The difference between news photography, artistic photography and commercial photography

I think there are great differences between the three in the goals they pursue and the skills they use. Try to discuss:

News photography should truly and accurately restore the scene, so that the absent public can feel the atmosphere of the scene, as if they were there. I think the responsibility of a media worker should be to tell readers what happened there, not how to tell them-unless the media belongs to a propaganda department, hee hee. Therefore, news photography should focus on restoring the appearance of things, not showing their essence. Because expressing the essence of a thing depends on the photographer's subjective understanding of it, selling his subjective understanding to others through the media is propaganda.

The goal of artistic photography is to show the essence of things. Therefore, artistic photography is not afraid to deviate from the truth in appearance. This is also the reason why big eaters, old foodies and prawns are all praying for color filters, darkrooms and PS without exception. Therefore, artistic photography can use far more techniques and techniques than news photography, and I think a good news photo should use as few techniques as possible that can change the atmosphere and artistic conception of the picture.

The purpose of commercial photography is to show some characteristics of things. And in most cases, the photographer's client also wants to cover up other features that he doesn't want to be known. In order to achieve this goal, commercial photographers do not hesitate to use artificial light and environment to achieve their goals. Photographers engaged in artistic photography often prefer to use natural light to achieve their goals.

I don't know if I understand correctly.