I often wonder if peoples definition of a photojournalist differs considerably. If you work for a local paper getting 'tight & bright' shots of local events, news advertorials etc do you count as a PJ? Must you work on documentary projects for an agency or does it come somewhere in the middle...perhaps a heavyweight national newspaper?
It's not something I deem to be much of an issue but I do wonder how it affects peoples answer to questions like this.
I work for a number of clients that are newspapers, some national and others local. I've only rarely seen photographers covering a story in this realm using RF. I believe the options that SLR kits give tend to suit this work better than RF gear. However whatever gives you the best pictures is what counts as this, and turnaround times, are pretty much all most editors I've worked with care about.
RF's for work like documentaries and such may still be used by some simply because it's the photographers preferred tool and they have more time therefore more options. I suppose a more concise answer, and perhaps more obvious and disappointing, would be that whatever format allows you to get the picture, and get it in on time, will adequately do the job.
In answer to my own question above; personally and professionally I'm happy to call myself a snapper. I rather like the simplicity of it, others can argue over what to call both themselves and me...in my case it may simply be 'tosser!'
