Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: fredjeang on March 18, 2010, 03:22:01 pm
-
Hi,
This topic is about photography as a profession.
In that sense, opposed to the amateur (in the noblest way), as the only source of incomes.
I've post this thread here, it could have probably fit better in the coffe corner, but I found that it does also have
something to do with this website and a lot of articles and debates that have been involved.
Reading many posts, I realized that they are a lot of concerns, and excitements in the profession.
Things are changing, and they are changing fast. But there is a general feeling regularly expressed that it is not as fun
as, let's say 15 years ago? amongs the pros. Why is that?
Video seems to be a crucial point now. It's like the ones who does not want to deal with video, will have to anyway.
Internet also is powerfull. Can a photographer live exclusively from internet now, or in a short term?
Has the creativity been killed by technique and pressure? More work for less money? less fun? but also
more exciting technology and new techniques and languages.
Are you, professionals, more happy since digital, video capabilities etc...?
In other words, and sorry for my limited english, what do you think about the state of the profession now, and where are we going according to you?
Many thanks.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Hi,
...what do you think about the state of the profession now, and where are we going according to you?
Many thanks.
Cheers,
Fred.
Technology has done much to level the playing field, and most folks no longer require the services of a professional just to take and produce a print.
The admission for entry into the game is much, much less. You don't need a dark room, years of honing the craft, or the all that associated gear that cost a second mortgage, etc. Even so, Ebay is your best friend and one poor saps sell out is another's bargain start-up. (i.e. I paid $75 for Mam 645M, with two lenses and an LED metered finder).
Access to information and learning is now a snap, with the largest library of "how to" right behind a google search, there's little need to follow someone in the know as a second shooter. Unfortunately this has created a huge flux of able bodies willing to shoot anything for almost nothing just to have a portfolio.
I work full time in a studio (in-house) for my employer, and do side work. The number one concern of any request is not "how good?", but "how much?". Folks are broke or thinking twice before racking up another card.
I also do video, animation and program interactive content, hence my title as a "multimedia developer". I doubt "photographer" would have held up to the same scrutiny when my employer merged with a bigger firm, and everyone but me in the Ad department was let go. That was not easy thing to face, and my old boss is barely scrapping a living shooting the racing circuit.
In "leveling the playing field", it now matters how good you really are. Artistic now has merit. So does people skills and frankly, a greater desire to love the craft whether you expect to be paid or not. In the end that's what matters. I'm not sure if I could pay the bills on photography alone. If I were to go free-lance full time, I would open a studio and go right into the corporate product photography that I'm doing now. Even after doing the math, Health care and overhead on my own would take it's toll, and my bottom line would be no better than line 10 on my employers W-2. In the end, I would have to wear many hats to make it work, and pictures would only play a part.
-
Interesting topic. I was talking with a young colleague at lunch today, mentioning the thread on web sites and asking how many had sales from their websites (answer: zero). She does wedding and engagement party photography as a part time gig, seeing if it will generate funds enough to make it a ongoing business. This is one area where the technology has really made a difference; you can quickly generate a CD of shots for the bride and groom. Another good friend does the same thing using his weekends to do weddings, family portraits, etc. I've been asked to do some pet photography jobs (since I don't need the revenue stream and probably don't have the patience to coax the dog to pose I turned it down). Today our association had our annual meeting and we had a local photographer who I struck up a conversation with. He had both a Nikon D300 and D700 with a bunch of lenses. We talked a little shop about cameras which was fun and we exchanged the links to our galleries. He does mainly corporate events during the week with quick turn around times.
What I don't know is whether those who specialize in landscapes are able to make a living without having to do some more commercial work.
-
... What I don't know is whether those who specialize in landscapes are able to make a living without having to do some more commercial work.
Just a reminder: even Ansel Adams was unable to pay his bills with landscape work alone for most of his life.
On the other end of the spectrum is probably someone like Thomas Mangelsen, who one year supposedly made $11 millions with his wildlife and landscapes.
-
For me, it comes down the definition of what a Professional photographer is?
The playing field IS more level, and if you are professional in your approach to the artistic direction in the creation of an image, from capture to delivery, then that defines itself.
How much income is derived from your professionalism, is now harder to define for a greater pool of equally talented photographers. The creativity afforded to the masses is what we should celebrate, as now there are many more people with an opportunity to express themselves artistically, without previous limitations on affordable gear.
-
Hi,
This topic is about photography as a profession.
Has the creativity been killed by technique and pressure? More work for less money? less fun? but also
more exciting technology and new techniques and languages.
Fred.
Digital photography is so quick and easy that few people bother to take the trouble to get the best out of their kit (let alone think about composition or "art"). Semi-pros and part-timers have taken over...
Standards have dropped, and few people are prepared to pay for quality... most people have not got a clue what is possible with the best modern equipment, so the customers do not know what quality is, and do not demand it.
I think that the professional photographers who survive (or make a good living) will be those who do not use the same kit amateurs use, or who can produce work appreciably better than amateurs can with DSLRs. If your market is weddings or magazine front covers and 24Mpx DSLR pictures are considered adequate, this poses a problem. (The one picture of my (2006) wedding that got framed was taken by a guest on a 6Mpx DSLR).
Is anyone else going to try to carry on where Canaletto left off?
-
Semi-pros and part-timers have taken over...
Standards have dropped, and few people are prepared to pay for quality... most people have not got a clue what is possible with the best modern equipment, so the customers do not know what quality is, and do not demand it.
Really, standards have dropped! Says who, you?
I think that the professional photographers who survive (or make a good living) will be those who do not use the same kit amateurs use, or who can produce work appreciably better than amateurs can with DSLRs. If your market is weddings or magazine front covers and 24Mpx DSLR pictures are considered adequate, this poses a problem. (The one picture of my (2006) wedding that got framed was taken by a guest on a 6Mpx DSLR).
Well, then is it the equipment thats makes the photographer, or photographers ability with the same equipment? I think we have heard this one verbatum. If i can produce better work than you with the same equipment, should you give up on the profession? How does one transfer from, as you so elequantly put it, semi-pro part timers, to becominga full time Hasslebald professional (as in deriving >50% of my taxable income)? What's wrong with the competition?
24Mpx DSLR is not adequate for weddings or magazine front covers?
-
Digital photography is so quick and easy that few people bother to take the trouble to get the best out of their kit (let alone think about composition or "art"). Semi-pros and part-timers have taken over...
Standards have dropped, and few people are prepared to pay for quality... most people have not got a clue what is possible with the best modern equipment, so the customers do not know what quality is, and do not demand it.
I think that the professional photographers who survive (or make a good living) will be those who do not use the same kit amateurs use, or who can produce work appreciably better than amateurs can with DSLRs. If your market is weddings or magazine front covers and 24Mpx DSLR pictures are considered adequate, this poses a problem. (The one picture of my (2006) wedding that got framed was taken by a guest on a 6Mpx DSLR).
Is anyone else going to try to carry on where Canaletto left off?
Is this your bio?
"My father was a farmer ...I studied Agriculture, then Agricultural (Electronic) Engineering. In the mid seventies I did some pro portrait photography. In the late seventies I did some commercial photography for the mower manufacturer where I was a Test/development engineer. I have been a computer programmer and Technical Author"
Seems you came from a different background yourself, caught a few lucky breaks in the industry you worked in, and progressed from there. And, now it seems you don't like others trying to follow your footsteps.
Reminds me of the current baby boomer argument against health care reform in the US. It's ok for them to be entitled to medicare as long as thay don;t have to share with anyone else.
-
I agree that modern technology has made photography far more accessible to people now, I see that as a good thing myself. Also the darkroom skills are learnt much more quickly with modern software, again..this is nothing but good.
But I disagree strongly with the comments suggesting these tools, and the availability of reasonable equipment for a modest outlay, have degraded or reduced the appeal of quality photography. It's really as simple as this, the CD only shooter, won't get studio rates..so they don't try (and I can't blame them), they are trying to build up a portfolio, if they do that by taking jobs for poor wages, that's up to them (I've known a few work for nothing at all, to get experience)
Any established photographer simply is not competing in this segment, so price is not always a factor..the weekend warrior client, would not book a top level shooter. So live and let live I say..each has a place, if people pay..they dictate what they want. I've never understood why long established shooters complain about cut price people, they don't have any impact on your business. I think there is overpricing, and underpricing in the market, but it exists as it is, nobody going to change that.
Equipment wise, really don't know why this one comes up again. So you shot weddings with a D200 4 years ago, any cheap DSLR can match that low light wise, right now. I'd rather trust a good photographer with a Canon 20d and a 50mm from ebay, than a weak one with a D3x ;-)
Regarding convergence, I don't believe it will seriously impact stills photography either. If the wedding client cuts back, 9 out of 10 it's the video guy who gets the chop. Stills and video are separate specialities, some might offer both..I'm not sure it's easy to do that. So no overall I don't think things have got worse, yes a lot more competition around, but so what? Not a bad thing..
You can have a huge shed full of the finest wood carving tools known to man, but you need a craftsman to make something good. Thus the same applies to photography, the wealth of information and affordability of equipment, change nothing, you have to make your mark and stand out..that is all.
-
I agree that modern technology has made photography far more accessible to people now, I see that as a good thing myself. Also the darkroom skills are learnt much more quickly with modern software, again..this is nothing but good.
But I disagree strongly with the comments suggesting these tools, and the availability of reasonable equipment for a modest outlay, have degraded or reduced the appeal of quality photography. It's really as simple as this, the CD only shooter, won't get studio rates..so they don't try (and I can't blame them), they are trying to build up a portfolio, if they do that by taking jobs for poor wages, that's up to them (I've known a few work for nothing at all, to get experience)
Any established photographer simply is not competing in this segment, so price is not always a factor..the weekend warrior client, would not book a top level shooter. So live and let live I say..each has a place, if people pay..they dictate what they want. I've never understood why long established shooters complain about cut price people, they don't have any impact on your business. I think there is overpricing, and underpricing in the market, but it exists as it is, nobody going to change that.
Equipment wise, really don't know why this one comes up again. So you shot weddings with a D200 4 years ago, any cheap DSLR can match that low light wise, right now. I'd rather trust a good photographer with a Canon 20d and a 50mm from ebay, than a weak one with a D3x ;-)
Regarding convergence, I don't believe it will seriously impact stills photography either. If the wedding client cuts back, 9 out of 10 it's the video guy who gets the chop. Stills and video are separate specialities, some might offer both..I'm not sure it's easy to do that. So no overall I don't think things have got worse, yes a lot more competition around, but so what? Not a bad thing..
You can have a huge shed full of the finest wood carving tools known to man, but you need a craftsman to make something good. Thus the same applies to photography, the wealth of information and affordability of equipment, change nothing, you have to make your mark and stand out..that is all.
Barry,
Something in the air is telling me that video is going to be asked more and more to the photographer, or the video maker is going to be also asked for stills.
Not sporadicaly I mean.
Fred.
-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=34821428 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=34821428)
-
But there is a general feeling regularly expressed that it is not as fun as, let's say 15 years ago? amongs the pros. Why is that?
Professionally speaking the answer is easy...
Photoshop
Plain and simple (and as plain as the nose on your face).
What 15-20 years ago was a valuable talent–being able to get, in one shot; a really well exposed, in focus well composed and basically really nice photographic image that is sought after by clients basically went away...
I used to do beer shots for Budweiser...I would think nothing of shooting 100 sheets of 8x10 film (marked up to $50/sheet) just to get one really nice beer pour. Now, if I were to shoot it, I would do about a dozen captures on a P-65+ and assemble the image...unfortunately, 15 years ago I could charge $400-500 per hour (yes, that's per hour) to do the imaging and retouching. Now, they would get some high school kid to do it for Jolt cola and Twinkies...
Photography is still as fun and challenging and frustrating as it's ever been (maybe more so cause of the tech) but commercially, it sucks to be a shooter these days...
Client's expectations (and demands) have been seriously lowered by Photoshop's capability to 'fix it in post'. And...the days of old where somebody who could get an 8x10 chrome "perfect" on film with no retouching ain't worth spit these days...
So, commercially, in terms of getting paid a lot of money to do really nice work with creative people (pick two of the preceding) just ain't that way no more.
So, if you are over 35-40 (or over like me) or so, none of the current commercial work is really all that thrilling in terms of shooting and money. If you are younger and don't know any better, well...it used to be a lot more fun!
-
Regarding convergence, I don't believe it will seriously impact stills photography either. If the wedding client cuts back, 9 out of 10 it's the video guy who gets the chop. Stills and video are separate specialities, some might offer both..I'm not sure it's easy to do that.
Maybe where you live ... that's not what's happening in NYC ...
-
What 15-20 years ago was a valuable talent–being able to get, in one shot; a really well exposed, in focus well composed and basically really nice photographic image that is sought after by clients basically went away...
Client's expectations (and demands) have been seriously lowered by Photoshop's capability to 'fix it in post'. And...the days of old where somebody who could get an 8x10 chrome "perfect" on film with no retouching ain't worth spit these days...
So, commercially, in terms of getting paid a lot of money to do really nice work with creative people (pick two of the preceding) just ain't that way no more.
Mr. Schewe,
I will respectfully disagree.
I deal with professional photographers every day of my working life and this is what I've seen.
Yes, there are a lot of guys (and gals) out there flogging "Don't worry, I'll fix it in Photoshop later" but the top work is still going to the craftsmen (and women) that would rather "pretouch" than retouch to get the shot right.
Starting out with a great photograph makes compositing, effects and retouching a lot easier and quite a lot of the time its still cheaper and better to pay the photographer to get it right than the retoucher to fix it.
Having said that, there is no doubt that the craft of photography is under attack on many fronts.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I wont prognosticate the future, but I think the root skills such as lighting, focus control and, in the case of "people" shooting, an outgoing personality have a reasonable life left.
I think we all need to do a better job of being photography evangelists.
-
Since I shoot for a dozen designers, I find it easier to shoot for less photoshop fixing, I've seen some shoddy post work of otherwise simple fixes. When shooting a hundred parts in a single session, I find a savings is fussing for an extra fifteen minutes up front vs. hours on end in post.
Technology has helped though. Thanks to tethered shooting and desktop sharing over the net, I can hold live sessions with designers across the country and quickly nail the shot they are looking for. It's not all bad, just different.
-
Yes, there are a lot of guys (and gals) out there flogging "Don't worry, I'll fix it in Photoshop later" but the top work is still going to the craftsmen (and women) that would rather "pretouch" than retouch to get the shot right.
Well, tell that to the clients who are demanding smaller and smaller creative fees because they can just "fix it in post"...
It ain't the photographers that are pushing to fix it after the fact, it's the friggin' clients who won't pay top $$$ to have a true photographic craftsman spend a few days setting up and testing a shot. Look, in the 1980' and 1990's I would think nothing of booking out 2-3 days of PREPRO just for setting up a shot and testing out the lighting. and that was at $1K a day...you tell me where to find clients willing to pay a photographer to "dwell" on the creation of an image BEFORE the image has been captured?
I'm sure the photographers you work with (you sound like a digital tech) are trying really, really hard to get stuff right in capture. But if you were to ask them (if they would tell you and if they were old enough) what is it like now vs back when they were shooting film 10-15 years ago, gotta tell ya, they would be lying if they said it was more fun (and more money) now vs then.
Unless you are over 35-45 years old, you simply don't know what it was like then than vs now–and that has taken a lot of fun out of working as a pro.
-
Unless you are over 35-45 years old, you simply don't know what it was like then than vs now–and that has taken a lot of fun out of working as a pro.
Was it really "fun" spending half a day taking different exposures with different light sources and filters on one sheet of film... and not knowing if you had got it right until you had developed the sheet film?
We now have the tools for better and easier mixed light shots, weather you take one shot and post fix, or layer different shot for light sources... and it is easier and less stressful (and more fun), as you can go home knowing that you "have it in the bag".
-
Schewe, you have made my day.
I have been retired quite a while now, but even so, I can agree with you about the decline - it has been my basis for suggesting the long lost Golden Era was lost many years ago.
I can give an example of this sort of thing happening even back in the 70s. Was a time around the end of the 60s when I was doing fashion for local branches of big chain stores in Glasgow, Scotland, and the rate I managed to get was around forty guineas per garment (a guinea was a pound and a shilling for those too young to know or care, and a fine established upmarket pro way of pricing upwards) and by the time the fashion scene went belly up for us all at the end of the 70s, l was scraping less than half of that per garment. Competition? By then, there was one guy other than myself left standing. The glitch was more simple than competition: the clients would not pay/could not pay, even when a lady's hat on sale in their shop was worth several times the fee! It boils down to corporate mindset, which evolves.
Another similar experience happened much earlier when I first opened my studio in '66. I had trained in an industrial photo-unit and perhaps because of that, a client (local factory of an international food giant) approached me to shoot some slides for a presentation they were going to make. I quoted two pounds a pop which, for forty rapid copies on line film was going to be eighty quid. Accepted. Came the invoice, the client actually came to see me to try to get a reduction. Why? Because his own salary was far less than that a week and, in his mind, regardless of quotation, my fee had to be exhorbitant.
I do believe that the answer to the problem for pros - and this has been started by Fred as a PRO MATTER and I wish only pros would contribute since only they have anything valid to add - is a mixture of two things: a legal obligation for anyone setting up in business to be obliged to get qualifications and the establishment of a qualifying body with muscle. Something along the lines of the Royal Institutes of Chartered whatevers that represent surveyors et al. Without that visible level of qualification photographers will forever be thought of a chancers with or without a talent and worth no more than that. It is all about being seen to be legitimate practitioners of something.
As far as my mind sees it, only those who suspect they wouldn't make it would object to having to earn the right to practise.
Regarding start-up costs: I began with film for next to nothing other than the cost of renting a studio and buying an Olivetti portable typewriter; considering what I have spent post-retirement on digital photography I know perfectly well that I still am miles from having a setup or even the understanding of digital processes I would consider fair to any client offering work today; no way do I think that today offers a cheaper entry into the business. You have to consider computers, expensive software, constant upgrades, all that stuff, not just a camera body. Film costs etc. were paid by clients, not the photographer, and were never thought of as impediments to getting work when they were the way of doing things; quoting such costs is a bogus manner of pumping up the supposed comparative value of digital. It might have a small value regarding stock, but did all stock shooters really waste that much material? And didn't they save a hell of a lot of time otherwise wasted hunched at a desk?
Regarding the idea of 'photography has lost the fun factor' I am not so sure; maybe if you are at the top of the tree today you don't have to get so personally involved with post-shooting stuff because you can delegate and do something else or just play golf, sail your boat or lay the next top model, even all at the same time. Maybe then, when you have the time to enjoy the success, it is still fun?
I recently saw on Bloomberg a wealthy South American entrepreneur giving the advice that you should never fall in love with your business. I think that illustrates our next greatest failure as businessmen.
Rob C
-
I do believe that the answer to the problem for pros - and this has been started by Fred as a PRO MATTER and I wish only pros would contribute since only they have anything valid to add - is a mixture of two things: a legal obligation for anyone setting up in business to be obliged to get qualifications and the establishment of a qualifying body with muscle. Something along the lines of the Royal Institutes of Chartered whatevers that represent surveyors et al. Without that visible level of qualification photographers will forever be thought of a chancers with or without a talent and worth no more than that. It is all about being seen to be legitimate practitioners of something.
As far as my mind sees it, only those who suspect they wouldn't make it would object to having to earn the right to practise.
Rob C
I can't actually believe I am reading this!
Rob are you seriously suggesting that Photographers should be "licensed", only permitted to practise if they have passed an exam or attained a qualification or some accreditation from a recognised body?
Every working photographer is already assessed, and that is by the clients who hire them. We're not doctors..there is an art element here! Should painters who sell their work be licensed too?
I've seen some posts on forums, but this is up to an almost unrivalled level of snobbery..with respect Rob, you're about as off the mark as is possible.
There is a lot more competition around, we know that..but if you're any good it should not have a massive impact on your business.
I'm dead against trying to "measure", evaluate photographers or license them, and I in no way consider myself a chancer..
-
Is this your bio?
"My father was a farmer ...I studied Agriculture, then Agricultural (Electronic) Engineering. In the mid seventies I did some pro portrait photography. In the late seventies I did some commercial photography for the mower manufacturer where I was a Test/development engineer. I have been a computer programmer and Technical Author"
Seems you came from a different background yourself, caught a few lucky breaks in the industry you worked in, and progressed from there. And, now it seems you don't like others trying to follow your footsteps.
Reminds me of the current baby boomer argument against health care reform in the US. It's ok for them to be entitled to medicare as long as thay don;t have to share with anyone else.
Amen, brother!
-
I recently saw on Bloomberg a wealthy South American entrepreneur giving the advice that you should never fall in love with your business. I think that illustrates our next greatest failure as businessmen.
Rob C
It is difficult to imagine a painter making much of an impression without "falling in love with their business" ..or their craft", and work can be enjoyable.
I think that pictorial photographers should regard themselves as picture makers or imaginographers rather that just "photographers".
-
I can't actually believe I am reading this!
Rob are you seriously suggesting that Photographers should be "licensed", only permitted to practise if they have passed an exam or attained a qualification or some accreditation from a recognised body?
Every working photographer is already assessed, and that is by the clients who hire them. We're not doctors..there is an art element here! Should painters who sell their work be licensed too?
I've seen some posts on forums, but this is up to an almost unrivalled level of snobbery..with respect Rob, you're about as off the mark as is possible.
There is a lot more competition around, we know that..but if you're any good it should not have a massive impact on your business.
I'm dead against trying to "measure", evaluate photographers or license them, and I in no way consider myself a chancer..
In Germany you need a license to shoot weddings and if I remember right you needed to qualify. Can't really fault them for that either, one in a lifetime chance to get it right every wedding you shoot, no different than passing an exam.
I'm a wedding shooter and our business has changed fast and drastically. I'm not going to expound on all the details other than to say that it has become plainly apparent that if you stay still you die. Period. Video has been in the profession for decades so it's not the threat per se, you can't shoot a wedding with full coverage and give full coverage with video as well. Heck most wedding video is done with multiple cameras anyway. These days so is the photography with a 2nd shooter almost standard. The idea that 4 people (2 camera, 2 vide) can be replaced by 1 combo cam is a joke. However the two products are coming together and fast which is why I'm looking to offer photo+video packages with combined output.
What has become more and more apparent is that we have to provide much more for significantly less (compared to what it would have cost) because if we don't then someone else will. Same as in fashion where the shooter is now the photographer, AD and lab all in one and not making any more. The emphasis has become streamlining workflow to manage all the extra, not just shots but styles, added 'this years fashion' processing, albums, webpages, etc.
I'm not going to stick my head in the sand. There is a lot of young talent out there producing work which is equal or better, often much better than the old brigade. They're doing it with joke equipment, no backup, little insurance if any and very questionable business practices. The client only sees the portfolio however and if this person is capturing a wedding better and far more in line with the age group of the bride then the old fuddy duddy with his studio, hordes of equipment and assistants, immaculate posing, etc is going to starve and probably has been for a while.
Do more, better and for less. Photography in this decade. Stand still and die. There is no time to have your head in the sand because the younger and newer crowd are faster, more modern, more numerous and far more hungry than you. Oh and a good percentage are better than you too whether you like it or not.
-
I recently saw on Bloomberg a wealthy South American entrepreneur giving the advice that you should never fall in love with your business.
Good advice for investors, terrible advice for entrepreneurs. He must have been an investor.
-
Well, tell that to the clients who are demanding smaller and smaller creative fees because they can just "fix it in post"...
It ain't the photographers that are pushing to fix it after the fact, it's the friggin' clients who won't pay top $$$ to have a true photographic craftsman spend a few days setting up and testing a shot. Look, in the 1980' and 1990's I would think nothing of booking out 2-3 days of PREPRO just for setting up a shot and testing out the lighting. and that was at $1K a day...you tell me where to find clients willing to pay a photographer to "dwell" on the creation of an image BEFORE the image has been captured?
I'm sure the photographers you work with (you sound like a digital tech) are trying really, really hard to get stuff right in capture. But if you were to ask them (if they would tell you and if they were old enough) what is it like now vs back when they were shooting film 10-15 years ago, gotta tell ya, they would be lying if they said it was more fun (and more money) now vs then.
Unless you are over 35-45 years old, you simply don't know what it was like then than vs now–and that has taken a lot of fun out of working as a pro.
Schewe,
A couple of clarifications.
I'm 52 years old, so yes, I remember the 80's and 90's very well. Most all of my clients are my age, give or take a few years.
I'm not a digital tech, I'm a sales rep, so my job is to get my clients the best possible value for their money and share whatever knowledge I have on things that have helped commercial photographers in my market area.
You're right that few clients today are willing to pay thousands to set up a shot, but they are willing to pay up front to get a great shot that requires a minimum of post work. From what my successful clients tell me, its a matter of education and convincing the young ADs that technology alone won't solve their problems, they still need a craftsman.
As far as the fun part goes, I guess it depends on what you consider fun. Some of my clients love the process, while other get excited over the finished shot.
At the end of the day, there is no doubt that things ain't what they used to be. Some things are better, some are not, but we have to deal with it and try our damnest to keep photography at the forefront for as long as we can.
-
Sorry,
Double post
-
In Germany you need a license to shoot weddings and if I remember right you needed to qualify. Can't really fault them for that either, one in a lifetime chance to get it right every wedding you shoot, no different than passing an exam.
The last competent wedding photographer I saw was using glass plates (and the bride now has adult grandchildren), and I can see the logic of licensing... but couples see photographers' portfolios and that would seem adequate.
It would be nice if Professional Photographers' institutions awarded qualifications that meant something, and were recognized ¿and required? by clients.
Any reply to topic Professional Photographers' Institutions, please.
-
What has been discussed in previous post is not limited to photogaphy only. It happens everywhere, technology changes the world we live in and touches all aspects, financially, socially, etc etc in positive and negative ways. But what positive or what negative is, depends on who you are and what part you play in theather piece called "life".
I think of some years ago when photographers embraced digital: no more lab and film costs, faster results, etc as the main reason to dump film. It proved to be a limited view on the impact of a photographers life as the new tools also allowed new-comers or people having digital camera's that later became AD's and extrapolated that personal experience into the day job.
I have an IT job, in the good'ol'days we created software ourselves, programmed it ourselves. Then standard software came, hooray we said as we no longer need to programm ourselves (as tedious and costly as sending film to a lab and also you needed special traained and skilled people), jobs changed from programming to application specialist tweaking settings of the software, skills needed changed: less IT more Business. Some users started to tweak the software too, the super-user was born.
And the 'landscape' it still changing, with the adoption of internet and ever increasing band-width, business users more and more turn away from the classic IT department and start to source there solution themselves (bypass IT) as more and more system are hosted online and no longer need involvement of specialezed IT staff. Costs are nothing compared to when we programmed it all ourselves.
Internet is great, but within 10 years many companies can close their IT departments. Except maybe for a small number of people taking care of some hardware like, pc, printers and the internet connection, but the software related part of IT can be made redundant.
I hope you see the parallels with photography.
-
Never forget that while the software and hardware upgrades and changes abound, none of that means squat without a capable artist behind the lens. I love my 40D for live events and concerts. However, other than seemingly endless ammo of digital vs. film, when I switch the camera to manual, none of that technology matters.
-
I do believe that the answer to the problem for pros - and this has been started by Fred as a PRO MATTER and I wish only pros would contribute since only they have anything valid to add - is a mixture of two things: a legal obligation for anyone setting up in business to be obliged to get qualifications and the establishment of a qualifying body with muscle. Something along the lines of the Royal Institutes of Chartered whatevers that represent surveyors et al. Without that visible level of qualification photographers will forever be thought of a chancers with or without a talent and worth no more than that. It is all about being seen to be legitimate practitioners of something.
As far as my mind sees it, only those who suspect they wouldn't make it would object to having to earn the right to practise.
Rob C
That's a fairly elitist statement if ever there was one, but from a baby boomer, i would expect nothing less.
"and I wish only pros would contribute since only they have anything valid to add"
YA what, ok i guess 1/2 the subscribers on this forum should shut up now. Get real.
Define PRO mate? Getting a qualification does not mean you are PRO. If i get a teaching qualification does that entitle me to PRO status and unfetered practice? In the US it does, and look where there education system is going! What about any of the photgraphers who won a category in the International Photographer of the Year Award for non-pro. Did not see your name in the winner list for the Pro's? Do these winners deserve to take this recognition as qualification? I bet most would say it would certainly contribute towards it.
Photography is more than just business, and sad for you if that's all it is.
There is an exiting body of great work out there from 'unqualified' photographers who are just as professional in there practice as you.
-
That's a fairly elitist statement if ever there was one, but from a baby boomer, i would expect nothing less.
"and I wish only pros would contribute since only they have anything valid to add"
YA what, ok i guess 1/2 the subscribers on this forum should shut up now. Get real.
Define PRO mate? Getting a qualification does not mean you are PRO. If i get a teaching qualification does that entitle me to PRO status and unfetered practice? In the US it does, and look where there education system is going! What about any of the photgraphers who won a category in the International Photographer of the Year Award for non-pro. Did not see your name in the winner list for the Pro's? Do these winners deserve to take this recognition as qualification? I bet most would say it would certainly contribute towards it.
Photography is more than just business, and sad for you if that's all it is.
There is an exiting body of great work out there from 'unqualified' photographers who are just as professional in there practice as you.
Hi,
Of course what you point is true, I mean, there is no doubt that the talent and passion does not depend if you are pro or not. But I think that your point is for starting another(s) topic debate, because it is also an important point that would deserve a topic in itself IMO. In my OP, I used Professional in its narrowest sense: someone who's photography is his daily job. Regardless if talented, genious, or not, and I think that it is what Rob was meaning. Excatly let's say like, a plane pilot. There are many people that fly, that are passionate about that and some are really excelent pilots, but the reality involved and the problems etc...are different when you flight as a professional that when you fly your your passion as a private pilot.
When you live daily in a profession there are parameters that simply do not exist for a passionate amateur and vice-versa.
Of course, many amateurs are maybe better photographers or more talented than many pros, no doubt.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
I think the point with regards to occupation, is that just having access to tools that were once specialized and expensive is no longer a crutch for keeping the doors open. Folks should now pay for your expertise and talent. Such traits cannot be upgraded or manufactured and still require the years of dedication through trial and error. The advent of technology should actually assist the professional so he or she can focus more on the art and deliver a better end product, and do so in a more timely manner.
We should look upon ourselves and see in which camp we reside: the tech or the art, and therein lies the answer as to whether or not this technology is a menace or blessing.
-
Hi,
Of course what you point is true, I mean, there is no doubt that the talent and passion does not depend if you are pro or not. But I think that your point is for starting another(s) topic debate, because it is also an important point that would deserve a topic in itself IMO. In my OP, I used Professional in its narrowest sense: someone who's photography is his daily job. Regardless if talented, genious, or not, and I think that it is what Rob was meaning. Excatly let's say like, a plane pilot. There are many people that fly, that are passionate about that and some are really excelent pilots, but the reality involved and the problems etc...are different when you flight as a professional that when you fly your your passion as a private pilot.
When you live daily in a profession there are parameters that simply do not exist for a passionate amateur and vice-versa.
Of course, many amateurs are maybe better photographers or more talented than many pros, no doubt.
Cheers,
Fred.
Fred
You are, of course, absolutely right; but that will never stop people seeing slurs where non exist, challenges where they are not offered. For some reason that I can't understand, photography is thought to be in a state of open season to all hunters, licensed or not. Amen. That's why it is being hunted to extinction, just like the poor old blue tuna or sad old tiger.
I have never said that pros are always better photographers; I have often written the opposite, in fact, because I have seen excellent amateur work. But that isn't the point: the point is being respected and paid properly for what you do as a professional and you don't get there by simply saying hey, look at me, I am a great photographer. You should at the very least be able to offer any client the basic assurance that you have studied and passed enough hurdles to ensure that he, the client, can know that you are good enough to produce a reasonable job, that you will not eff up through ignorance, and that you will certainly carry all required business indemnities in case that you do have that unfortunate glitch.
As an aside, I wonder why there is some idea around that if you are qualified you are excluded from having artistic talent, whatever that might actually be, as if the one automatically excluded the other? Strange.
I am amused to see references to old photographers as if they were, somehow, of a different breed. Being professional has nothing to do with age and everything to do with attitude and training. Almost as stupìdly baseless are the accusations of elitism or snobbery because one advocates regulation and the guarantee of a minimum standard of expertise. As I wrote in the post that attracted this bile, I believe that those oppoed are only opposed because they fear they can't cut it through any reasonably stringent examination. I can tell you this: were I offering my money to a photographer I would far rather he were qualified to an accepted national/international standard of excellence than not!
But Fred, what's the point? The horse has long gone and this particular stable turned into a barbecue.
Rob C
-
That's a fairly elitist statement if ever there was one, but from a baby boomer, i would expect nothing less.
And having a chip on your shoulder about your elders entitles you to be aggressive?
-
Most industries undergo stressful change at some point. You are very lucky indeed if you are at the peak of your career in a time of stability.
In the music industry here where I live I remember when a jazz school opened and started pumping out graduates into a market that could absorb maybe 2 percent of them. It quickly became apparent that many would be happy to work for nothing in order to gain experience.
After the initial shock of seeing well paid gigs dry up, I felt it time to change my thinking about what I was doing. My attitude now is that I don't want to work for clients who pay peanuts. It's either the full fee or if it is a charity, then no fee at all. I moved more into teaching, which fortunately I love, and though I work harder I have evenings and weekends mostly free. Finding what you love doing (and are good at) and then making it pay without killing the joy of doing it is not always easy. My guess is that a big factor in making it work is keeping an eye on your attitude to what you are doing and maintaining the mental strength to stick to your guns. And keeping an eye on your “niche in life”. In other words, staying ahead of the game. Anytime I get questioned about the fees I charge to teach, I think of the twenty odd years of study and practice to develop my skills, and the next twenty years of fine tuning them.
-
I have the feeling that there is a double game involved.
What is happening IMO is that the evolution is dual:
On one side, each time more demanding tasks that required a level of knowledge, skill anf technology each time higher but for a shorter life-time.
On the other side, the open season jungle where rule "no matter what and how" is getting also more and more evident.
Fred.
-
We should look upon ourselves and see in which camp we reside: the tech or the art, and therein lies the answer as to whether or not this technology is a menace or blessing.
Technology is neither...it just is, what it is. The fact that clients, in this day and age and under these economic times perceive the costs to have gone down and the difficulty to have gone down are simply unwilling–in general–to pay what they used to pay willingly.
And when I said "Photoshop" is what has changed the industry, I wasn't kidding. The craft of photography is now digital and shots are assembled and retouched either by a photographer or retoucher and the skills required to "get the shot" in a single exposure are no longer valuable...
That's not to say this isn't a great time in photography, it is...and Photoshop has been very, very good to me...but to be a working commercial photographer these days ain't much fun as it relates to the commerce (of which there ain't much).
And none of this has anything to do with how good images are now or were years ago...there are great images being made all the time. And it really has nothing to do with talented amateurs or weekend warriors...what it has absolutely everything to do is current nature of the business for working pros.
-
Maybe Photoshop can be compared to what happened when they invent the printing.
All a generations of craftmen just disappeared, creation and destruction go together.
But what is also really impressive I think and almost unique from now, is the speed.
Things move really fast and maybe the profession one learn today, with all the learning curve, experience requiered etc...
will simply be obsolete in a very short time, so there is almost no long term thinking.
I have the sensation of a spiral out of control where nobody knows where is the button to slow down.
We are in between two worlds, one is gone and a new one is just starting.
Now that we just started to get used of the move to digital, 3D is ringing at the door, like "hey guys, don't get it wrong, I'm the next standard".
Till the 4thD. Tomorrow, a photographer won't even move from his chair to shoot a campaign in the Bahamas, you'll be conected to a satelite
that will reproduce in 3D any location requiered at 500MP and you'll add, the now 15.000 euro top model will be a 20euros 3D digital girl with
no whims, no dressing room, no mood, no bills etc...the stylist will work with software from another computer etc...
No more lights, no more cables, no more assistant, no more beers, no more trips, and no more money?
Fred
-
The last competent wedding photographer I saw was using glass plates (and the bride now has adult grandchildren)
... and I bet you had to walk uphill to school in both directions, too.
Come on, Dick ... get real ... there are plenty of talented photographers shooting weddings every day ...
... and they don't need view cameras, the couples want and expect video, too ... and they aren't interested in 4 foot prints ... welcome to the 21st century.
-
Coming from a professional point of view. B&W has not changed to much in the past decades, it still takes virtually the same amount of talent, with less limitations put upon the artist.
Color has changed dramatically. It's been almost 20 years since pigment photographs were perfected and its been 15 years since we made the first inkjet pigment photographs. So color has been really the mover and shaker.
The ability to have control over your color image is a big step compared to the insane way we had to make photographic prints before this was invented.
The next big step was to capture the image. The ability to use something like a Phase System and capture superior color and dynamic range compared to film, what a joy. Although the gear has not gotten lighter from the 8x10 and 4x5 of the past. But to have nearly infinite choice of lenses and edit them quickly in capture one.
Its not that you don't have to have the skills, its still about the art of seeing the light, choosing the right depth of field, fine tuning your composition, picking the right angle and choosing the right lens for the vision.
What we have are better tools for the task at hand. It's like giving Da Vinci a paint brush and 3 colors and tell him to make a great painting and them handing him a palette of paint and all the brushes. There better tools but you need to know how to use them....
Oh yes, it is more joyful, very much so!
You are limited by your vision, almost nothing else. TW
-
And having a chip on your shoulder about your elders entitles you to be aggressive?
No chip, just a statement regarding an all too familiar attitude amonst that particular demographic and there entitlements. How you got aggresive from simple words on screen with no tone is beyond me, but i will end my invlovement in this discussion as this topic is pertained and stick to the philosophy behind the original post. Lets not hog this forum with that conversation.
-
Technology is neither...it just is, what it is. The fact that clients, in this day and age and under these economic times perceive the costs to have gone down and the difficulty to have gone down are simply unwilling–in general–to pay what they used to pay willingly.
And when I said "Photoshop" is what has changed the industry, I wasn't kidding. The craft of photography is now digital and shots are assembled and retouched either by a photographer or retoucher and the skills required to "get the shot" in a single exposure are no longer valuable...
That's not to say this isn't a great time in photography, it is...and Photoshop has been very, very good to me...but to be a working commercial photographer these days ain't much fun as it relates to the commerce (of which there ain't much).
And none of this has anything to do with how good images are now or were years ago...there are great images being made all the time. And it really has nothing to do with talented amateurs or weekend warriors...what it has absolutely everything to do is current nature of the business for working pros.
I hear you Jeff, and whether or not technology is blessing or menace if of ones own perception (I find it to be a blessing).
This isn't just photography, it's video, animation, the whole damn thing. To do the basics once require expensive equipment and know how... Clients then were also educated in that and so they understood the high prices those skills commanded, otherwise it simply couldn't be done.
Today's clients simply don't have the time or care... let me put this way: a few years ago we'd all go down to the studio and spend the entire day messing around with the shoot. Everyone had a part, and it was like a party of sorts. It meant something... you don't need that anymore. My last photo-session was scheduled in outlook for 2pm today. I spend ten minutes setting up and logging into a desktop sharing application. My clients, two designers, were four states away watching their screens. They directed me over a speaker phone, and while I set the next shot, they went about working on other projects. I'd shoot, then call their attention. They would suggest a change, ten minutes later I had another shot. We went back and fourth over the course of an hour until we got the shot. That was it. Job done. It's very hard to justify $2500-$4000 for that kind of work.
I remember doing the math when they first hired me as the inside guy, how much money I save them in the course of a single year. Five years ago a photo-shoot was $2500/day, a thirty minute training video was $35,000, an interactive CD/DVD was $50,000, and three minutes of 3D animation would run as high as $90,000 (As a medical device company, we're commanded some pretty high fees). So, it's not too surprising that I averaged a savings of 1/4 to 1/2 mil by bringing this in-house, and all thanks to digital technology making it cheap. I still have fellow employees wondering why I get my own studio, three workstations and all those 'toys'. They don't get it, that it's all paid for. More importantly, I'm happy, I get to make a living doing what I love. I still do side work, and it helps, but no way do I see myself doing this full time on my own. I still get calls from friends doing freelance work, needing me to shoot side jobs, and these corporations are only willing to front $200 or so for the work. I laugh. It's true, tightwads all of them. Not because they're broke, but because they'll find a sucker hungry enough to bite, and then beat them up over it. There's no glory or respect in that. One of my ex-coworkers, Mike, tried freelance, and he's very good and always busy, but was living hand to mouth. Fortunately he was able to land a job as the inside designer for another corporation, and couldn't be happier.
Weddings are different, from what I've seen, that's a tight group and fees are competitive. Too risky to allow an amateur or 'Uncle Joe' ruin a one chance in a lifetime moment. So, of course it's easy to justify the cost.
This was a great question, and a good discussion. I'm not the expert, even after twenty-five years, and only the last eight of them professionally. But this is how I see it. I'd be curious to know if others have a similar story.
-
... the point is being respected and paid properly for what you do as a professional ...
Rob C
I think that Rob's resumed here a recurrent point that has also been said many times in this thread.
The other Rob's point about reliability, or guarantee is to take into consideration IMO, even if we do not want or like the rules.
There is no way that the wave of the 200 cash works made by people who live in their parent's house and have no idea of the cost of living and of course do not provide any kind of guarantee is not going to change. Averageness is not going to disapear tomorrow.
But maybe it is up to the professional then to make an accurate communication in order to justify that this does not cost 200 but 20000.
Well, when reading Pete's story above, I can tell that it is the story I hear very often now over and over again, regardless of generations, talent etc...
I confirm that it also happen exactly the same way in advertising and design.
I could have written exactly the same words, just changing few names.
Many years ago in Paris, I used to live in a little street and there were 3 jazz clubs. After awhile, they started to work with musicians ready to play for free in order to gain experience etc...this had been said in this thread. They just provide then the beers.
Well, the professional musicians that used to play here where indignated. But what happened to these clubs that wanted to make more money at the expense of the artists, or save whatever could be saved is that they ended close very fast after applying this politic, the 3.
Because then, they could not justify any more the expensive entrance and the audience started to change for broken people who did not consume drinks at the bar...they did a very bad calculation.
So I guess the client end to know who is doing a good job at the end. Or it is just a wish
Fred.
-
This was a great question, and a good discussion. I'm not the expert, even after twenty-five years, and only the last eight of them professionally. But this is how I see it. I'd be curious to know if others have a similar story.
Absolutely right, Pete, and why I suggested that the OP's request for pro opinion be respected. Without that, what's the point, it just becomes another hand in the pants and looking in from the outside situation where the topic gets swamped by imaginary scenarios writ large in ignorance of reality.
I quoted a South American entrepreneur saying one should never fall in love with one's business. I think he was right. The problem when you do that with photography is you stop looking at the thing in an overall manner and allow yourself to become drowned, bemused, confused or otherwise messed up with what often becomes the conflict between making a good living and satisfying your ego. The sad truth is forgotten: you can still enjoy photography as an amateur unless you happen to fall in love with fashion or something very cliquey like that where it is impossible to work in your own vacuum. You like still-life? Go right ahead and shoot what you like; landscape your passion? well what's stopping you? The thing is, if you have skills enough to earn a good living in something else, why remain in photography unless you are able to crack the top ranks of it? Your life can become one of frustration because even getting to the top does not guarantee you will be able to remain there and tasting something you then lose is worse than not knowing what's gone for ever. That's what's wrong with falling in love with your photographic business.
I will never forget my father-in-law once speaking to me on this very matter; he ran a surveying business very successfully and his jewel quotation to me was this: I don't care if I have to measure a shithouse or a palace - I get well paid either way. At the time I was shocked because my own view on photography was the opposite. I was young, enthusiastic and full of dreams of the highlife. I went out on my own and for a while I did anything I thought would pay the rent: passports, a few weddings, and then came the day when I found myself standing on a miserable church step, in the drizzle, waiting for a couple to arrive. I had this vision of David Bailey drive past the scene in his Rolls, smile and drive on. It was the last wedding I accepted - thank God - and I went on to dedicate the rest of the time not to working in order to keep working, but to doing the work I craved, regardles of where it led. Fortunately, it did take off and we led a fairly good life, but I will not say that the financial returns bettered anything I would have managed to earn had I worked in something related to school results, had I followed the normal career patterns, in other words.
So you sometimes have to make the call on whether you want the Merc or the good-time. You can sometimes have both, but don't build your dreams on it.
Rob C
-
I won't excuse myself for dipping my amateur toes in this discussion, but feel free to skip to next post.
What I find surprising is how many view the needs of the client as a peripheral matter, and that the (pro) photographer knows better. I wouldn't go as far as describing it entitlement, but there's certainly implied ignorance of the needs of the client in some posts.
The customer is king, just like in every other business. Much can (and should, in fairness) be said about art, but by and large photography as a paid profession is a craft where marketing and general business acumen play a huge part. If the customer doesn't care about appropriate composition or accurate colors, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it. As much as it pains me (again, an amateur) to see poor quality work in magazines and even ads, if the AD doesn't care or even notice, I can assure you the unwashed masses won't.
A good example is wedding photography. A friend of mine was planning a wedding and dragged me along to assess the quality of a potential photographer's portfolio. They were looking for someone young and eager with a strong vision - and we found one. He wasn't dirt cheap, but he didn't cost five figures, either (this was in DC area 5 years ago). There are other couples who want the dirt cheap photographer because they just want a record of the wedding with mostly correctly exposed shots. Then there are others who want artistic rendition of a fairy-tale wedding, shot by a big name, framing a signed canvas print in their den.
Competition is good for the customer, and industries should try to meet the customers' needs better. Having fly-by-night photographers building a portfolio for gas money, and high-end fine art pros not getting out of their bed for less than five figures, and everything in between is a Good Thing. Gone are the days when the price of entry to photography was so high that there were only a few pros out there to fill all those needs. Now there are different guys meeting the requirements, which means smaller piece of the pie, but customers get more opportunities to get their needs met. This is not a unique feature of the photography business as it has happened in many others as well.
Adapt or perish.
-
I won't excuse myself for dipping my amateur toes in this discussion, but feel free to skip to next post.
What I find surprising is how many view the needs of the client as a peripheral matter, and that the (pro) photographer knows better. I wouldn't go as far as describing it entitlement, but there's certainly implied ignorance of the needs of the client in some posts.
The customer is king, just like in every other business. Much can (and should, in fairness) be said about art, but by and large photography as a paid profession is a craft where marketing and general business acumen play a huge part. If the customer doesn't care about appropriate composition or accurate colors, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it. As much as it pains me (again, an amateur) to see poor quality work in magazines and even ads, if the AD doesn't care or even notice, I can assure you the unwashed masses won't.
A good example is wedding photography. A friend of mine was planning a wedding and dragged me along to assess the quality of a potential photographer's portfolio. They were looking for someone young and eager with a strong vision - and we found one. He wasn't dirt cheap, but he didn't cost five figures, either (this was in DC area 5 years ago). There are other couples who want the dirt cheap photographer because they just want a record of the wedding with mostly correctly exposed shots. Then there are others who want artistic rendition of a fairy-tale wedding, shot by a big name, framing a signed canvas print in their den.
Competition is good for the customer, and industries should try to meet the customers' needs better. Having fly-by-night photographers building a portfolio for gas money, and high-end fine art pros not getting out of their bed for less than five figures, and everything in between is a Good Thing. Gone are the days when the price of entry to photography was so high that there were only a few pros out there to fill all those needs. Now there are different guys meeting the requirements, which means smaller piece of the pie, but customers get more opportunities to get their needs met. This is not a unique feature of the photography business as it has happened in many others as well.
Adapt or perish.
I joined some Feppe arguments also. I have to admit that if there is a pauperization of the classic professional photography nowdays, I think it is also fair to say that in the "golden age", many pros where truly living like kings, with outrageous incomes and a very kind of star life style. I know a few here and they were truly having fun, lot of nightlife, expensive hotels etc...like rock stars. Now they still earn money but much less, this time is gone or only reserved to a very few on the very top.
Now there are more people that have access to the profession, ridiculous incomes compared to the "golden days" and as Feppe pointed, also the client has more choice. Yes, there are certainly many abuses from that situation but I guess it also depends a lot from wich point of view we look at the reality.
Now, "adapt or perish" is certainly a rude concept that I'm against, in general not only in photography. Feppe, you never know if tomorrow you will not be on the side of "difficulties in adapting yourself". Nobody knows and if it just means "you are now useless", "just perish". Well...this is a war mentality that forget that older and experienced people are here to teach us things when it's time for them to slow down. Just a precision I wanted to add.
Fred.
-
... and I bet you had to walk uphill to school in both directions, too.
Come on, Dick ... get real ... there are plenty of talented photographers shooting weddings every day ...
... and they don't need view cameras, the couples want and expect video, too ... and they aren't interested in 4 foot prints ... welcome to the 21st century.
In the 21st century we now have the tools to produce 4 foot prints better than the classic four foot family portraits of the 16th century... most couples look their best on their wedding day, so, why should photographers with 60Mpx cameras not offer portraits as part of the "wedding" deal?
-
Do you think that Magnum will survive the changes?
Fred.
-
Amatuer status in photography is not a slur on photographic skills but it does not necessarily entitle respect in a discussion among pro's about the nature of the business of photography which has little to do with the art form of photography. If members are not interested in the comments of amatuers who have never run a photographic business about their business strategy and the nature of the specific business side of things in this day and age then I can respect that.
-
Now, "adapt or perish" is certainly a rude concept that I'm against, in general not only in photography. Feppe, you never know if tomorrow you will not be on the side of "difficulties in adapting yourself". Nobody knows and if it just means "you are now useless", "just perish". Well...this is a war mentality that forget that older and experienced people are here to teach us things when it's time for them to slow down. Just a precision I wanted to add.
Adapt or perish is a concept which drives business - it applies more to companies, but it is also relevant to individuals. The way I use the phrase is not meant to be rude and was not meant to contain a value judgment, but it is more of statement describing how the world is. It is harsh and unforgiving, but those who refuse to adapt will perish: their revenue streams dwindle and clientele thins.
Not sure how well it applies to photography business, but from what I've read here and elsewhere it seems like it is just as applicable there. That's why so many successful working photographers do workshops to augment their income, for example.
-
... Now, "adapt or perish" is certainly a rude concept that I'm against, in general not only in photography. Feppe, you never know if tomorrow you will not be on the side of "difficulties in adapting yourself". Nobody knows and if it just means "you are now useless", "just perish". Well...this is a war mentality that forget that older and experienced people are here to teach us things when it's time for them to slow down...
Fred, it is like saying the concept of gravity is rude and that you are against it. You might as well be (against it), but it won't change the fact itself. Now, is it fair that "older and experienced people" are often facing "you are now useless", "just perish"? No, it is not fair, especially from the standpoint of "older and experienced people"... but life is not fair, and we all knew that, right? But fairness shall be addressed via different means (e.g. social safety net), not by denying the inevitable, i.e., "adapt or perish".
-
Fred, it is like saying the concept of gravity is rude and that you are against it. You might as well be (against it), but it won't change the fact itself. Now, is it fair that "older and experienced people" are often facing "you are now useless", "just perish"? No, it is not fair, especially from the standpoint of "older and experienced people"... but life is not fair, and we all knew that, right? But fairness shall be addressed via different means (e.g. social safety net), not by denying the inevitable, i.e., "adapt or perish".
Yes, I fully agree with you Slobodan and also Feppe's precisions. No doubt. I have expressed myself in this point too faintly.
Of course I'm just "against" on a phylosophical level but I do not forget the nature of life is on that aspect.
The point you make here is, according to me, very important: that fairness has to be adressed by social safety. But the evolution brings really new challenges on that point, if we agree that craft can not be taken now with the same parameters, specially because of the shortest life of knowledge and skills-experience, then we will have people out of the race each time youngers, and the "useless" amount of people that will have to be taken care by society each time increasing, with active professions less and less remunerated. That is indeed a first concern.
Coming back to photography as a profession, where all these changes lead? IMO, That the pressure of constant instability and need of permanent recycling is going to be really a clew part of the play. But that the rewarding (in terms of professional incomes) of all these efforts is going to be extremely lower.
On the other hand, we also might see a lot of creativity and new proposals.
Fred.
-
"Adapt or perish"
I think it's best to sum this issue with this: In the studio, I shoot what they want (products), and while out in the open I shoot what I want, (landscapes). I get paid more shooting what others want than what I want. My desire to exist, to feed my family and to remain in comfort depends on this mutual affair. Should I become angry or resentful of this, then in turn that affects every facet of my profession, and I wind up shooting in a way that nobody wants. Clients needs change, and so must I if I wish to continue being rewarded. That my friend, is the sole definition of being "professional."
-
business of photography which has little to do with the art form of photography.
And ... I'd hazard to guess that there are plenty of successful businessmen in the ranks of the 'amateurs' here that could give some of these 'professionals' a lot of good business advice ... But of course, only a photographer understands the business of photography.
-
I think the Michael's today links, about IPAD are bringing some good clews concerning this thread IMO.
Fred.
-
And ... I'd hazard to guess that there are plenty of successful businessmen in the ranks of the 'amateurs' here that could give some of these 'professionals' a lot of good business advice ... But of course, only a photographer understands the business of photography.
Hi Jeremy
I suspect you are having a light moment, but beneath it all, I do believe you are right.
And I think this to be the case because were photography like most other 'businesses' few of us would be in it or, more accurately, try to stay in it over a lifetime.
I watched again, this evening, a DVD that I have on Ansel Adams, and in it one of the speakers remarks that AA had a very good twenty-year spell of top-grade productivity, after which he fell away into teaching and lecturing and doing the circuit from the late wealth that came to him near the end of his time. For a man who lived until he was 82 or so, not bad. And therein I think the reason why photography is different: if you are lucky, you get a short time when you are very good and you also find the clients you need, but when it's over you can still never let go. If your bakery lost its way you would close it and do something else without breaking your heart; not so photography. Actually, Adams' twenty years is pretty high for photographers, considering all the variables; of those photographers I have known personally, I would put that good period closer to ten or twelve golded years at best.
Rob C
-
In Germany you need a license to shoot weddings and if I remember right you needed to qualify. Can't really fault them for that either, one in a lifetime chance to get it right every wedding you shoot, no different than passing an exam.
And who decides what qualifies? Does that mean if a friend of mine asks me to shoot his wedding for a small fee, and I do so I'll get fined or arrested? And if their friends see the resulting images and like them and start calling me, then I find myself getting more weddings as their friends see my work ... do I go to jail at some point if I refuse to quit?
Suppose I fail this test because someone has decided to put in some stuff that really isn't critical to creating consumer acceptable wedding images ... perhaps some very technical questions that maybe don't even apply to digital capture. It appears it could be easily abused as a way for those who have succeeded to suppress competition, rather than allowing a free market to determine it. Consumers can make a decision based on price point/quality etc. and photographers who don't offered a compelling product at whatever price point they choose won't be around very long ... the same with any other type of creative service.
In wedding photography the main thing that has changed is the quantity of new shooters. Weekend warriors have been around forever ... in fact I'm not sure I know any wedding photographers who didn't start out that way. Digital has just created a lot more of them because cost of entry, cost of learning and simplicity of product offerings has made it easier to try it out. Most don't stay around long, but there are just more to take their place.
-
In my OP, I used Professional in its narrowest sense: someone who's photography is his daily job. Regardless if talented, genious, or not, and I think that it is what Rob was meaning..
Cheers,
Fred.
And how do you suppose someone gets to make photgraphy there daily job?
The orignial poster asked this exact question.
It's Evolution baby, from young talented artist, amature to pro.
-
And how do you suppose someone gets to make photgraphy there daily job?
The orignial poster asked this exact question.
It's Evolution baby, from young talented artist, amature to pro.
Er, Fred WAS the original poster, so unless you think he has no memory, perhaps it's you who is slightly off base.
How do you become a pro photographer? By becoming an assistant, or by going to college after having spent some time messing around with the medium on your own. Why do you assume that you have to be a shamateur to start?
Whatever the route, the point is that at some early stage you put your balls where your voice is, stop fucking up the business for those who have the guts to go for it, and try to make your way. It is those who are forever shillying and shallying, messing around on the side, ruining any price structure mainly out of ignorance and/or fear who are those that I can't accept have any legitimate place in this society.
Put up or shut up is where I see it. It has bugger all to do with fear of genuine competition; it has everything to do with distaste for pirates.
It is often said that a 'real' pro should have no fear of the amateur. Really? have you any idea what has happened to the professional stock industry now that every trucker, baker, chef, accountant, lawyer, shopgirl finds themselves making twenty cents a pop for the lucky holiday snap? It used to be big business for some pros - their livelihood. But what does that matter; maybe they should become part-time taxi drivers.
Rob C
-
And who decides what qualifies? ...
Suppose I fail this test because someone has decided to put in some stuff that really isn't critical to creating consumer acceptable wedding images ... perhaps some very technical questions that maybe don't even apply to digital capture. It appears it could be easily abused as a way for those who have succeeded to suppress competition, rather than allowing a free market to determine it.
In the UK I think that the problem would be that the standard would be set so low that it would legitimatize the incompetent.
-
In the UK I think that the problem would be that the standard would be set so low that it would legitimatize the incompetent.
Just as in schools, then!
My daughter teaches there; she told me that one lad of around fifteen years of age said to her that he wished he could leave and be like his mate, an electrician, and earn a grand a week... As she said, how do you honestly answer a thought like that and promote the value of scholastic study?
Rob C
-
But IPAD?
I saw the article here, there is really an exiting path now with this kind of medium into production.
Well, things are moving from many fronts and the iPad is one.
I'm actually studing the case and its short-terms implications, (one of the clew will be if Adobe...).
When I got more datas from the agency I'll post here.
Cheers,
Fred.