Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: How good exactly were the good old days?  (Read 30306 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2010, 02:42:22 pm »

Change comes to every profession. Some rise to meet the challenges of the day while others let opportunity, their customers, and their career slip away. . . .

Won't argue with that, but it still doesn't show in any way at all that 'opportunity' in pro photography has grown.

As Justin more or less pointed out, yes opportunity has grown, for the amateur to make better/cheaper pictures, but that doesn't equate with increased earnings for the pro. In fact, regarding stock, it has made it pretty worthless - killed the thing as a business. In areas where an amateur has no chance of competing, there is still a hard time going around; work has fallen away, prices too. Even in the 80s there were students leaving photo colleges/art schools with no prospect of ever getting work in the business. What a monumental waste of time, tax money and young hope. Still in the 80s, I may have recounted a friend's experience: his son left university and voiced an interest in pro phot. His dad took him to London (from Spain) to see a consultant. He was told that in the UK there was a handful of around a dozen or so photographers making big money, the sort of cash Dad was making. The advice was forget it, quickly. The boy went on to do well in PR.

Around that time, the BJP published a profile of a London advertising photographer who's bought a place out in Lincolnshire, I think it was, to where he departed every time he got the chance. From his personal work he developed a line of cards and, I think, calendars. I have a feeling it was a company called Redeye, or something similar with the word red in it. Anyway, his contention was that it was killing him to keep the London studio going, that photography as a business had been going down the tubes for as long as he'd been in it. Remember, this was in the late 70s or the very early 80s. Another big London ad photographer of the period, George Nichols, gave up altogether too...

No, it's not just a digital thing, though that has simply made pro photography much much more expensive (for the photographer) in terms of buying at the top; the entire business is in some sort of decline or change - which may well accelerate its way to a rapid end. Then what? I suppose, motion.

Rob C

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2010, 03:24:30 pm »

...  He saw... unemployed men with no dignity left...

Ha!… small world…I did not know your granddad knew me.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2010, 03:43:43 pm »

Ha!… small world…I did not know your granddad knew me.


In Nicosia?

Rob C

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2010, 04:27:56 pm »

Well, yes and no, Russ.

There are many big names still getting attention and, I would imagine, money from that; but your definition of professional only goes to show how wide or diverse such a definition can be!

I wouldn't count wedding and portrait 'main street' people as professional, even though they make their bread - sometimes a lot of it - via that work I consider them jobbing tradesmen, as I would the local thousand-a-week plumber or electrician: essential people but not within my idea of the word.

Photojournalists: I think they are a hard squeeze too for the definition of pros. I see them far more as journalists with incidental cameras. W. Eugene S, on the other hand, some see as the consumate, addicted pj; I see him as an artist in depth. It's all so subjective a call. So what do I see as professional? Very few groups, and those groups would include advertising people, car and architectural shooters, folks who are actually consulted by clients who are themselves in some form of professional practice. Fashion photographers, if they make their main money with that, I'd allow into the little group, but I sometimes wonder about that too: where would you put the Richardson pair? What about King Mario? Photographer or playboy, or can you possibly be both at the same time?

I suppose the easiest definition is the old one: anyone whose main income is derived from photography. But that is more a legalistic kind of definition, something to offer the IR; but as individuals, I think we probably all have our personal notion of what constitutes professional, whether photographer, painter (artist), painter (of buildings) or most anything else. It's the season to be charitable; I'm having a hard time. Must be all these Christmas songs going down. How about Elvis: Blue, blue, Christmas...

;-(

Rob C

Rob,

I go by what you've called the "old" definition. To me, anyone who makes his living shooting pictures is a "professional" photographer. The term addresses economics, not skill or artistic ability, which, as you point out, many "professional" photographers clearly lack. The same kind of definition applies to "professional" plumbers, where lack of plumbing ability doesn't prevent wrenching a pipe. You and I may agree that the term, "professional photographer" shouldn't apply to the local gal who does weddings, but we have to base our evaluation on esthetics, not income. The people who go to the local photographer for their wedding albums consider her a "professional" or they wouldn't be willing to pay a couple thousand dollars for the job, and the photographer herself will agree that she's a "professional," usually injecting meaning into the term that goes way beyond the fact that she makes her living that way.

To widen the definition even further, consider the guy who does "workshops." The ad in Pop Photography will tell you that for a small fortune you can rub elbows with and be "mentored" by the "professional" conducting a workshop. What that means is that the "mentor' will lead the group out into the hills where everyone can shoot the same postcard-type pictures and have fun discussing equipment. If you check, you find that the "professional" did a magazine article about three years ago, or does portraits of local eminences and has found a new way to make a buck.

As far as photojournalists are concerned: yes, the guy from the local newspaper who calls himself a photojournalist is mostly a journalist with a camera who makes an incidental picture to add its "thousand words" to his half-column story. But you're right, someone like Steve McCurry is an artist, even though, at the same time, he's a professional photographer. I think Gene Smith mostly was a very effective propagandist, and at the same time a professional photographer. Point is, both these guys make or made a living at it.

And when it comes to art as an adjunct of professional photography I think by all means you can let in certain fashion photographers, just as you can let in the occasional downtown wedding and portrait guy who has serious artistic ability. Mike Disfarmer comes to mind.

But a lot of the downtown wedding studio kind of professional photography is dying, not just because people can buy good digital point-and-shoots, but mostly because the market is shrinking. At the moment it's shrunk to midget size because of the economy, though some of that market will come back. But the only people still interested in old-style portraits with hair lights, etc., live in gated communities where they drive around in golf carts, and most young couples nowadays don't need wedding albums. I don't know of any local pros doing "living together" albums because that's the kind of album the couples do themselves with their point-and-shoots.

Hope your Christmas turns out to be less blue than a song by Elvis.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

michswiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 270
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2010, 09:48:37 pm »

Jennifer,

When people talk about "professional" photographers they usually think of the gal down town with the studio who does portraits, graduation pictures, and weddings, or the guy with a truckload of lights who does fashion shoots for the glossy magazines. They also might include someone like a friend of mine who, (in the good old days, meaning about four years ago) in addition to weddings, shot annual company gatherings at places like Cancun, all expenses paid.

But when people talk about photographers like Cartier-Bresson or Steve McCurry they don't call them "professional photographers," they call them "photojournalists," and when they talk about photographers like Robert Frank they call them "artists." Even though Life and Look magazines are long gone, both of these professional photographic categories still exist and show no signs of dying. Anyone who doesn't believe that needs to go to his local Barnes & Noble and look in the photography section.

But unless you're a member of Magnum you're not going to make much money in photojournalism. Even if you belong to Magnum you'll have to take your cameras to places you'd probably rather not visit. And if you read about the lives of the photographers we call artists you'll find that most of them spent a lot of time as starving artists.

So, my answer to your question is a question: When you talk about aspects of professional photography not in "decline," are you talking about money or are you talking an opportunity to do what you love to do? I suspect there are very few professional photographers making big bucks any more, but there are more than a few making a sometimes marginal living doing what really turns them on.


I'm not so much interested in what the average person would consider a "professional photographer." But rather those areas by your definition that are still vibrant and relevant both commercially and societally.   That said, I think you've already essentially answered this which is to say; not many.  Maybe we are moving back into a period where the important photographic work is returning to those either with the independent wherewithal or willingness to make sacrifices to go places or spend time on developing an idea.  I'm fine with that.  If the important stuff were easy, well...

John R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5248
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2010, 11:38:27 pm »

It may be true, as with most things, that the good old days were not necessarily that good or well recalled, but I am of the opinion that digital processing has made everyone into hyper critics when it comes to images, amateurs and pros alike. Too often I read critiques about fixing images for the littlest things instead focusing on expression and aesthetics. Or completely and radically altering other peoples images, as if that helps the maker improve his image. I certainly never worried about that with slide film. I would never deny that some basic altering of images always existed, but nothing like today. I can tell you from experience in attending many photo clubs and seminars by professionals, that among the best, the differences were hard to see. I would argue that people who considered themselves photographers were actually better in the past because they had to rely mostly on what was on the negative or positive and not on Digital alterations.

It hardly matters today, the process is irreversible; I can only hope, as Joe says, that it will be beneficial to the majority of people, really enthusiasts. But apart from point and shoot imaging and cameras, I find the whole thing rather expensive, if not more so than I when I was simply shooting and showing slides. And I need this computer just to tell you this and assorted expensive software (needed on a regular basis) just to process my images so that I can show them to you! How cheap is that! Time will tell.
Logged

Justan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1928
    • Justan-Elk.com
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #46 on: December 20, 2010, 09:13:43 am »

Won't argue with that, but it still doesn't show in any way at all that 'opportunity' in pro photography has grown.


Rob C

If you want to make a plausible case, start with census information. Pick any 2 10 year intervals over the last 50 years.

Beyond that, your anecdotal comments are just that.

Joe Behar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #47 on: December 20, 2010, 09:15:46 am »

It may be true, as with most things, that the good old days were not necessarily that good or well recalled, but I am of the opinion that digital processing has made everyone into hyper critics when it comes to images, amateurs and pros alike. Too often I read critiques about fixing images for the littlest things instead focusing on expression and aesthetics. Or completely and radically altering other peoples images, as if that helps the maker improve his image.

It hardly matters today, the process is irreversible; I can only hope, as Joe says, that it will be beneficial to the majority of people, really enthusiasts.

John,

I like this site, but the truth of the matter is, its dominated by tech talk. There are a number of ways out there that focus more on aesthetics and where you can get a critique on the image rather than the technique. I've known Michael Reichmann for some years and more than once I've proposed that he set up a new discussion topic that would focus strictly on image critique. I've gone so far as to suggest that all metadata be stripped out of the images and that any reference to cameras, lenses, postprocessing or manipulation be banned from the discussions.

I deal with tech matters all day, every day in my job and quite honestly, I would love an escape from it when I  talk photo after hours.

Michael, if you're listening and want to take a break from your marguarita (or take a detour as you go to the blender for a fresh one)  I'm still happy to moderate the discussion topic.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #48 on: December 20, 2010, 02:00:08 pm »

If you want to make a plausible case, start with census information. Pick any 2 10 year intervals over the last 50 years.

Beyond that, your anecdotal comments are just that.



Absolutely; but real life is anecdotal - you don't live and see a theory, though you well might if you don't know better from personal experience.

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #49 on: December 20, 2010, 02:02:23 pm »

John,

I like this site, but the truth of the matter is, its dominated by tech talk. There are a number of ways out there that focus more on aesthetics and where you can get a critique on the image rather than the technique. I've known Michael Reichmann for some years and more than once I've proposed that he set up a new discussion topic that would focus strictly on image critique. I've gone so far as to suggest that all metadata be stripped out of the images and that any reference to cameras, lenses, postprocessing or manipulation be banned from the discussions.

I deal with tech matters all day, every day in my job and quite honestly, I would love an escape from it when I  talk photo after hours.

Michael, if you're listening and want to take a break from your marguarita (or take a detour as you go to the blender for a fresh one)  I'm still happy to moderate the discussion topic.

That's pretty much why I initiated the Without Prejudice thread... so far, so good.

Rob C

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #50 on: December 20, 2010, 07:54:11 pm »

I'm not so much interested in what the average person would consider a "professional photographer." But rather those areas by your definition that are still vibrant and relevant both commercially and societally.   That said, I think you've already essentially answered this which is to say; not many.  Maybe we are moving back into a period where the important photographic work is returning to those either with the independent wherewithal or willingness to make sacrifices to go places or spend time on developing an idea.  I'm fine with that.  If the important stuff were easy, well...

Jennifer, But what you mean when you say "professional photographer" is all important. Most areas eventually will be "vibrant and relevant" again. There's still a huge market for the kind of work that goes on magazine covers, for instance. And if you're really good at that you can make a living doing it. There's still a huge market for the kind of photography Rob used to do, and, looking at the quality of his work I can't believe he couldn't still make money at it.

But I look at your fine work and wonder whether or not you'd be happy doing the kinds of work at which almost anyone can make a living. Do you want to sit in a downtown studio and do portraits and jumping brides? With your skills you certainly could do that kind of work. Do you want to do photojournalism for a magazine or newspaper where the boss tells you what and where to shoot and owns your files once you've made them? You could do that kind of work. But I suspect you're like me: you want to do what you want to do, not what someone else decides you ought to do.  And you don't want to be in a position where you're bound to make the kind of wedding album the bride and her mom are expecting because that's what they've always seen, and that's the only thing they recognize as being a wedding album.

As Rob pointed out, there are still big names getting plenty of attention, and, one would assume, money from their work -- often work they choose to do. But I think being that kind of professional photographer is a lot like being a novelist. Can you make a living writing novels? Sure, if you're reasonably conversant with the English language you can write the kind of potboilers that get on the New York Times bestseller list. But how many novelists are making more than a scratch living? Not many. You can make a living painting if you can swing a brush and have a bit of artistic ability. But you can't make more than a scratch living as a painter unless you paint the kind of crap that gets accepted by the "fine art" marketing community.

I really like the last part of your response. It sounds as if you're ready to give it a go, even recognizing that it's not going to be easy and that you're in for some lean times while you do that. Your work is good. What you need to do is find your own niche. Good luck. I think there may be a time when I'll be able to tell people proudly that "I knew her when."

Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2010, 02:33:32 pm »

In Nicosia?

Rob, not sure I get the Nicosia reference, but here is what I had in mind:

Jim Pascoe mentioned that his granddad in 1920s:
 
Quote
...saw mothers who could not afford to feed their children and unemployed men with no dignity left...

And I wanted to point out that the situation today is not that much different (for some, at least). The unemployed (myself included) reference is self explanatory. As for the hungry kids, how about today's CNN article: Some impoverished U.S. counties need foreign aid, and the stark ending of the article:

Quote
"This Christmas season, 15.5 million children in America, more than one in five, are living in poverty, a number of them in extreme poverty. This is the highest child poverty rate the nation has experienced since 1959."






Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2010, 04:54:59 pm »

Watching lunchtime news on Spanish TV today, they showed shots of people being given over-bought merchandise from shops etc., stuff that would otherwise be dumped in the trash. The lady who runs the bar where I often eat remarked about the irony of it: we send millions of euros to make African despots very rich men, and our own people are starving, she said... there's no answering that, particularly when it's the same pretty well throughout Europe. I mumbled something about maybe charity should best start at home, then eat another chip.

You can never get it right. That's one of the messages life sends you, whether you pay attention or not. I've pretty much given up on setting the world right. Somebody else can try in now. Or just blow the damn thing up and finish it.

Rob C

HiltonP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
    • http://hiltonp-twotrains.blogspot.com/
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2010, 04:22:00 am »

. . . the irony of it: we send millions of euros to make African despots very rich men, and our own people are starving, she said... there's no answering that, particularly when it's the same pretty well throughout Europe . . .
Ahhh Rob, at last someone sees African aid for what it is . . .  :-\

As an African I really wish other countries would stop sending financial aid to Africa. Little of it helps Africans, in fact just the opposite, it leads to even more hardship as those despots are never held to account, seeing instead the world condoning their theft and mis-management. The aid, however well intended, has in fact led to a downward spiral and the development of a mindset that someone else will solve Africa's problems. Africa is an extremely rich region, it needs no handouts, and if it got off its collective backside and worked it could function perfectly independently without aid of any kind . . .  ;)
Logged
Regards, HILTON

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2010, 06:28:51 am »

It is the change in "humanity" that I find makes me think of previous times. The constant quest/ demand for instant gratification, if I can call it that, irritates me. Real friendship seems to not exist anymore, manners and respect are "old fashioned" and everyone seems to be on a road to nowhere, as fast as possible, treading on all and sundry along the way. No one really lives anymore, they just exist.

Yes, we won the cold war.

Cheers,
Bernard

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2010, 12:06:31 pm »

It is the change in "humanity" that I find makes me think of previous times. The constant quest/ demand for instant gratification, if I can call it that, irritates me. Real friendship seems to not exist anymore, manners and respect are "old fashioned" and everyone seems to be on a road to nowhere, as fast as possible, treading on all and sundry along the way. No one really lives anymore, they just exist.


Riaan

I think there are many reasons for this - one important one being mobility of labour. I consider my own life, where I moved from place to place as a young boy, then settled for some years only to move yet again with a wife. Now, without her, there's really nobody in the host country where relationships can have real depth. It isn't anyone's fault, just the way it goes. I look at others I know well who remained in their small towns: they built up relationships in school, turned them into business ones later, married, raised kids - the whole structure exists within their society, their locale. The expat eventually loses it all, and there is no going back, and neither is there the desire, because the relationships back 'there' vanished decades ago. There's just nowhere left but 'here'.

Then, there's the Internet, television, all of those distractions that are so much easier and cheaper alternatives than actually going back out to integrate once again. And to integrate with what? The town drunks? The other lost souls trying to drown out reality and avoid the last step of taking all their saved, combined and inevitable medication along with a final bottle of Scotch?

It can be a lousy time out there - maybe that's why some aspects of the G.O.Ds are indeed imaginary. But not all.

Rob C
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:08:02 pm by Rob C »
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4764
    • Robert's Photos
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2010, 01:57:09 pm »



I think there are many reasons for this - one important one being mobility of labour. I consider my own life, where I moved from place to place as a young boy, then settled for some years only to move yet again with a wife. Now, without her, there's really nobody in the host country where relationships can have real depth. It isn't anyone's fault, just the way it goes. I look at others I know well who remained in their small towns: they built up relationships in school, turned them into business ones later, married, raised kids - the whole structure exists within their society, their locale. The expat eventually loses it all, and there is no going back, and neither is there the desire, because the relationships back 'there' vanished decades ago. There's just nowhere left but 'here'.

Then, there's the Internet, television, all of those distractions that are so much easier and cheaper alternatives than actually going back out to integrate once again. And to integrate with what? The town drunks? The other lost souls trying to drown out reality and avoid the last step of taking all their saved, combined and inevitable medication along with a final bottle of Scotch?

It can be a lousy time out there - maybe that's why some aspects of the G.O.Ds are indeed imaginary. But not all.

Rob C


Yes, it's just one long slow descent into despair and loneliness, as the body ages and suffers before finally giving up, alone in a gutter, penniless, ignored, and broken.  But hey, to most people on earth, that would be a step up!    :)

(I thought things were becoming a little morose.)


Logged
--
Robert

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #57 on: December 23, 2010, 04:54:18 pm »


Yes, it's just one long slow descent into despair and loneliness, as the body ages and suffers before finally giving up, alone in a gutter, penniless, ignored, and broken.  But hey, to most people on earth, that would be a step up!    :)

(I thought things were becoming a little morose.)


Robert, now you're being negative. To most people on Earth that wouldn't be a step up - it would be more of the same, just like Christmas presents for the man who has everything.

Now you may feel morose! Even the rich can't win. In fact, I have privately believed that death or terminal illness for a rich man is worse than for a poor one: there's so much more to worry about, so much more to lose and so much more to concern and to prepare for in all manner of ways; he can't just die in peace - he has to leave it tidy and tie up all the knots, keep the family, the accountants and lawyers happy and the governmental highwaymen off his pile. Wealth sucks, but I'd run the risk.

Rob C

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #58 on: December 23, 2010, 07:38:31 pm »

Wow, look at all the grumpy old men.  Don't you guys know that g.o.m.'s almost never get laid?  Which was, as I recall, easier back in 60's than now.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How good exactly were the good old days?
« Reply #59 on: December 24, 2010, 05:05:59 am »

Wow, look at all the grumpy old men.  Don't you guys know that g.o.m.'s almost never get laid?  Which was, as I recall, easier back in 60's than now.


What's get laid?

If it was easier in the 60s that's because we were younger and a hell of a lot more attractive to the group we still would like to attract but effing can't in this decade; even the wealthy aren't safe from natural laws: the keys to a Ferrari may vapourise some lingerie, but even then there is that inevitable, bitter little sod of an insistent inner voice telling you that she thinks she's revving the car. Maybe that's why some get grumpy?

I'm reliably informed that though ability may wane, des¡re never fails us. I'm sure he did have something to contribute, but I can't quite think of what Shakespeare had to say on the matter. On the other hand, perhaps most, then, didn't reach that sorry age and so there wasn't any market-driven need for him to work on such illuminating insights...

Rob C
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up