File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
dearest, dearest /p/.

i am beginning to do some photojournalism. this pic is the best i can do with my only digital camera - it's an old casio exilim card camera i keep in my wallet. please reccommend me a series of pro quality digital cameras for under $500 that i can use for some newspaper quality photos so i don't looklike a tool sumbitting crap to papers.

pic is of the globetrotters case at the basketball hall of fame. i'm doing a feature piece.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.Camera ModelEX-S2Camera Software1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:02:21 01:26:50Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length7.50 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
It's not the camera that'll make the photo, and that's really not a good photo. Why is there a huge chunk of wall on the left side? You cut off part of the jersey, which could have been spared if you didn't picture the wall.

As for cameras, start looking at used Canon or Nikon dSLRs, or even a 35mm if the paper has a film scanner. Processing doesn't cost too much anymore, especially if you don't need prints.

Check eBay and B&H (used section).
>> Anonymous
>>36218
In the world of photojournalism, sometimes your camera does make a difference when there's competition. Composition, lighting and all of that matters, but having a better camera gives you that extra "edge" if you want to be hired.

But in any case, that picture probably won't get you too far. Newspaper quality is hard to get though. If I were you, I would probably browse through the New York Times online and view their pictures. They usually don't fail to impress me. They might not be artistic, but they do compliment the article quite well.
>> Anonymous
>>36222

I understand what you mean, but it seemed like the OP was in the "better camera = better pictures" mindset.
>> PJ1 !mh9Ltp2XF.
>>36223
no no, i'm the OP here... i know that i need more skill. i don't planon submitting this photo although it was among the best in my batch. i need more knowledge of angle and perspective, and it would help if my LCD wasnt broken so i could shut off the flash. i'll probably be taking a class at some point so i'm not worried about my current skill level YET. Also i'm good with photoshop so i could conceivably crop and enhance this shot to be presentable. my point is that my camera maxes out at 1600x1200 and 72 dpi, has no optical zoom, no interchangeable lenses, and generally takes crappy photos. lots of glare, difficult to maintain a gamma balance, exceptionally poor (and unchangeable) shutter speed resulting in lots of blur... i really just want help finding a camera so i don't go to a circut city or some nonsense money-sponge and get taken for a few hundred bucks.
>> PJ1 !mh9Ltp2XF.
>>36218
oh and also i definetely need a digital camera. i have a tight budget, even if processing is cheap. i can't be adding the expense of film and processing to my average weekly income of $125. i will be getting this camera as a burthday gift from mommy :/

on top of that, every paper i work with asks specifically for digital photos.