A picture’s worth a thousand words, yes?  What does that mean a good picture is worth?  Or even a great picture?  Does the picture have to be good as long as it tells a story?  Do only good pictures that are laid out well make a statement?

Can we cut some variables, please?

I like that Kershner makes an important point about pictures right off the bat: readers look at images first.  I used to wonder if I was just too one-dimensional because I looked at pictures first, headlines second.  Did I only care if it was illustrated?  I’m glad to know I’m not alone.

The point about having a graphic or photo to accompany a story is something else I’m glad was pointed out.  I hate bland, wordy pages.  (Not necessarily in books.  I’m not Gaston, you know.  I can read a book without pictures.)  I digress.  I love a well laid out photo.  In fact, I use photos all the time in my Pens Nation game days.  If it’s not laid out well, though, I feel like it’s a waste.

I’m not sure I agree with Kershner that pictures of buildings are a no go.  After all I-

Wait.  This is about a newspaper, not a nice photo.

Moving on.

The instructions on editing pictures should hang on the wall in every office.  Badly edited pictures might be one of my biggest peeves.  I hate when images look bad because someone couldn’t be bothered to do it nicely.  (Or at least ask how to make it better.)  This chapter makes it clear that it’s not overly difficult, you just have to take the time to do it.

Don’t worry.  I won’t propose to Kershner again…

Yet.

(He needs to stop worming his way into my heart.  I think there might be a few people who would be a little upset about that.)