>>3277967>Technically correct aka in focus and exposed for the subjectThis is not a rule. Some of the strongest images AP or Reuters have ever had their hands on feature out of focus elements close to the camera and exposures ranging from high key to low key, silhouettes to clinical operating room tables. Two years ago a blurry handheld image of refugees and barbed wire won press awards.
>No heavy photoshopping No editing things in or out
In some cases only SOOC jpegs accepted. No photoshop. Better get it right in the camera.
These ARE ALL THE SAME RULE, and this is the ONLY actual guideline; don't send us fake shit.
>That's why cameras are going in this direction. Because people need their photos to come out right as often as possible, especially if they're being paid by someone else to document something. No, that's not why. Arsenal is aimed at hobbyists, not professionals, because professionals aren't typically shooting stuff like lightning strikes anyway, and if they are they have more specialized equipment available.
Cameras are going this way because technology is improving rapidly and it's an option now where it wasn't 20 years ago. There's nothing wrong with this device existing, and no one is even saying that. I'm not sure who you're arguing with if that's the basis of your comments.
"The main market for camera companies has always been paid photographers, not "artistic" snapshitters."
The main market for camera companies is currently corporations, not individuals, and as far as the individual market goes, it is predominantly made up of hobbyists and not "professionals" of the journalistic caliber.
Photojournalists are the most likely to be using 10 year old cameras taken from the jobs gear room. Hobbyists are the most likely to buy an A7R III because it fits their "professional needs"
Professional is a marketing term for youtubers.
And you are an absolute idiot.
