Trivialization of photography

[FMueller]

I actually wrote "good article and food for thought"... my ensuing focusing on numbers was derived from pure curiosity, that is all. I did not miss the point. The point to me is that if you are a pro today it is more difficult to sell your photos, given the amount of images taken at the same place/event by the countless folks using countless camera phones.

Numbers are not irrelevant in such a context...

Not my intention to insult you or suggest that you hadn't gotten beyond the numbers. I was a bit dismayed that the whole discussion launched off almost exclusively dissecting the calculation of the number.

I think Huntington Witherill wrote a great article, the short title could've been "Photography is not dead." Photography is definitely not the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago but that doesn't mean we all need to start learning to shoot video.

We have the most fabulous tools ever known at our disposal for very reasonable cost. When I think about how I labored wth every imaginable format of negative in a darkroom that I put together at no inconsiderable cost, and I compare that to what I can do now with a modest outlay for equipment and printer, I am stunned.

We have an embarrassment of riches and because of this democratization of photography we have many people who have gone into a nihilistic funk because producing a finely made print is easy and realizing that they can no longer just wow the viewer with sharpness or detail or any other technical feat because anybody can do it.  This can be upsetting. Mastering the craft doesn't mean mastering a coherent vision and that is the struggle. And I struggle with it.

[DougGator]

I think that the number of photos taken is irrelevant.  Most are taken with cell phones and sent to friends or posted on social media or even trashed without being reduced to a print.  I think if you look at the number of prints, the number comes down dramatically - even snap shot prints.  For prints larger than 5X7 - another dramatic reduction.  Even though the competition for serious prints has increased greatly, the number of serious prints is relatively small.  I see this when I, a rank amateur, bring my prints to my office, the crowd goes wild with bewilderment about how these prints are made.  They assume it's just that I have a professional camera.  I have some good gear but it's not the gear.  I am trying to become a better artist to produce a print, not a picture.  Good prints are a bit easier to be made today but there is still artistry to be marveled in a great print. 

[Hawkwood]

Let's flip the "Ugh..lot's more bad photos out there, not to mention unseen good ones!" argument on its head. Let's say, Wow, millions of otherwise ordinary-sighted people now have the opportunity to learn to see more deeply, to share their experiences of deep-seeing with others, and to become more enthralled with the world they live in. And they have far more opportunity to share their art with their friends, family, co-workers, Facebook-friends-of-friends, etc. than they ever could have before!

I've had a great experience simply sharing my best photos on FB with a large group of friends and acquaintances, and I get lots of very positive feedback. I've also joined a few very active and very good photography groups on FB where I get inspired by their work, and get positive feedback on my images. As a result, I'm taking my own images more seriously and am creating an exhibition to show at the college I work at.

Now all I have to do is start sorting out the 25,000 images on my hard drive... :-)

Paul
   

[Ray]

I think the following quote from the article is a key point which I can relate to.

"For me, photography has always been more about the day-to-day process of living my life as a photographer – more so than it has been about the results and realities of actually being a photographer. As such, it’s about the exercise of the process, rather than being about the results of the process."

Pablo then goes on to say,

"For the better part of my life, photography has allowed me to continually learn more and more about myself, and more about the world in which I live. Certainly, it has taught me more of life’s lessons than any other pursuit I’ve engaged. Ironically, given my decidedly myopic eyesight, photography has also allowed me to better utilize acts of visualization, thereby allowing me to more keenly observe, reflect upon – and ultimately connect with – the essence of that which goes on around me."

This is how I also feel. The actual numbers don't worry me. It's only the effect that those numbers have on my own activity of taking photos, that is a concern.
For example, I was recently in Chiang Mai during the annual Loi Krathong festival, which includes an elaborate parade along the streets of Chiang Mai, of people in traditional costumes usually sitting on vehicle-drawn, decorative platforms or stages.
I'd previously witnessed this festival in November 2007, and took a few photos. It was fairly crowded on the pavements (or sidewalks), but not unmanageable.

In November 2015, the situation was far worse, from my perspective. The congestion of the crowds was ridiculous, mostly Chinese tourists I suspect, not only crowding the sidewalks, but covering the road on all sides, along which the parade was moving. At any given moment there was always a large number of tourists with iPhones, on the road, in front of, and to the side of the moving parade, taking selfies.

It seems as though the proliferation of cheap digital cameras has caused a vanity epidemic. 

[dzevchek]

People have been taking lots of bad photos ever since the introduction of the Kodak Brownie.  Now people take bad photos with their cellphones.  So what?

Serious photographers take photographs and everyone else takes snapshots.  That's the difference between a pro and a schmo.

[amolitor]

That is the most hilariously naive reductionism ever.

[stamper]

People have been taking lots of bad photos ever since the introduction of the Kodak Brownie.  Now people take bad photos with their cellphones.  So what?

Serious photographers take photographs and everyone else takes snapshots.  That's the difference between a pro and a schmo.

Elitism? Which one are you.....pro or a schmo?

[Rob C]

Elitism? Which one are you.....pro or a schmo?

Now that's not fair: the `pro' connection, assuming it refers here to pros who are real ones, who have gone through the engineering equivalent of 'serving their time' within the photographic profession, are nothing to get iffy about with snide cracks about 'elitism'. If you want to classify anyone who actually knows their stuff, has worked at it as their full-time career all their life as 'elite' then so be it: you simply misuse the term here in a manner which has a different, more politically motivated direction than can sensibly be applied to anyone who is just bloody good at what he does because it's his job, and he's had his working life to get together with it.

You can, however, take an overall perspective of a group of professional photographers, and then classify the ones acknowledged to be the best of their genre as an elite. That simply signifies their outstanding qualities and does not smack of the pejorative implications being made here, simply accepts them to be the best.

Egalitarian political thought finds fertile ground for battle even when there is no foe; it just needs it's oxygen now and again in order to convince itself it still has a point in this life.

Rob C

[amolitor]

It is not the use of the word "pro" that is the tell here, Rob. It is the use of the word "schmo" in tandem with the word "snapshot" which marks dzevchek as a person who wants to simply dismiss virtually all of the photography that is actually done and remain in a safe little word in which specific people, presumably whomever he or she likes, are granted the special designation of "pro" to distinguish them from the dirty masses.

[GrahamBy]

I guess I don't get the point: many activities are ubiquitous, but we still recognise that a few people do them exceptionally well. Walking is "trivial", running 100m in 10.1s is not. Lots of people sing or play a musical instrument, few end up performing in the major concert halls and opera houses of the world.

[John Camp]

I guess I don't get the point: many activities are ubiquitous, but we still recognise that a few people do them exceptionally well. Walking is "trivial", running 100m in 10.1s is not. Lots of people sing or play a musical instrument, few end up performing in the major concert halls and opera houses of the world.

I agree, but of course, that's not enough, I have to enlarge on it. 

All kinds of people use artists brushes and oil paints and acrylics, X-Acto knives and wood and stone carving tools, and so on, and a lot of those people are artisans of some kind who would not call themselves artists, or what they do art. Photography has weirdly never differentiated between the various kinds of people who use cameras. The point being that people taking photos with cell phones are not necessarily making Photos with a capital P (although they could be.) My wife uses her cell phone to take photos of price tags in stores, and erases the photos within days. If she doesn't buy whatever it was she photographed, the photo might as well never have existed.

I assume most people here are interested in Photography with a capital P, no matter what kind of device the photos are taken with, including cell phones. Those photos are probably substantially different than photos of price tags in department stores taken on a whim and with no meaning to anyone except the person who took them and who soon discards and forgets them. I don't think millions of cameras trivializes Photography as most of us practice it -- it's simply another use of the same tool that we use.

I really don't feel like I'm in competition with people who shoot price tags, or take selflies in front of Starry Night, and whatever else they do with their cameras, any more than a landscape painter would feel that he's in competition with a sign painter.

[stamper]

It is not the use of the word "pro" that is the tell here, Rob. It is the use of the word "schmo" in tandem with the word "snapshot" which marks dzevchek as a person who wants to simply dismiss virtually all of the photography that is actually done and remain in a safe little word in which specific people, presumably whomever he or she likes, are granted the special designation of "pro" to distinguish them from the dirty masses.

I heartily agree. For the record not everybody who calls themselves a pro are good photographers. Some of the schmos can produce better photographic output.

[Rob C]

I heartily agree. For the record not everybody who calls themselves a pro are good photographers. Some of the schmos can produce better photographic output.

Which of course, depending on the definition of pro, is often perfectly true.

I think I defined my take on pro in my post above. Notwithstanding, I think you  miss - possibly wilfully? - the point about 'elitism' even amongst so-called pros: there's always an upper level: the elite. You have to call that special class (oops!) something that makes clear sense, that distinguishes it from the also-rans.

The latter distinction is very difficult for many to make these days, in a society where people are force-fed the fantasy that everybody is the same as everybody else. Of course, these same people do see the patent differences between themselves and others, but the inner struggle to enjoy the parts where they are better is oft ruined by the faux (and totally misplaced) social conscience that would deny them that little satisfaction of personal success, in whichever realm it be.

The guilt that such public lies must cause the perpetrators will not be denied; it is assuaged by casting stones at anyone still able to challenge their dogma. But inside... for how long can one mock and deny oneself?

Rob C

[stamper]

Rob, my use of the word elitist wasn't aimed at pros but at dzevchek. I thought he was elitist in his comment. Amoliter was spot on with his post so re read it again and try and grasp what was REALLY being stated.

quote

 I think you  miss - possibly wilfully? - the point about 'elitism' even amongst so-called pros:

unquote

I think this applies to you -  possibly wilfully - misunderstanding the post. You obviously have a high opinion of yourself that others don't share. Because somebody is paid for what they are doing it doesn't automatically mean they are good at what they do or if they don't get paid then they are second rate. I have been paid for my photographic efforts but I do don't have a high opinion of myself. Judging by your images you have posted then I don't particularly judge you as "professional". I judge you as a good photographer, nothing more, nothing less.

[Rob C]

I really don't feel like I'm in competition with people who shoot price tags, or take selflies in front of Starry Night, and whatever else they do with their cameras, any more than a landscape painter would feel that he's in competition with a sign painter.

And I agree with you.

But, the reality for many, is not so: I can recall, only too clearly, many years back when I was a regular on the BJP forum. This was at about the time that mainstream pro photography - whatever the hell that was - was starting to feel the effect of the digital amateur in the realm of stock. Some of the people posting in that BJP forum were clearly not even good amateurs, but had convinced themselves that they were the next about-to-happen, despite not even having held down photographic postitions, anywhere.

These special folks believed that it was just a matter of buying a camera, a light tripod and perhaps - at a stretch - a small flash. When I pointed out that it took years of struggle, experience and contacting people to get anything much to happen, that the people able to deliver unto one the choice contracts were always well-insulated by secretarial staff etc. etc., the passing of whose barriers was no easy matter, replies to such statements never came. What did come was the usual one seen here on LuLa from time to time: nobody owes pros a living! Well, how neat: who said that anyone did? So yes, you are right, the pro is not in competition with the cellphone selfie king, with the soccer mum, or even with the shamateur, stand-in weekend weddings warrior. The pro is in competition with himself, other pros, and, worst of all, with a market where the lowering of client expectations is clearly real in the greater, more accessible areas that once were a living for the general practitioner.

I suppose that signifies the markets once part of the assignment genres, now satisfied by microstock. And yes, if much advertising output is going to be confined to an uncalibrated consumer monitor, what's the point in photographic hi-fi anymore?

But on the positive: I see no decline in the workload of those master fashion photographers I admired so much during my own time... that's one advantage of the web: you can see what your heroes are doing and for whom.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Rob, my use of the word elitist wasn't aimed at pros but at dzevchek. I thought he was elitist in his comment. Amoliter was spot on with his post so re read it again and try and grasp what was REALLY being stated.

quote

 I think you  miss - possibly wilfully? - the point about 'elitism' even amongst so-called pros:

unquote

I think this applies to you -  possibly wilfully - misunderstanding the post. You obviously have a high opinion of yourself that others don't share. Because somebody is paid for what they are doing it doesn't automatically mean they are good at what they do or if they don't get paid then they are second rate. I have been paid for my photographic efforts but I do don't have a high opinion of myself. Judging by your images you have posted then I don't particularly judge you as "professional". I judge you as a good photographer, nothing more, nothing less.

I think I said exactly that two posts back:

"Which of course, depending on the definition of pro, is often perfectly true."

However, you still don't seem to want to understand the differences I pointed up in the use of the word 'elitism'; and of course, the point that dzevchek made was perfectly sound, whether you agree or not. Sticking an 'elitism' tag on it changes nothing, and you wouldn't have felt compelled to make that remark to him without your own mind carrying its particular colouring regarding pro/am photographer and societal relations at large.

As for your definitions of my own stuff: what I'm posting these days has zero to do with professional photography: ¡t's all about my own life with a camera today, as a non-working photographer. It isn't meant to be professional in any way: it's meant to be exactly what it is: personal. You do dig the difference?

Of course I have a high opinion of myself; why else would I bother to put in all the computer-hours photography implies? Whether 'others' share that opinion here matters zilch: what mattered was that the business community thought I was worth paying the high fees to catch. I'm happy with that as validation.

;-)

Rob C

[Dave Millier]

Oh, this is harsh! And unfair.

There is quite a lot of brilliant writing on the web and plenty of awful writing in books.

It is (and never has been) the fault of the medium of communication.  Democratising the channels merely allows more people a means to communicate - and that means more incompetent outpourings, of course, but also more interesting and more brilliant work, too. 

I think, thanks to the internet, overall, there is far more good stuff today than ever before.

The problem for the consumer is finding the good stuff. Findability becomes the key. Before the internet, professional publishers performed the service of filtering the wheat from the chaff. They also (accidentally) threw out good stuff as well but that was the price you paid. Today, the publisher-filtered content is less important and the onus has shifted to the consumer to self filter. The price you pay today for access to more good content is the soul destroying weight of dross you have to sift.

But 99% of everything is cr*p and always has been.

If you judge by the Internet, yes.

If your measure is found in books, no.

Rob C

[Dave Millier]

Being good at something is about being good at something, not being paid for it. Plenty of people are paid for doing something they are only moderately good at, there is no real connection between being a "pro" and being "good".

If there is elitism on show here, it's the incorrect assumption that pros are automatically better than amateurs. 

Being a successful pro tells you are successful at business - it might also mean you are good at what you do, but not necessarily.  I'm have a successful job as as website builder, it doesn't mean I'm particularly good at it. In fact, it's almost embarrassing how good some of the people I meet day to day are compared to me!  Likewise, I think I can shoot a pretty mean photo but I've never made a penny out of it and never intend to.

It is not the use of the word "pro" that is the tell here, Rob. It is the use of the word "schmo" in tandem with the word "snapshot" which marks dzevchek as a person who wants to simply dismiss virtually all of the photography that is actually done and remain in a safe little word in which specific people, presumably whomever he or she likes, are granted the special designation of "pro" to distinguish them from the dirty masses.

[Rob C]

Oh, this is harsh! And unfair.

1  There is quite a lot of brilliant writing on the web and plenty of awful writing in books.

2  It is (and never has been) the fault of the medium of communication.  Democratising the channels merely allows more people a means to communicate - and that means more incompetent outpourings, of course, but also more interesting and more brilliant work, too. 

I think, thanks to the internet, overall, there is far more good stuff today than ever before.

3  The problem for the consumer is finding the good stuff. Findability becomes the key. Before the internet, professional publishers performed the service of filtering the wheat from the chaff. They also (accidentally) threw out good stuff as well but that was the price you paid. Today, the publisher-filtered content is less important and the onus has shifted to the consumer to self filter. The price you pay today for access to more good content is the soul destroying weight of dross you have to sift.

4  But 99% of everything is cr*p and always has been.

Please excuse my numeration of your post - makes it simpler to respond.

1. Possibly, but still not how I see it from my journeys in the head the virtual beast. The main plus to the experience is, for myself and as I've mentioned before, that it allows me access to many images that I once loved but couldn't find again, perhaps because at the time they were new, I couldn't afford to splash out on the monographs that embraced them.

2. Optimistic, but unlikely.

3. And with that, you have to evaluate the volume of what you find worthwhile compared with what you discard, and the time you lose, forever.

4. I agree totally.

Rob C

[Rob C]

1  Being good at something is about being good at something, not being paid for it. Plenty of people are paid for doing something they are only moderately good at, there is no real connection between being a "pro" and being "good".

2  If there is elitism on show here, it's the incorrect assumption that pros are automatically better than amateurs. 

3 Being a successful pro tells you are successful at business - it might also mean you are good at what you do, but not necessarily.  I'm have a successful job as as website builder, it doesn't mean I'm particularly good at it. In fact, it's almost embarrassing how good some of the people I meet day to day are compared to me!  Likewise, I think I can shoot a pretty mean photo but I've never made a penny out of it and never intend to.

1.  Very few that I know of are able to survive in the long term if they are not actually good enough to be professional; I do, naturally, limit my observation to the genres of photography bought by professional buyers in industry, commerce etc. and I do not place that mantle over the head of anyone selling to the general public, a public that is usually neither aware of the possibilities nor how much it should feel entitled to expect from anyone calling himself professional. Of course, a big problem here has been the refusal in some countries to enforce professional qualifications as a prime requirement for anyone hanging out his shingle. Nope, it would certainly not gaurantee a world of experts, but it would certainly protect the innocent from the worst excesses of the charlatan.

2.  Some may fall into that trap; for myself, I have often expressed admiration for the work of some people who would never even think of themselves as professional photographers, and have no desire to be one. I've already made my opinion of the misuse of the word 'elitist' plain

3. Some of the very top pros (an elite?) have no sense of business; they employ agents who handle the entire deal on their behalf. Some, on the other hand, are as sharp as new razors. But, I would say that of the fellow pro photographers I've known personally, the majority that succeed do so despite their awful business acumen. I'm afraid I'd have to list myself amongst that grouping. I hated networking, realised that I couldn't fake love for people I did not respect, and thus I found myself working for a small group of guys with whom I think I shared some ideals and a lot of empathy. Sadly, even these people move on, to say nothing of the speed of the flavour of the month... Let's not even touch on the ravages of economy and manipulated social mores.

Rob C