. But if he wants to be serious about a job in today's environment, I'm just giving him the facts. There's just too much frank BS being passed off as fact on the Leica forum. I know what I'm talking about. You clearly do not. Again, the proof is out there should you wish to pull your head out as I suggested and see what's going on in a modern newspaper/magazine's working environment. See for yourself, or bring up some facts to refute what I've said instead of just getting all pissy and irritated. You'll live longer.

[ben_lee4]

I say save your money for living in a godamn expensive town -- Santa Barbara is going to kick your ass. I think that first years are able to rent leica and one other for free...do that and rent some MF from calumet.

[brambor]

Fanger, you started this by calling Nachtwey and his likes a film primadona. You see. This is what you do. You come to this forum and start blasting off your narrow point of view. You are a DigiNazi. I don't need a lesson on photojournalism from you. Frankly, I don't even care. The topic went different direction so turn off the Star Trek and get with the program. Unlike you, I don't spend my free time staring into a Photo.net computer screen. I type my messages on my phnone blind while waiting at a stop light, standing in line or taking care of things. So the format might suck or the English suffers. So what. I spend most of my adult life in technology field. Your digital mantras remind me of my IT interns.You can't understand why a camera that took more work to construct costs more than a plastic camera that has a computer chip. You see, picture taking is pretty simple task. It is a box with a button. It doesn't need to have a silicon chip with nand and nor gates in order to be apreciated. You fail to understand that and come to this forum insulting people who love different types of cameras. I am now taking offense to that. life at a computer sc

[brambor]

Anyway...Fang. to simplify - you come here because you don't like some of the singleminded BS that goes around Leicas or film. Instead of presenting your point of view in objective fashion you end up shouting insulting one liners. You in fact become a singleminded BS digivangelist yourself. It is starting to bug me. Sorry, man. I know you have knowledge but you need to ease around passionate people at this forum that I care about. ok. It have been typing in bed for a while. It's after midnight. Good night. Sleep tight.

[el_fang]

<i>"Fanger, you started this by calling Nachtwey and his likes a film primadona."</i>

<p>The point, which you again missed (or conveniently ignored/twisted to your advantage) is that unless you are as good as Jim Nachtwey, who can use whatever he likes and still get published, you'd better get with the program, and the program is digital in today's environment.

 

<p><i>"I don't need a lesson on photojournalism from you."</i>

<p>Of course not - you're not a photojournalist, and you've made that plain and clear. Which begs the question, why are you even posting in this thread, on a topic clearly out of your league?

 

<p><i>"I spend most of my adult life in technology field. Your digital mantras remind me of my IT interns."</i>

<p>Newsflash: photography, in and of itself, has nothing to do with IT. Photojournalism is what it is. You're not arguing with me, Rene, you're arguing with established fact, and that is not very bright.

 

<p><i>"You see, picture taking is pretty simple task. It is a box with a button."</i>

<p>Really? Damn, you and this forum would've fooled me - seems like picture taking to you guys means measuring MTFs, shooting newspaper classifieds, studying "bokeh," black vs chrome, brass vs zinc, etc. Box with a button, eh? I'll be darned.

<p><i>"It doesn't need to have a silicon chip with nand and nor gates in order to be apreciated. You fail to understand that and come to this forum insulting people who love different types of cameras."</i>

<p>Photojournalism has absolutely nothing to do with appreciating silicon chips, or people loving different types of cameras. It has everything to do with getting the job done with the right tools. Therein lies your misunderstanding.

 

<p><i>"Instead of presenting your point of view in objective fashion you end up shouting insulting one liners."</i>

<p>Hey, I'm not the one mouthing off about "diginazis." I've presented my points in a fair amount of factual detail, something that you have failed to do, and will continue to fail to do.

[el_fang]

Bottom line is, Luke, use what you want. Hopefully you can find something that you are comfortable with and gets the job done at the same time. Equipment is not important to becoming a good photographer, but being competitive in photojournalism means being able to deliver, ON TIME. I remember National Geographic director of photography Kent Kobersteen saying that if forced to choose between the creative guy or the reliable guy, he'd go with reliable everytime. Creative is just icing on the cake. "Reliable" in photojournalism is defined as 1) always meets deadline and 2) always comes back with a picture. Those are the two golden rules of photojournalism for pay.

[Uhooru]

Fang, give it a rest. The point is he needs to get what the school wants him to have for the program. It may be digi or not or his choice, but he should find out first.

[socke]

To clarify what I said and why.<br><br>

 

I sugested digtial SLR and film Rangefinder because I know news is 100% digital today.<br><br>

 

I manage the press center at a major bicycle race here in Bremen.

Four years ago PJs with digitals where in a minority. Most shot slides in Nikon or Olympus SLRs, some had a 2MP digital for fun with them and only DPA came with Kodak 520s.<br><br>

Last year there was one PJ with two Leicas and everybody thought he'll shoot the VIPs for some fancy magazine. Everybody else had a digital SLR, mostly Canon.<br><br>

A friend shoots national Rallys as a freelancer, he was the one with the Olympus. He earned enough money with his D60 and Sigma EX lenses last year to buy a Canon 1D MkII and 17-40/4, 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 and 500/4 and have a holiday on iceland with his girlfriend and the Olympus with slide film :-)<br><br>

 

At the Motorshow in Essen recently, we saw lots of people with cameras but never a combination of a film camera and a press pass.<br><br>

 

Sports, desasters, accidents, celebrities etc.pp ad nauseam are the bread and butter of 99% percent of the PJs I know. I haven't seen much film on press conferences in the past years.<br><br>

 

When we hosted the IAC, I attended the press conferences myself because I read Jesco v. Puttkammers books and his nephew was my CO when I was in the navy. And my english is better suited to follow a speach by Sean O'Keefe. I saw no film cameras there!<br><br>

<img src="http://www.trenz.de/bilder/8/irc2003014.jpg"><br><br>

<img src="http://www.trenz.de/bilder/8/irc2003005.jpg"><br><br>

<br>

And back to the equipment I suggested, thats close to what I have and enjoy and I know that one can cover a news story with that.<br>

[el_fang]

<i>"The point is he needs to get what the school wants him to have for the program. It may be digi or not or his choice, but he should find out first."</i>

<p>That was the original point, yes... until some ignorant IT tech came in thinking he can advise on photojournalism. By the way, I do know Jim McNay, who is one of the founders and instructors of the Visual Journalism program at Brooks. I won several state awards at the community college level a while back and was brought to his attention as a possible recruit for the program. I declined as, at the time, Brooks did not offer scholarships (which tells me a lot about a school's priorities as far as academics vs money goes). Besides, it was either them or an internship with a big paper in the area, and I chose the internship, and now I'm a staffer.

<p>And yes, the Brooks program does require digital as any modern photojournalism program would.

[brambor]

Get lost Fanger. You know this isn't about photojournalism. It's about you. You need to start looking in the mirror and think about your adolescent behavior on this forum. I might just search on your posts here and pull out some of your memorable lines just to prove the point. People have been nice to you and tried to give you hints but you went on and on. Get lost.

[michael s.]

Calm down folks. Take a long look at the handsome photos <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AJiK>in this thread</a>, breathe deeply, and relax.

[paul t]

Rene, this is just a stupid internet forum, it doesn't matter. Fanger is so eager

to prove himself that he does a great impression of a third-rate wannabe, but

in this instance, who's to say he hasn't a point? This isn't about you and

Fanger, it's about Luke. He's asked a straightforward question, and it's

breaking into a playground fight. Why do you need to get involved? Go and

look at the nice churches instead. <p>

Good luck, Luke. As others have said, succinctly and politely, the best place to

find out what's most appropriate for Brook's Institute would be Brook's Institute.

[brambor]

yeah. you're right. I just completed my first hockey game shoot of the day. I'm on to the second one. Maybe it's the sticks and blades on ice that make me do this. There is no church here. Only to worship the hockye gods. Another hockey game tomorrow morning and then I'm playing a devil at a St. Nicholas party. I've got to take some prozac or sumthin.

[john_elder1]

Luke, good luck at school. You stated that you are going to Brooks "in a few months time". I highly suggest that you shoot while you are waiting to go to school. A Used M6 in exc ++ condition can be purchased from KEH for 1200.00 with a warranty. This is a damn good deal. You can also pick up an M6 on E-bay for as low as 1000.00[more risky] I am predjudiced but I don"t believe you will ever regret buying a Leica M. Further, if when you get to Brooks you find you want to get rid of it, you can sell it without much loss, if any.

You will want to learn both digital and film. Use the Leica for film. You won't regret it.

[josephwalsh]

Hi Luke,

Congrats on your upcoming Brooks adventure.

I echo those who suggest you contact the school and / or current students to answer your Q's. Most on this site (me included) really don't know.

 

I DO know however, that it's "Brooks", not "Brook's"

You may consider that nit-picking. Well, I went to Brooks and believe me, nit picking-wise, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

Best wishes,

Joe Walsh

[travis1]

I have no clue what visual journalism is. Is being arrogant part of the requisite?

[stuart_richardson]

According to the latest brochure from Brooks, the equipment requirements for the visual

journalism program are as follows: <P>35mm SLR camera capable of manual control f-

stops and shutter speeds. <P>Normal lens (50mm) for the 35mm camera. <P>18% gray

card. <P>Magnifier 4x <P>Plastic slide pages (at least 25 pages) <P>20 rolls of color

slide film (ISO 100, 36 exp) <P>Tripod <P>Cable release <P>Camera bag to carry

camera, lenses and accessories. <P>One box of Sharpie markers (fine point). <P>That is

all. This brochure was sent to me last week. Given that digital classes make up a decent

portion of the program, starting in the second part of the first year (of 3), I assume that

they either have cameras for checking out, or they will let you know that you need them

once you get there. If anyone is truly interested, I will ask them when I attend the open

house on the 11th.

[brambor]

Al Fang(us) said:

"And yes, the Brooks program does require digital as any modern photojournalism program would."

 

Reading the last post above makes me think Fungus had his head somewhere else when he made this statement.

[el_fang]

<i>"Get lost Fanger. You know this isn't about photojournalism. It's about you. You need to start looking in the mirror and think about your adolescent behavior on this forum."</i>

<p>The question is about photojournalism, and I answered because I have experience in this area. So why did you, an IT tech, feel the need to participate? If refuting the usual BS spewing from your average amateur Leica fondler is "adolescent behavior" as you define it, then I'll gladly continue.

 

<p><i>"I might just search on your posts here and pull out some of your memorable lines just to prove the point."</i>

<p>By all means, go ahead. I've already invited you more than once to point out what I've said wrong and present facts to the contrary. I have a feeling, however, that you'll just end up making yourself look even more foolish (if that were even possible).

[el_fang]

<i>"Reading the last post above makes me think Fungus had his head somewhere else when he made this statement." - Rene Braun</i>

<p>Braun Spot, you didn't finish reading the post:

 

<p><i>"Given that digital classes make up a decent portion of the program, starting in the second part of the first year (of 3),"</i>

<p>So, please, keep 'em coming. As dumb as you want to make yourself look, I'm right here to take you up on it.

[el_fang]

<i>"I have no clue what visual journalism is. Is being arrogant part of the requisite?"</i>

<p>No, but knowing what you're talking about is.

[._._z]

Brooks's Visual Journalism program, into which photojournalism training is

incorporated, cross-

trains in still cameras, computers and digital video cameras as the handwriting is on the

wall wrt photojounalism's changing face toward video, a la www.digitaljournalist.org's

Platypus Workshop programs.

 

Anyone who today wants to prepare himself for a career in photojournalism needs to

reconsider spending money on a film setup.