Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Paulo Bizarro on December 10, 2015, 04:49:34 am
-
Good article, and food for thought. I was just wondering what the numbers look like if one normalizes the number of photos taken per year by the human population?
Is this ratio actually increasing? 150 years ago the number of photos taken per year was much less than today, but so was the human population right?
-
I am scratching my head wondering how they could calculate the number of photographs taken and more importantly...does it matter?
-
I have seen numbers batted around for a long time on this topic. Here is just one link that helps understand the calculation. http://resourcemagonline.com/2014/12/infographic-there-will-be-one-trillion-photos-taken-in-2015/45332/
-
I have seen numbers batted around for a long time on this topic. Here is just one link that helps understand the calculation. http://resourcemagonline.com/2014/12/infographic-there-will-be-one-trillion-photos-taken-in-2015/45332/
Sorry...I find this to be nonsensical. :(
-
Sorry...I find this to be nonsensical. :(
As with all estimations, the only thing that is sure is that it is wrong:) Having said that, the assumptions they make are not unreasonable. 1/2 of the population in the world with camera phones is reasonable.
How many photos are taken by each person per day using their phone, that is anybody's guess though. Unless there is a way to track the number of uploads to social media sites and their data bases, which there must be...
Still, in 1900 the world's population was around 2 billion, and the number of photos estimated at 3 million. That gives around 0,0015 photos per person in that year.
In 2015 we have around 7,3 billion people, with say 400 billion photos per year. That gives around 58 photos per person per year.
-
I think focusing on the numbers of picture taken and the calculations made to get there kinda seems to be missing the point.
I thought the article was an eloquent reflection on what it means to the author on being a photographer today and the value in such a pursuit.
Your mileage may vary.
-
Much ado about nothing.
Photography, for anyone not earning their living through it, has always been on that long list of trivial pursuits way, way before the eponymous game was invented.
The amatuer status, pretty much by definition, ensures that it's something that's done without any real pressure to deliver. If you don't get your piccy this time, you can do it the next - if you remember and if you care enough to bother. Nobody is going to sue you.
If you consider yourself an artist, as in a photographic one, then your pressure becomes one of personal rôle definition rather than anything else. Regardless of nomenclature you will still be free to do whatever you care to do, just as long as you can afford it and it's legal. Titles go for nothing.
If your interest, as your ability, is limited to the visual note, then do you even care about anything else photographic, would the self-consideration of artistic status simply have you lol-ing on the floor at the absurdity?
It's just another non-problem illustrating the fatuousness of a lot of Internet life. Noise.
Rob C
-
I think focusing on the numbers of picture taken and the calculations made to get there kinda seems to be missing the point.
I thought the article was an eloquent reflection on what it means to the author on being a photographer today and the value in such a pursuit.
Your mileage may vary.
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...
-
Much ado about nothing.
Rob C
It can be a problem for pros. Imagine something eventful happens, and you rush to the scene of the event. By the time you got your pic, hundreds of pics of said event, plus videos, would already have been uploaded to social media sites and news agencies. For free.
-
It can be a problem for pros. Imagine something eventful happens, and you rush to the scene of the event. By the time you got your pic, hundreds of pics of said event, plus videos, would already have been uploaded to social media sites and news agencies. For free.
Already too late, Paulo: unless it's in motion it doesn't count. Life is dead. Long live tv. Yet longer live 'social'. This was, I believe about stills? If not, then there's zich to discuss: one swamp is much like another.
Rob C
-
I wonder how many words have been written in human history?
-
This is a topic that has been covered in a lot more depth by other writers, not surprisingly.
I'm disappointed that this author doesn't choose to expand on any of the lessons he's learned, simply referring to "life lessons" and so on. Apparently Photography has taught him, and continues to teach him, much, but he's not going to share what. He's simply engaged in some vague hand-wringing about All These Pictures, and then, I guess (?) concluding that it does affect him.
Here's a nugget to ponder: People who are buying pictures from you, looking at your pictures, judging them, whatever, these people live in a world with a trillion pictures. They swim in a sea of ephemeral pictures. This matters to you, unless you can actually not care what anyone (including YOU, since you also live in this world) thinks of your pictures.
Also, "tenants"?
-
It can be a problem for pros. Imagine something eventful happens, and you rush to the scene of the event. By the time you got your pic, hundreds of pics of said event, plus videos, would already have been uploaded to social media sites and news agencies. For free.
Then that person is in the wrong business. Or to be more accurate, the business model has changed and in order to survive the professional photographer has to change.
If random people can take a picture that are "good enough" and they can take it "soon enough" the value of the professional photographer recording the event is harder to measure... and harder to justify.
With today's faster data environment, a better picture two hours from now may not be as nearly valuable as a "good enough" picture in five minutes. This is especially true in breaking events.
Many of us like to justify that quality should always be the priority, but in reality, quality is only one of several characteristics of photograph. Timeliness and cost are also measures of a photograph's value.
A poor professional blames the customer "The customer does not know/understand/appreciate what "good" photography is". That's a rather self-serving attitude that can help the person feel better emotionally, but it does not change the reality that what the customer want (and is willing to pay for) is what is important in that business relationship.
Trying to convince a customer that they don't really want what they think they want, but instead should want what the photographer wants is becoming a hard sell....especially when the photographer tells the customer that what the photographer thinks the customer wants will cost more. Yikes!
I would say that with the exception of gaining access to restricted areas (press pass required), the professional photographer trying to earn a living photographing breaking news will be getting harder. If only for the fact that there are more amateur photographers out there than professional photographers and there is an overwhelming chance that many more amateur photographers will be at the right location, at the right time, with a camera that is good enough.
I really sympathize with professional photographers these days. The market environment is changing, and I am not sure I know of a way for the professional to change to keep ahead of the market.
But the professional photographer must change. In my opinion, the days of the full time professional photographer are coming to an end. Either the photographer earns money from other photography related sources (workshops, websites, seminars) or simply by having a full time non-photographic job and a part time photographic job. There will probably always be people who can earn a living solely by taking photographs, but I think that numbers will dwindle.
-
Interesting read but nothing new.
In the late 1870s Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll), one of the most prominent and weirdest of Victorian photographers, heard of the development of the dry plate camera. He reportedly said "here comes the rabble" and gave up photography a year later.
Unfortunately he was right, but that's another story.
-
Just about everybody can write. Has that killed writing as a career?
-
Just about everybody can write. Has that killed writing as a career?
If you judge by the Internet, yes.
If your measure is found in books, no.
Rob C
-
Thanks for the article. The actual number is irrelevant - choose any number that means "unimaginably large".
What is important is that photography is now very accessible to everyone, which means that everyone can explore a visual art.
An analogy might be poetry - everyone has written some poetry at some time, probably pretty poor. But, that doesn't mean it shoud not have been written or that it did not serve a useful function to the writer.
The issue becomes "How do we curate this product and decide if it should be shared more widely?"
Essentially, like poetry journals, there are sites like this one that we can return to, being reasonable sure that worthwhile art has been chosen to be shared.
-
If you judge by the Internet, yes.
If your measure is found in books, no.
Rob C
Plenty of people make a living writing for the internet. Quality is mixed, as in books.
-
dyspepsia circa 2015
re-invigorate with a few choice words (http://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2015/dec/07/bertrand-russells-10-lessons-for-a-creative-happy-life-in-pictures?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Bookmarks+base&utm_term=142882&subid=15960279&CMP=EMCBKSEML3964) from Bertrand Russell
esp #6 & #9
-
Plenty of people make a living writing for the internet. Quality is mixed, as in books.
All depends what you are willing to think good.
If things are or are not trivial also depend on the point of view of the person involved - at both ends of the message. But, having said that, I think it might well come down to something else: what's memorable? I remember books; not much of the Internet experience beyond photographs by people whose work interested me years ago, but to which access was pretty much impossible. So taking this back to the OP's premise...
Rob C
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :(
-
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.
-
That is the most hilariously naive reductionism ever.
-
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?
-
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
-
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 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 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. ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 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, 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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
Rather ironic that you object to the use of the word elitist because your post smacks of it? You have obviously put yourself on a pedestal therefore you should be careful you don't fall off it and land on your ego. Perhaps time for another holiday? ;) :(
-
Rather ironic that you object to the use of the word elitist because your post smacks of it? You have obviously put yourself on a pedestal therefore you should be careful you don't fall off it and land on your ego. Perhaps time for another holiday? ;) :(
When you learn to understand what you read, you'll discover that context is of paramount importance, especially in the little matter of definitions, and even, with luck, how words are used within given contexts, thus making specific meanings pertain. Of course, that's another 'suspect' skill on some socio-political barometers. As is life, really, as well as any aspiration beyond failure. If you have no belief in yourself, then why, pray tell, should anyone else have faith in you?
Rob C
-
When you learn to understand what you read, you'll discover that context is of paramount importance, especially in the little matter of definitions, and even, with luck, how words are used within given contexts, thus making specific meanings pertain. Of course, that's another 'suspect' skill on some socio-political barometers. As is life, really, as well as any aspiration beyond failure. If you have no belief in yourself, then why, pray tell, should anyone else have faith in you?
Rob C
Nothing wrong with having belief in yourself. However the problem is that if someone tells the world how good they are and the world doesn't agree with them then they tend to look foolish. To reiterate, my statement about elitism was not aimed at professionals and wasn't political. It was about the use of the word schmo. Calling all non professionals schmo was imo insulting and unfortunately you read it wrongly. Now let us both forget about it and enjoy the upcoming Christmas? :)
-
Nothing wrong with having belief in yourself. However the problem is that if someone tells the world how good they are and the world doesn't agree with them then they tend to look foolish. To reiterate, my statement about elitism was not aimed at professionals and wasn't political. It was about the use of the word schmo. Calling all non professionals schmo was imo insulting and unfortunately you read it wrongly. Now let us both forget about it and enjoy the upcoming Christmas? :)
Forget what?
Rob C
-
Forget what?
Rob C
Your misunderstanding.
-
All this 'tit for tat' and argy-bargy has nothing to do with photography. It's all to do with your ego and vanity.
-
All this 'tit for tat' and argy-bargy has nothing to do with photography. It's all to do with your ego and vanity.
Ray I think you have indulged in a few "argy-bargy"? If I remember rightly Kevin was one person you picked on? :(
-
Quote from: Rob C on December 14, 2015, 04:06:36 AM
Forget what?
Rob C
Your misunderstanding.
...
I think the above reply from you, where no reply was ever expected or deemed necessary, demonstrates again how you simply are not able to understand what you are reading, as I mentioned earlier in this sorry thread.
I'll try again, one last time: when I wrote "Forget what?" I was indicating that I was perfectly happy to go along with your suggestion to sheath the claymores, at least during the Christmas season. I was indicating that I had already forgotten the little contretemps beween us...-
Never mind. Have a good season anyhow.
Rob C
-
All this 'tit for tat' and argy-bargy has nothing to do with photography. It's all to do with your ego and vanity.
Don't be silly Ray; enough that it's the 'silly season' in its own right!
I enclose a little picture where I thought of you as one of the brighter lights in the LuLa firmanent:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/4534845_orig.jpg)
Rob C
-
Ray I think you have indulged in a few "argy-bargy"? If I remember rightly Kevin was one person you picked on? :(
Not at all. I picked on a couple of his photos and critiqued them with honesty.
-
Don't be silly Ray; enough that it's the 'silly season' in its own right!
I enclose a little picture where I thought of you as one of the brighter lights in the LuLa firmanent:
Rob C
What are you trying to create in that photo, Rob? The impression of a ghost? ;)
-
What are you trying to create in that photo, Rob? The impression of a ghost? ;)
If the PC Police don't object: just a chink of moving light against the blackness.
Rob C
-
As photographers, we have a tendency to hate once somebody asks North American country to figure for "exposure," i.e., for free. the positioning of this magnitude and significance within the photographic community isn't low-cost to run.
-
The magic of photography is probably less complicated than we have a tendency to thought. It needs no powerful instrumentation or secret alchemy. it's a language, like others, to speak regarding what it's to be human. it's the way to acknowledge each other, to recollect the importance of seeing with kindness and poetry.
-
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
That's a realistic assessment of the fine art photography business scene in my opinion. I came to the same conclusions myself in regards to photographers who are in the business of selling prints to the general public with a few minor differences. One of those differences is to replace 'agents' by 'gallery owners' for example. Otherwise the lack of business acumen, the absence of professional requirements to open a business and the confusion about what it means to be 'a professional' are similar.
Alain