How digital imaging changes work of photojournalists
Photojournalists feel digital imaging increases their workload, but nonetheless still think they have enough time for content and journalistic tasks.
Has digital imaging changed the job of photojournalist? On a superficial level, the answer is “Of course it has.” Photographers and photo editors now work with their images on a computer screen instead of in a chemical darkroom. On a more fundamental level, does the shift in the technology of photojournalism also change the nature of what photojournalists do, in particular, the type of tasks they spend a great deal of time performing? If so, what are the implications?
The change from chemical to digital processes has also been a shift of responsibilities for photo reproduction within the newspaper. It means that photographers and photo editors can exercise greater control of their work from image capture throughout most of the prepress process. It also means that to do their jobs, photographers and photo editors now rely increasingly on computers and that digital imaging experience has become an important hiring criterion. Photo departments now do the bulk of digital image processing, reflecting a movement of some work from production departments (process camera and imaging).
One potential effect of an increase in workload is a reduction in quality, especially if there is no concurrent increase in staffing. How great an increase in workload and whether such as increase has been addressed by additional staff resources are important questions for newspapers to consider. Another important question, or set of questions, has to do with whether the introduction of digital imaging has changed the nature of news photography work and thus the job of the photojournalist.
There is evidence that a similar shift to a computerized news production process, from composing room paste-up to newsroom pagination, has had both positive and negative impacts on another group of newsroom workers – editors. It has increased their control but has limited the time they have for traditional journalistic tasks – and has, in effect, changed the nature of editing work. This study, based on a national sample of daily newspaper photo editors, explores whether digital imaging is perceived to have similar effects.
Digital imaging in newspapers primarily refers to image processing, through the use of negative scanners, computers and software such as Adobe Photoshop. Increasingly, the term also refers to image capture, as some newspapers are phasing digital cameras into daily use. Wire services and a handful of papers digitally processed images in the late 1980s, primarily through expensive proprietary systems such as Scitex. But digital photo handling exploded at newspapers in the early 1990s through the rapid adoption of the Associated Press Leaf Desk and the use of Photoshop, the off-the-shelf image– handling software, as well as Macintosh computers to run it.
Most research on digital imaging has focused on the ethics of digital manipulation. Research also has been done on digital imaging as a criterion in hiring and training, and one case study detailed a newspaper’s decision to place responsibility for digital imaging and pagination in production departments, primarily to give editors and photographers more time to spend on traditional journalistic tasks. Otherwise, analysis of the impact of digital imaging on photojournalism has been limited to an occasional trade journal account.
The most closely related research has dealt with pagination, a similar news production technology that was introduced into many newsrooms before digital imaging – in some cases as early as 1980. Several studies of pagination’s impact have identified two dimensions of changes in the job – those that relate to journalistic tasks and those that relate to production tasks. Keith Stamm, Doug Underwood and C. Anthony Giffard factor-analyzed a list of questionnaire items about changes in priorities editors assigned to a list of editing tasks. Two factors – a journalistic task factor and a production task factor emerged.
Other researchers have found that copyeditors and page designers appreciate the flexibility and control of the work that pagination affords them. At the same time, editors worry about the increasing production demands and consequently about the quality of the work they are able to do on more traditional tasks, such as copyediting and headline-writing.
Is a similar effect at work in digital imaging? Might increased responsibility for production-oriented tasks limit the time photojournalists may spend on journalistic tasks and perhaps adversely affect quality?
The practice of newspaper journalism historically has entailed some level of production responsibilities for news workers. Since the mid-1970s, when the use of computers became widespread in newsrooms, those production burdens have increased. In some current job categories, such as copyeditor, page designer, graphic artist and photographer, news workers have a greater production role than others in the newsroom, in part because of their closer tie to the actual manufacture of the newspaper as a product, in part because of the relative importance of computer systems to the work done by journalists who fill those jobs.
Technology has been an integral part of news photography from the beginning. News photographers have had to understand cameras, lenses, lighting and the chemistry and equipment used in film processing and printing. Barbie Zelizer points out that photographers struggled as far back as the 1930s for recognition as professionals rather than as mere technicians, and some say that struggle continues today. In news photography, tasks analogous to some digital image adjustments were traditionally done by photographers in chemical darkrooms. Examples are dodging, burning and adjusting contrast. Other tasks now primarily done by photographers are more analogous to work traditionally done in production departments. Examples are scanning, color correction and color separation.
Some have raised concerns that the emphasis on technology might adversely affect quality. Jim McNay, a photojournalism teacher at San Jose State University, said, “Every time I meet with professional photographers, I notice how much the discussion is about software and technology and how little is about content.” In 1993, Gary Haynes, Philadelphia Inquirer assistant managing editor for photography and graphics, said: “By default we have become production departments.” Ken Irby, a photography associate at the Poynter Institute, worries about workload and quality. He said, “Here’s the scary part: [Many] news departments have eliminated their back shops, so photographers are assuming much more of the responsibility” for color correction and output. Others see no cause for concern. George Frajkor of the Carleton University School of Journalism, said, “Digital photography is easier, faster, and in the long run better than chemical.”
Digital imaging may lead to other types of changes in the work life of news photographers, such as increased interaction with reporters and editors. Photo editors and educators say that computers let photographers come out of the darkroom and join the rest of the staff. Others express concern that because photo processing no longer must be done in a darkroom, news editors might assume responsibilities for image handling and in the process photographers may lose some autonomy and control of their images.
Computers and work
The author has argued that computerization has had different impacts on different categories of newsroom workers and that a key distinction can be drawn between computer systems used for news gathering and those used for news production or processing. Examples of news-gathering systems are frontend systems used for reporting, database systems used for computer assisted reporting, news library systems, photo archiving systems and digital cameras. Examples of news production technologies are pagination systems, digital darkrooms and front-end systems used for production (primarily by copyeditors).
Following this logic, journalists should report positive impacts in newsgathering systems, because after an initial training period, they can use these tools to do what they have long considered professional work in more efficient and effective ways. Systems for news production will be viewed with greater ambivalence. They too require an initial training period, but afterward, these tools enable journalists to perform some journalistic tasks more effectively and typically offer them greater control of content, but they also tend to increase their workload. John Russial refers to the process as a technological job enlargement, in that new production tasks are added to the existing set of journalistic tasks through the introduction of news-production systems.
He says one of the key effects is a limitation in the discretion journalists have in deciding how much time to spend on traditional journalistic tasks. Ann Grill reported a paradox of pagination – that creativity was a benefit but that copyeditors were spending less time on word-related tasks. Underwood, Giffard and Stamm refer to this process of workload shift in the case of pagination as a displacement effect, and in another study, they point out that the effects of pagination’s implementation are mixed – contributing to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
In broader studies of computers and work, the impact of information technology is typically construed in either/or terms. Information technology, for example, has been characterized as “professionalizing” or “deprofessionalizing. It has been hailed for enriching jobs by increasing workers’ skills through flexibility and cross-training. It has been criticized for degrading jobs by “de-skilling” workers through the separation of the conception of work from its execution.
One of the best articulated arguments is made by Shoshanna Zuboff, a management scholar who argues that technology can be “automating” or “informating.” Automating refers to the replacement of skills by machinery; informating refers to a shift from action-centered skills to intellective skills such as understanding and judging information. The computer is the key, and it can be used either to automate or informate. Zuboff says the informating capability of what she calls “the smart machine” tends to eliminate the distinction between white and blue collar work, and she suggests that the integration of mental and manual dimensions of work is a positive outcome of technological change.
Russial has suggested that either/or perspectives fail to explain the impact of news production technologies on the white-collar work of journalism. In general, computerized news production technologies are neither primarily degrading nor enriching (neither informating nor automating, to use Zuboff’s terms) but in effect can be both at the same time. This duality should help explain the ambivalence journalists feel in the face of those technologies. Moreover, it should offer a better basis for understanding the implications of computerization on such important issues as quality of work, quality of work life and job satisfaction.
In the case of digital imaging, does newspaper photography now include a substantially greater amount of production work, and if so, has this change in the job been met with ambivalence, as it has with pagination? Further, what are the implications for quality of photo work in daily newspapers?
Photo editors at daily newspapers in the United States were surveyed in February and March 1997. Newspapers and addresses were selected from the 1996 Editor and Publisher International Yearbook through a systematic random sample. A sample of 362 newspapers was drawn, representing approximately one out of every three daily newspapers of more than 7,500 circulation. The survey was limited to papers with circulation of more than 7,500, even though most smaller newspapers also process images digitally. Smaller dailies and weekly papers were not included because the purpose of this study was to examine the impact of digital imaging on journalists whose primary or exclusive responsibility is photography. At very small dailies and many weeklies, reporters and editors often also work as photographers, and some of these papers do not have a photo department as such.
One mailing took place in February 1997. In early March, a second mailing included a follow-up letter and another copy of the survey. Both mailings were addressed to the photo editor, chief photographer or photo department director as listed in the Yearbook. If a newspaper’s listing in the E&P Yearbook did not list a supervisory position for photo, the mailing was addressed to “Photo editor.” The response rate was 62.2 percent, representing 225 newspapers out of the sample of 362.
Questions were developed based on the author’s prior observation of newspapers that use digital imaging systems and from questions used in studies of pagination, a related news production technology.
What does a photographer’s average workday entail?
Photo editors were asked to estimate how much time photographers spend, on average, on a variety of tasks. Examples are traditional photo tasks, such as shooting, editing, developing film and planning assignments, and on computer tasks, such as scanning, using Photoshop and using the Leaf Desk.
Does digital imaging lead to changes in workload and staffing? Photo editors were asked how workload changed as a result of digital imaging. They also were asked to estimate the percentage of work that shifted:
From production departments to the photo department
From the photo department to production departments
From the photo department to the newsroom.
The most likely shift is the first, because digital imaging, like VDTs and pagination, enables newspapers to save back-shop costs by moving image processing into editorial departments. It is possible, however, that work could have been moved from photo to other departments. One medium-size newspaper, for example, created a back-shop imaging department to do the bulk of its image processing work, and other papers have retrained production personnel to do some image-processing tasks.
The third scenario – work shifting from photo to the newsroom – also is possible, particularly at small papers, where staff members have to wear many hats. A Macintosh loaded with Photoshop can be placed as easily on a news desk as it can on a table in a photo department, and Leaf Desks often are placed in the newsroom, where they can be used by news as well as photo editors.
Photo editors also were asked how long the paper had used digital imaging, making it possible to examine whether perceived workload decreases with experience. It is a common belief in newspapers that workload will jump sharply when a complex new technology is introduced because it takes time for workers to learn to use it efficiently but that it will drop back once the workers become familiar with it. Size of newspaper also might relate to workload and staffing increases, because smaller papers often have disproportionately fewer staff resources.
By many accounts, newspapers did not hire enough staff (at least initially) to address the workload increase that resulted from the introduction of earlier news production systems, and concerns often were raised in trade journals and at professional meetings about overwork, burnout and quality. In the case of digital imaging, the economic climate of the early to mid-1990s might have played a role in hiring. Digital imaging was introduced at many papers during a period of general belt-tightening and downsizing, making it less likely that photo staffs were increased to make up for any workload increase.
What is the impact of digital imaging on quality of work and quality of work life?
The photo editors were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with 14 statements about the impact of digital imaging on their departments. The statements were based on variables identified as important in studies of pagination.
The following are the statements; responses were registered on a 5point scale with the midpoint as neutral:
Photo deadlines have improved
Photographers have more autonomy
Photo content has improved
Photo work is more routine
Photographers have less control of their images
Photographers interact more with reporters, editors and designers
Photographers have new opportunities
Photographers have greater flexibility in working with images
Photographers face more limits on their work
Desk editors now have greater control of photos
Photographers have more time to spend on content
Quality of photo reproduction is worse
Photographers have more time to spend on journalistic tasks
Production has become a higher priority for the photo department
In their study of pagination and job satisfaction, Stamm, Underwood and Giffard used factor analysis to identify dimensions of priority for journalistic vs. production tasks and to identify dimensions of change in the job of editor. They found increased priority on production, which contributed negatively to job satisfaction.
In this study, factor analysis of impact statements is used to test the hypothesis that because digital imaging is a news production technology, photo editors will be somewhat ambivalent toward it – that they will feel it has positive as well as negative impacts on quality and on work life. The analysis should produce a key factor that loads highly on positive impacts, such as flexibility, autonomy and control of images, as well as negative impacts, such as increased production responsibility, routinization of work and reduced quality
A photographer’s workday
Shooting photos – a traditional task – takes up the greatest part of a photographer’s day, but computer work is not far behind. The highest-ranking task after shooting was “working on a computer,” a general category of activity that overlaps a variety of tasks, such as image processing in Photoshop, scanning negatives, using the Leaf Desk for picture editing and using a photo archive. Editing, planning photo shoots, developing film and attending meetings also take up some time. Printing photos is almost negligible, reflecting the almost complete shift to digital processing.
In general, photo editors report that digital imaging has increased the workload of the photo department. A total of 65.7 percent of photo editors said workload was “much” or “somewhat heavier”; 28 percent said the workload was “much heavier.” About 26 percent said workload had stayed the same, and about 8 percent said workload was “somewhat” or “much lighter.”
In general, photo editors report that workload has shifted primarily from production departments as a result of digital imaging, though some indicate that workload has shifted from photo departments to either production units or to the newsroom. Table 2 reports the percentages of photo editors who estimated the various possible shifts.
There appears to be no relationship between length of time using digital imaging and perceived workload (Table 3). This lack of relationship may challenge the perception that workload increases sharply for a time after a new technology is introduced but then drops back to a “normal” level. This finding is more suggestive than definitive because digital imaging might have a relatively short learning curve, and the question was not sensitive enough to address an impact based on a learning curve of, say, several months. Anecdotal reports do suggest that Photoshop takes quite a while to master, and the results here, combined with the reports that workload is greater after digital imaging, suggest that the increase in workload has more to do with a permanent shift in production responsibilities rather than a one-time learning-curve penalty.
Larger papers disproportionately report increased workload (Table 4). It is unclear why that might be the case, given that smaller papers tend to have disproportionately fewer staff resources. It seems plausible that a shift in workload might be perceived as a greater burden on a relatively small photo staff, such as one typically finds at smaller papers. Perhaps larger papers feel a greater burden of increased workload because they use (and must therefore digitally process) more photos.
Most papers did not increase staffing as a result of digital imaging. About 29 percent said their papers added staff, 5 percent said staffing was cut, and about 66 percent said staffing remained the same. Smaller papers were less likely to have added staff (Table 5), though, as noted in Table 3, they also were more likely to say workload stayed the same or decreased.
Changes in work and work life
A factor analysis of the 14 impact statements using principal components analysis and Varimax rotation yielded three interpretable factors (Table 6). The first factor had high loadings on statements that reflect improved quality of work (improved content and greater flexibility) and quality of work life (greater interaction with others, more autonomy and more opportunities). Other high loadings were statements that reflect increased production demands and greater routinization of work, which suggests an erosion in quality of work life and, potentially, job satisfaction. The two highest-loading statements reflect the duality – greater flexibility in working with images as well as greater emphasis on production, an impact that has been negatively associated with job satisfaction in a pagination study. The first factor, though primarily positive, suggests some ambivalence toward digital imaging.
A second factor can be interpreted as highly positive. Two very high– loading statements reflect an increase in the time photographers can spend on content and on journalistic tasks.
The third factor is strongly negative, with the two highest-loading statements indicating a loss of control of their images by photographers and a gain in control by desk editors. Taken together, the three factors suggest that photo editors have a generally positive view about the impacts of digital imaging but that they also have some ambivalence.
Factor scores were computed and correlated with the workload variables. The ambivalence factor correlated with the workload shift from production to photo – the amount of time photo departments spend doing work that had been done in production (r= .36, p
Digital imaging offers photographers and photo editors a flexible new tool for doing their jobs, but it also means that they have taken on added production burdens. Digital imaging, much as other news production tools, is not workload– neutral from the perspective of the journalist. Photo editors say that workload is greater with digital imaging and that staffing has not kept pace. They also say that production has become a higher priority. Unlike copyeditors’ experience with pagination, however, photo editors appear to feel that even though their departments’ workload has increased and production considerations are more important, there is enough time to spend on content and on journalistic tasks.
One possible explanation is that photo departments were underworked to begin with, though such an explanation seems unlikely given the economic pressures on staffing in the last decade. Also, photo editors would no doubt reject it. Another possibility is that because digital imaging is so widely used in newspapers, photojournalists feel it is important to develop those skills to ensure that they will be able to advance in their careers. A third explanation has to do with the nature of photography and its historically close ties with production.
Newspaper work has always been both journalism and production. In the time of Ben Franklin, when printers were journalists, there was little distinction between production and journalistic tasks. Later, as technology changed and newspapers grew in size and complexity, the distinction between journalism and production was institutionalized in departments and often spelled out in union contracts. With computerization, the tasks began to coalesce again, as managers moved production work into newsrooms and eliminated back-shop workers. Digital imaging appears to continue that trend, and though the impact appears to be somewhat similar to that of a predecessor news production technology, pagination, it appears to be less problematic in terms of time and quality issues.
Photo editors do have some level of ambivalence toward this news production tool, but they do not appear to be critical of its impact on the quality of their work.
Digital imaging further muddies the traditional distinction between journalism and production. Photo editors do apparently make some distinctions between journalism and production, but those distinctions seem to be blurring, just as they have become blurred for others in the newsroom. What is a journalistic task? What is a production task? Is flexibility in image handling a content consideration, a production consideration or both?
Perhaps it is not as easy to separate traditional production tasks and journalistic tasks in photography as is has been with pagination. Before pagination, editors sketched page dummies and the back shop handled production cutting and pasting to implement the editorial decisions. With pagination, editors took on those back-shop responsibilities, and though they appreciated the increased control of their work, many felt they had less time to spend on their editing and headline-writing.
Before digital imaging, photographers were responsible for some processing, and the back shop handled the rest. With digital imaging, the production burden on photo departments generally increases, but it may be perceived as more a difference in degree than in kind. Photo editors see digital imaging largely in positive terms, perhaps because photo departments traditionally have had a more technical, production-oriented, role and have an easier time accepting production responsibilities, even routine tasks, as part of their job and integral to the quality of their work.
Redefinition of production as journalism in itself may not be a problem. It can become a serious concern if the attention paid to journalism diminishes because production becomes a greater priority. And doing more with less over an extended period may exact a price in burnout and attrition. Based on this study, photo editors feel that digital imaging has not had such an impact. Nevertheless, it remains important to examine these questions as other computer-based processes, such as the web, become part of journalistic routines and continue to blur the traditional distinctions between journalism and production.
1. Photo editors ranked digital imaging know-how second only to a good portfolio in hiring criteria; they ranked it higher than an internship, a journalism degree, chemical darkroom skills and good grades. John Russial and Wayne Wanta, Digital Imaging Skills and the Hiring and Training of Photojournalists. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Autumn 1998, pp. 593-605.
3. John Russial, Pagination and the Newsroom: A Question of Time. Newspaper Research Journal, Winter 1994, pp. 91-101; Doug Underwood, C. Anthony Giffard and Keith Stamm, Computers and Editing: The Displacement Effect of Pagination Systems in the Newsroom. Newspaper Research Journal, Spring 1994, pp. 116-127; Keith Stamm, Doug Underwood and Anthony Giffard, How Pagination Affects Job Satisfaction of Editors. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Winter 1995, pp. 851862. John Russial, Computers, Ambivalence and the Transformation of Journalistic Work, paper presented to the Communications Technology and Policy Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August 1995, Washington, D.C; John Russial, Pagination and the Newsroom: Great Expectations, doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1989; Ann Brill, Pagination and the Newsroom: A Study of Implementation of New Technology, doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1994.
4. George Garneau, Picture Desk Update. Editor & Publisher, February 24,1990, p.1 P; Jim Rosenberg, Wirephoto Update. Editor& Publisher, March 14,1992, pp. 3P, 31-33P.
5. Shiela Reaves, What’s Wrong with this Picture? Daily Newspaper Photo Editors’ Attitudes and Their Tolerance Toward Digital Manipulation. Newspaper Research Journal, Fall 1992/Winter 1993, pp. 131-155; and Tom Wheeler and Tim Gleason, Photography or Photofiction: An Ethical Protocol for the Digital Age. Visual Communication Quarterly, January 1995, pp. S8-12.
6. Russial and Wanta, Digital Imaging Skills, op.cit
7. John Russial, Pagination and Digital Imaging: A Contrarian Approach. Newspaper Research Journal, Fall 1995, pp. 42-56.
8. See, for example, Mary Jo Moss, Lost Among the Pixels: Who’s Minding the Store? News Photographer, February 1994, pp. 10-11; Sean Callahan, The Next Big Picture. American Photographer, 4, 1993, p. 9.
9. Russial, Pagination and the Newsroom, op.cit.
10. Stamm, Underwood and Giffard, How Pagination Affect, op.cit.
1. Russial, Pagination and the Newsroom, op. cit.; Bri ll, A Study of Implementation of New Technology, op.cit.; Carl Sessions Stepp, Editor Meltdown. American Journalism Review, December 1993, pp. 27-30; M.L. Stein, Joys and Sorrows of Pagination. Editor & Publisher, December 24, 1994, pp. 24-25; David Cole, Pagination Page by Page. presstime, February 1995, p. 29; Jane Harrigan, Why Do So Many Editors Have Bad Attitudes? Quill, March 1993.
2. Barbie Zelizer, Words Against Images: Positioning Newswork in the Age of Photography, in Hanno Hardt and Bonnie Brennan, eds., News Workers, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1995.
3. Moss, Lost Among Pixels, op.cit.
4. Jim McNay, The Importance of Content, Content, Content. Visual Communication Quarterly, Fall 1995, p. 3.
5. Quoted in Dozier, Enough With Technology, p. 9
6. Mark Toner, Photo Realism. presstime, October 1997, pp. 36-43, 42.
7. Post to JOURNET, December 6, 1996, by George Frajkor, Carleton University School of Journalism. Used with author’s permission.
8. Paul Lester, Changes Ahead: Visual Reporting vs. Photography. News Photographer, August 1995, p. 15. Also, Bryan Grigsby, ’96 Year of Gloom, Doom? News Photographer, January 1996, pp. 12-13; End of an Era Ceremony at Star Tribune, Minneapolis. News Photographer, October 1995, p. 20.
9. See, for example, Karen E. Becker, To Control Our Image: Photojournalists and New Technology. Media, Culture and Society, 1991, pp. 381-397.
20. Russial, Computers, Ambivalence, op.cit 21. Ibid.
22. Brill, A Study of Implementation, op.cit.
23. Underwood, Giffard and Stamm, Computers and Editing, op.cit. 24. Stamm, Underwood and Giffard, How Pagination Affects, op.cit.
25. Charles Derber, ed., Professionals as Workers.1982, Boston: G.K. Hall,1982; See also, Stanley Aronowitz and William DiFazio, The Jobless Future. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994; Robert A. Rothman, Deprofessionalism. Work and Occupations, 1984, Vol. 11, pp. 183-206.
26. Sociologist Daniel Bell, computer scientist Herbert Simon and other information society theorists argue that advanced technology benefits workers by eliminating unskilled, tedious jobs and providing in their place jobs that offer greater variation and greater opportunity for meaningful work. See Daniel Bell, 1973, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic; Herbert A. Simon, 1979, What Computers Mean for Man and Society in John Burke and Marshall Eakin, Technology and Change. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser, pp. 68-76. Flexible specialization theorists adopt a similar
view of technology enhancing skills. See Michael Piore and Charles Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic, 1984.
27. Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974; Harley Shaiken, Work Transformed: Automation and Labor in the Computer Age. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1984.
28. Shoshana Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic, 1988. 29. Ibid., p. 393.
30. This is an acceptable rate, according to Earl Babble, Survey Research Methods. New York: Wadsworth, 1973.
31. Underwood, Giffard and Stamm, Computers and Editing, op.cit,; Stamm, Underwood and Giffard, How Pagination Affects, op.cit.; Russial, Computers, Ambivalence, op.cit.; Russial, Great Expectations, op.cit.; Brill, A Study of Implementation, op.cit.”
32. Russial, A Contrarian Approach, op.cit.
33. Stamm, Underwood and Giffard, How Pagination Affects, op.cit.
34. Some papers use the Leaf Desk for image processing as well as editing, but the vast majority use Photoshop because of its flexibility. See Russial and Wanta, DigitalImaging Skills, op. cit..
35. This finding also raises questions about the wisdom of having photojournalism students spend much time making prints.
36. Stamm, Underwood and Giffard, How Pagination Affects, op.cit. 37. Russial, A Contrarian Approach, op.cif.
Russial is a faculty member in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon at Eugene.
Copyright E.W. Scripps School of Journalism Spring 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved