Photography a Desk Job?

[Kirk Gittings]

Posted by Steve Simmons on the Stitching thread:


One of the questions for me is where do I want to spend my time - in some wonderful landscape location with a view camera or holed up in front of my computer.

Lets see

outdoors in the real world vs inside in front of a monitor

outdoors in the real world vs inside in front of a monitor

outside in the real world


For those of us who have been in LF photography for decades, I think we sympathize with Steve's essential point. Digitally based photography has become predominantly a desk job. This is particularly true if you do commercial work, because so much of what you do, even if you shoot film, has to be delivered digitally to clients.

[Marko]

Kirk,

As my reply to Steve's post in the stitching thread goes, it is not the matter of digitally-based photography, but of digitally-based processing.

It may look the same at the first glance, but it is not, for at least two reasons:

1. Camera work, be it in the field or in the studio, is essentially the same, despite a few relatively minor differences.

2. Even if the capture medium is film, processing can still be digital and past the scanning process, there is no fundamental difference here either.

Now, I am not a professional, photography is just a hobby for me, so I have both different perspective and incomparably less expertise in it than you do. In fact, I am in the exact opposite position: In my profession, computers are not just the primary tool, they are also the medium itself. So, I hope you will tolerate my opinion in this discussion, since a different perspective may contribute at least something.

That being said, here is my question regarding your opening statement: Using a laptop in the field, something like the way Betterlight users do, wouldn't it be concievalbe that at least a portion of the work be done right on the spot, thus reducing "desk time" back at studio? Or, from another angle, couldn't such use make it possible to deliver live proofs to the client and get the feedback while you're still on the spot?

[Greg Lockrey]

This would depend on how complete the photographer is. Is he a camera operator that passes the finishing work off to a lab? Or the complete photographer that has to be part of the process from beggining to end. Time in front of a monitor is no different to me that getting my hands wet in a lab other than I have better control with the monitor.

[JimL]

outdoors in the real world vs inside in front of a monitor

That could be rephrased as:

outdoors in the real world vs inside in the darkroom

Those who don't want to spend time in the darkroom can hire people to do that work for them. Those who can't afford it or want total control over the process have to spend time in the darkroom if they want to produce output.

So why aren't the digital shooters doing the same - hiring expert people to do the computer work so they can spend more time shooting? Is it because a lot of the "in-the-field/in-camera" work is now done by the photographer "in-computer", or that the darkroom aka computer is now portable and image editing can be done in the field?

I don't buy into this labeling of computer work as not being "real-world" - to me it smells a bit elitist (labeling one method as inferior or less genuine - real photographers don't sit in front of a computer). No matter how I shoot, it's my decision how I spend my time - as witnessed by my many binders full of unprinted negatives!

Jim

[Gordon Moat]

In the professional realm, there are digital assistants. Just like some prefer a darkroom to a lab, there are those who prefer user control over having someone else do the post work. Sometimes in the professional realm it can come down to what you can reasonably bill out to a client, so budget constraints can alter approaches.

What I got from Steve's comment were a few aspects. One is that he likes being outdoors doing landscape photos, something that probably several other photographers who enjoy landscape images could appreciate. The other was that landscape photography is a way to escape the office, and that computer eagerly awaiting your return to it.

I would prefer spending more time behind (or beside) a camera on location somewhere. Unfortunately, being a professional means lots of meetings, doing paperwork, and yes . . . even post processing to get that digital image file delivered to a client. Somehow in all that other stuff is working on concepts, updating my portfolio . . . actually using my camera gear. If I had that great "A" list of clients that I could afford assistants to do lots of the drudgery for me, I would be happy to have them.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Jack Flesher]

I clearly don't see Steve's point either: It's simply time in a wet darkroom versus time in front of a monitor -- the time and experience in the field can be identical depending on what you're capturing your images with.

[Dick Hilker]

As an amateur who prints digitally, I've found myself making decisions in the field based on the assumption that more of the finishing work will now be done at the computer than would have been possible in a darkroom. This has had the effect, in some cases, of relying too heavily on the computer work to do what should and could have been done better with the camera.

Unlike a pro, I don't have much real deskwork and equate my time working on images with the computer to doing the same thing in a darkroom.

[Kirk Gittings]

I clearly see Steve's point if you enjoy more your time in the darkroom vs. sitting in front of a computer.

Having been a full time working professional before the digital revolution and after (28 years), I spend far more time preparing files for clients than I ever did editing film and preparing contact sheets (or for magazines when we just shot the best transparency we could, took it to the lab to have it processed, edited the film and then delivered it). And every pro I personally know who's career spans the same changes says exactly the same thing from George Georgio (Playboy) to Robert Reck (Architectural Digest).

[Jack Flesher]

I clearly see Steve's point if you enjoy more your time in the darkroom vs. sitting in front of a computer.

This debate is not worth site bandwidth, but to be clear about my point, that isn't what Steve said... He said, "One of the questions for me is where do I want to spend my time - in some wonderful landscape location with a view camera or holed up in front of my computer."

I totally understand his point if he feels the way you phrased it Kirk, or if he was trying to say he'd rather shoot with a pano camera than stitch after the fact. But again, he didn't phrase it that way...

;),

[Rick Moore]

One of the questions for me is where do I want to spend my time - in some wonderful landscape location with a view camera or holed up in front of my computer.

Lets see

outdoors in the real world vs inside in front of a monitor

If you darkroom is "outdoors in the real world," I agree wholeheartedly.

I've never been so lucky.

Since I still take my photographs with a camera (analog for now but I fail to see how using a digital camera would change this very much), it's hard to see your point. I've spent a great deal of time in darkrooms over the last thirty-five years or so, isolated from my family, breathing all kinds of toxic and semi-toxic fumes, exposing myself to a long list of toxins and carcinogens. Even with the best of ventilation and protective gloves and masks, one is still exposed to nasty stuff. I can honestly say I prefer sitting in front of my computer. Yes, doing digital procesing can be long hours of drudgery, just as darkroom work can be, but I find the computer liberating, not limiting.

An added advantage to me is the ability to load my scanned negatives onto my PowerBook and work with them any time and place I have a few minutes to spare, such as in an airport waiting area or a hotel room. I've even been able to work on images while sitting at a picnic table next to the Merced River in Yosemite Valley and in a chair on the terrace of the Grand Canyon Lodge on the North Rim with the sun setting in the west. If your darkroom can match that, I'd sure like to see it.

In the end, it's still the images I produce, not the manner in which I produce them that matters to me.

[Kirk Gittings]

This debate is not worth site bandwidth We could get rid of half the threads by that standard.

Jack, because I know Steve so well and have talked about this issue with him, I am interpolating his statement on his behalf (I think accurately).

My 31 year old son (who have never owned anything but a cell phone) grew up with computers and feels completely differently about his computer time. I think this is largely a generational issue.

[David Karp]

Having been a full time working professional before the digital revolution and after (28 years), I spend far more time preparing files for clients than I ever did editing film and preparing contact sheets (or for magazines when we just shot the best transparency we could, took it to the lab to have it processed, edited the film and then delivered it). And every pro I personally know who's career spans the same changes says exactly the same thing from George Georgio (Playboy) to Robert Reck (Architectural Digest).

I can see exactly where Kirk and these other photographers were coming from. Once upon a time I was a client, and I had a wonderful photographer that we used for all our photo needs. He was (is) a true photographer. In my experience, there was nothing he could not do. When he started out, he did it all. B&W darkroom, you name it. His work included high and low volume catalog work, architecture, interiors, etc. He did architecture and interiors, plus pretty low volume product shots for us. Since I had a strong interest in photography, we used to have long talks while we were setting up shots, driving to a location shoot, etc. He told me that when he started he spent lots of time in the darkroom. After a while, his clients became less and less interested in B&W, so he ditched his darkroom. He shot lots and lots of transparency film, and this is where the difference lies between those days and now. He was very very good, and worked hard to make sure his exposures were correct. Then he sent the film to the lab. It came back, and it was right or it was wrong (most always right). He always held sheet film back if a processing correction was required, and he bracketed a bit to make sure things were OK when shooting with the RZ. The film came back and he spent time editing, making cropping masks for clients, etc. Then the film went to the client or to the graphic designer, magazine, ad agency, etc. No hours in front of the computer doing post processing work. No scanning, no nothing. It was on to the next job, or working on getting the next job. So, for many many years, when he was working, he was making photos or doing the business part, but never processing anything.

Now that he is semi-retired (his clients won't let him quit), the RZ and Sinar are gone, and he uses a Canon 1DS mark II digital SLR. He spends lots of time in front of the computer. It is both a good and bad thing. Yes, the control is there, but instead of being active and making photos, he is sitting at his desk fixing, cleaning, and doing lots of things that he had not had to do since he dumped the darkroom. Not as fun for him, and much like the part of the job that most photographers dislike -- Sitting at the desk doing billing and other business stuff instead of making photos.

It may not seem different for some photographers, but for people who had careers spanning this era, this attitude is completely understandable to me.

[JimL]

Kirk, I don't doubt your experiences for a moment... that the shift of workload in the practice of commercial photography is real... and could be difficult to factor into the business model as well as being unsatisfying, etc.

I do notice, however, a tone of defensiveness in many of these discussions in devaluing digital photography work as passive drudgery... for example, who would want to be "sitting" or "inside" in front of a monitor, as if it couldn't possibly be creative, wonderful and satisfying.

Clearly it's Steve's and anyone else's personal choice to do what he enjoys, but I guess I'm reading some of that tone in the quote above. And I will admit it's something that I struggle with sometimes too...

Jim

[Kirk Gittings]

David,

It deja vue all over again. That story could describe sooooo many people I know. I am in a small market with few resources beyond myself. Since my clients started demanding files I have largely worked 7 days a week ever since. I am far from retirement and need to make friends with this brave new world.

[steve simmons]

I understand the need for post processing - be it in lab/darkroom or on the computer. My pointwas that I would rather haul a view camera to the location and get a big piece of film than haul a 'more convenient' small camera, have to take multiple shots, and then stitch them together afterwards which for me would be far more work.

I am old enough to remember that my goal always was the perfect chrome.

I am older than I ever thought possible :)

steve

[Jack Flesher]

My pointwas that I would rather haul a view camera to the location and get a big piece of film than haul a 'more convenient' small camera, have to take multiple shots, and then stitch them together afterwards

I understand that preference perfectly with repsects to both process and product :)

Cheers,

[Marko]

We could get rid of half the threads by that standard.

I think you are very generous - we are essentially chewing fat with most of the threads here. All the while sitting inside, in front of the computer, the fact that really makes this thread stand out as a non-sequitur of sorts, wouldn't you think?

:)


My 31 year old son (who have never owned anything but a cell phone) grew up with computers and feels completely differently about his computer time. I think this is largely a generational issue.

I think it's about attitude and curiosity - my 26 year old son, who is a computer scientist working on his masters, started his relationship with computers at the same time I did, on the first personal computer I bought, not out of necessity, but out of curiosity. From day one, he was simply mesmerised by the thing, and I think he knew right there and then what he would become. I think we all did. The difference is he was six years old at that time and he "got it" much faster and better than I ever could. Which is, when you think of it, something every parent aspires to.

I don't know what would have happened if I weren't of the early adopter's mindset, he would most likely have gotten the bug anyway, but I sure know I would be struggling like so many of my peers do these days. And I would probably be bemoaning the hours I have to spend in front of the computer instead of enojoying it.

Life is a lot like photography - perspective is everything, it defines one's horizon.

[Ralph Barker]

Isn't this somewhat of a glass half full vs a glass half empty sort of thing? If we think of digital workflow as being equivalent of darkroom time at the functional level, isn't being able to sit in a chair, instead of standing, a good thing? :D

Doing only those things which we like to do would be a pleasant luxury. We could, for example, hire others to do the things we don't enjoy. Personal realities, however, preclude that approach for most of us. But, sitting at a computer working on digital versions of images someone has paid for is probably still far better than cleaning sewer pipes or chasing drunk drivers down the interstate. :cool:

[Marko]

I am older than I ever thought possible :)

Steve, we are younger today than we will ever be. :)

[roteague]

An added advantage to me is the ability to load my scanned negatives onto my PowerBook and work with them any time and place I have a few minutes to spare, such as in an airport waiting area or a hotel room. I've even been able to work on images while sitting at a picnic table next to the Merced River in Yosemite Valley and in a chair on the terrace of the Grand Canyon Lodge on the North Rim with the sun setting in the west.

That is something I could never find myself doing. When I'm finished shooting, I want to continue to enjoy the outdoors, not looking at a computer - that can wait until I get home.

[David Karp]

Many jobs are better than cleaning sewer pipes or chasing drunks down the interstate.

The thing is though, if you had what you thought was a fantastic job, one where you did what you really loved doing, and then it became (at least in your mind) worse, and you spent a lot of time doing things you did not like very much, most of us in that situation would feel like we preferred things the old way.

From what I have seen, much work that was not necessary or was previously done by others has now become the photographer's responsibility. At the same time, competitive and client pressures result in this work being done for free, or worse, for a total fee of less than photographers were getting before while peforming less work.

I can understand a desire to be away from the desk doing what it was you wanted to do when you became a professional photographer.

[Graham Patterson]

Sitting at a computer all day is, by definition, a very sedentary activity. At least in the darkroom I move around 8-)

[Greg Lockrey]

There is drudgery in all work....that's why they can it work. If you just want to be a camera operator, that's fine. But don't insult the photographer who is willing and more importantly able to do the grunt work as well whether be it in the lab or on a computer monitor. I for one am not too old to learn new things especially if my output is better than I ever thought possible using old analog methods that took hours to acheieve. I've done both for the past 35 years and I admit that I like the computer way better. Mainly due to the fact that the image that was preconcieved is more easily obtained and to a higher level of accuracy. I guess this is the gripe of the purely analog guys that it looks easier for the digital guys get a good image at a cheaper cost. Well this is the way of technology isn't it? As for pure photography goes, Polaroids would make everyone even. There would be no manipulation just good camera operator technique. Photography isn't about camera operator technique is it? There is a whole lot of finishing involved. Some can do it, others pass it off to us grunts.

[roteague]

From what I have seen, much work that was not necessary or was previously done by others has now become the photographer's responsibility. At the same time, competitive and client pressures result in this work being done for free, or worse, for a total fee of less than photographers were getting before while performing less work.

I've observed that the quality of images used in magazines and some advertising these days is atrocious.

[Greg Lockrey]

I've observed that the quality of images used in magazines and some advertising these days is atrocious.

That could be due to the mass printing technique and not the fault of the camera operator.

[Marko]

From what I have seen, much work that was not necessary or was previously done by others has now become the photographer's responsibility. At the same time, competitive and client pressures result in this work being done for free, or worse, for a total fee of less than photographers were getting before while peforming less work.

If you think that's bad, you should see what happened with the Web in 2001...

Generally speakng, there are only two ways of effectively dealing with major changes that happen outside of one's influence: One can adopt to the change and keep swimming or one can change fields and venture into other activities. Bitching and moaning accomplishes nothing, except creating a lot of aggravation, both for those who do the bitching and for those who have to listen to it.

[roteague]

That could be due to the mass printing technique and not the fault of the camera operator.

Perhaps, but I can show you an image on the front page of a national magazine that isn't in focus (Writer's Digest). The Australian National Tourisim is using an ad where the digital artifacts are plainly visible.

Closer to home, a retired National Geographic photographer, has an article in a local magazine (Maui Magazine) - the images are flat, lifeless, and in some cases have blown highlights. I know he uses high end digital (think 16+MP) - but who processed the image? The rest of the magazine has good quality images (except for one out of focus ad). I'm not blaming the technology, but who is at fault here? The magazine or the photographer?

It just seems to me that magazines (and some ad agencies) are now willing to accept poor quality images. That is the state of the industry, and what those who want to do a good job face.

[Greg Lockrey]

It just seems to me that magazines (and some ad agencies) are now willing to accept poor quality images. That is the state of the industry, and what those who want to do a good job face.

And your point is? It's not the technology, but you pointed out that the camera operator was faulty and so is the art director of the ad agency and/or magazine. That's a whole new topic for discussion.

[Marko]

It's not the technology, but you pointed out that the camera operator was faulty and so is the art director of the ad agency and/or magazine. That's a whole new topic for discussion.

The loss of quality has nothing to do with digital and everything to do with being cheap and becoming cheaper still, which seems to be the general treand these days. Not just in publishing, although it is certainly more readily visible there.

[Greg Lockrey]

The loss of quality has nothing to do with digital and everything to do with being cheap and becoming cheaper still, which seems to be the general treand these days. Not just in publishing, although it is certainly more readily visible there.

Perhaps some of us have just priced ourselves out of the market.:eek:

[Kirk Gittings]

On the loss of quality in magazines (which I think is largely indisputable but with many causes), one of the biggest single factors (and it is the fault of both photographers and magazines) is down and dirty CMYK conversions. In the old days this was done by experts-prepress people, now it is largely done amateurishly by professional photographers (myself included) and art directors. Much of the lame reproductions I see show obvious signs of D&D CMYK conversions.

[Ted Harris]

Kirk, right on. Not to mention the loss of the knowledge base among prepress folks, there are fewere and fewer of them these days that are the kind of real pros you are talking about.

[Marko]

Perhaps some of us have just priced ourselves out of the market.:eek:

Greg, it's not just photography, it is also the web and pretty much everything else. Everybody seems eager to get more for less, quality be damned. I would rather say that those who accept the lower pay and/or more work for same or less money are to blame, because once the buyers realize it is possible to get more for less, they will naturally insist on it. Arguing about quality will not get you far in this kind of setup because quality takes the back seat to price, if it doesn't already trot behind the carriage.

I am no snob, I understand perfectly well that many people simply have no other choice than to accept lower prices because they have to make a living. But the problem is that it is not a one time cut, it is a process that once started will not stop until something breaks, and the first thing that does will most likely be thier own back, because if they weren't in the inferior position to begin with they wouldn't be accepting lowballing in the first place.

I lived through the entire dot-bomb period and I've had to scale down my lifestyle significantly, but I set a line in sand under which I would never go. If it came to that, I was ready to go sell used cars or something along those lines rather than accept blackmail. Seriosly.

I was lucky to be able to ride it through, but I've seen many... no, make that most of my peers lose their jobs, and I've seen some of them struggle for more than a year before accepting trully disgraceful offers. Well, the only thing they accomplished was to work in hell and keep seeing their wages downgraded and their workload upped yet more. Some of them did indeed go elsewhere, and one of them went to the local burger place. He said he was far happier and had more free time flipping burgers for the same price they offered him for an 80-hour week in one of those post dot-crash sweatshops.

The good thing is, the situation stabilized, the companies started looking at quality again and most of the good ones are now back at work. This particular market has matured now, there are no more excesses in either direction, but most of the fly-by-night hacks are gone too. Or they got themselves some Microsoft certification or the other and changed the field anyway. ;)

The same process is now happening in publishing and photography, it's only that they took longer to get to this point, but the eventual outcome should be similar too. It's only the matter of persisting.

[Kirk Gittings]

And Ted....................that is the issue isn't it? Good CMYK conversions take time to do right. More time sitting in front of the damn computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg, it's not just photography, it is also the web and pretty much everything else. Everybody seems eager to get more for less, quality be damned. I would rather say that those who accept the lower pay and/or more work for same or less money are to blame, because once the buyers realize it is possible to get more for less, they will naturally insist on it. Arguing about quality will not get you far in this kind of setup because quality takes the back seat to price, if it doesn't already trot behind the carriage.

I am no snob, I understand perfectly well that many people simply have no other choice than to accept lower prices because they have to make a living. But the problem is that it is not a one time cut, it is a process that once started will not stop until something breaks, and the first thing that does will most likely be thier own back, because if they weren't in the inferior position to begin with they wouldn't be accepting lowballing in the first place.

I lived through the entire dot-bomb period and I've had to scale down my lifestyle significantly, but I set a line in sand under which I would never go. If it came to that, I was ready to go sell used cars or something along those lines rather than accept blackmail. Seriosly.

I was lucky to be able to ride it through, but I've seen many... no, make that most of my peers lose their jobs, and I've seen some of them struggle for more than a year before accepting trully disgraceful offers. Well, the only thing they accomplished was to work in hell and keep seeing their wages downgraded and their workload upped yet more. Some of them did indeed go elsewhere, and one of them went to the local burger place. He said he was far happier and had more free time flipping burgers for the same price they offered him for an 80-hour week in one of those post dot-crash sweatshops.

The good thing is, the situation stabilized, the companies started looking at quality again and most of the good ones are now back at work. This particular market has matured now, there are no more excesses in either direction, but most of the fly-by-night hacks are gone too. Or they got themselves some Microsoft certification or the other and changed the field anyway. ;)

The same process is now happening in publishing and photography, it's only that they took longer to get to this point, but the eventual outcome should be similar too. It's only the matter of persisting.

It's happening everywhere....especially in major manufacturing and specifically here in the "rust" belt. Drop the skilled trade classifications, combine the job titles and pay 3/4 scale.

[QT Luong]

It is true that nowadays I sit a lot in front of the computer because editing and preparing digital files is more time consuming than editing transparencies and sending then out.

However, the digital revolution has make it possible for me to reach a world-wide market and make a decent living out of shooting landscape/travel self-assigned, something that I would not have been able to do with the old ways.

So the alternative to photography as a desk job would have been a non-photographic desk job. I also plan, as I expend my business, to have more of the digital tasks done by assistants.

[Gordon Moat]

And Ted....................that is the issue isn't it? Good CMYK conversions take time to do right. More time sitting in front of the damn computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I have a slight advantage in that I came from the world of CMYK prior to becoming a professional photographer. There is a quality advantage in controlling CMYK going to press or publication, though understanding the nuances can take time. It is not a static skill either; I just went through a paper seminar recently and learned even greater nuances of CMYK adjustments.

The reality is that many places that tell you to send RGB don't have the time to properly convert to CMYK. It is hard to place blame on graphic designers, when many companies are using temps through Aquent, Addecco, or Creative Partners; people who barely get paid to do work they know will last a very short time, and usually at a place that has no interest in hiring someone permanently. So knowing that situation, what photographer wants to hand off an easy to do RGB scan (or capture), and let some temp spend little to no time converting it whatever (random) way they happen to choose?

I think the answer is more work, more education and learning, and unfortunately more time. However, anyone who wants to survive on the quality (not quantity) of their work quite likely will spend more time ensuring the quality is there all the way to the final printout.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[QT Luong]

My pointwas that I would rather haul a view camera to the location and get a big piece of film than haul a 'more convenient' small camera, have to take multiple shots, and then stitch them together afterwards which for me would be far more work.


I'd feel differently if the location was the top of Mt McKinley :-)

[David Karp]

If you just want to be a camera operator, that's fine. But don't insult the photographer who is willing and more importantly able to do the grunt work as well whether be it in the lab or on a computer monitor.

As a purchaser of photographic services during the time just before the digital change hit the profession, I saw lots of work by a variety of photographers. The major difference that I saw (excluding business sense, ease in dealing with them, etc.) between photographers was not whether they did their own darkroom or other work, but in their ability behind the camera they were operating. Did they have the vision? Did they have the ability to achieve the vision? Could they deliver my vision when required? Could they deliver that ideal photograph, (as Steve called it - the perfect chrome)? In those recent days, as you know, that was the end of the process for most photographers. Prints were not usually the primary reason for the photographs. The transparency was the goal. Who did the processing was irrelevant to me, and to the photographers too. E6 was E6 was E6. If they had a good lab working with them (my photographer did), then that was all that mattered.

From the promotional materials that came across my desk during that time, there were plenty of photographers without vision, the ability to achieve it, or the ability to deliver the perfect chrome. It was not mere camera operation.

The photographer that I worked with has a tremenous amount of skill. I would never call him a camera operator. He could do things with light that I suspect even today most photographers would have difficulty duplicating on the computer. I was lucky. My team included him and a wonderful graphic designer (who rounded out the team with a very good service bureau that he worked with). Each had a very good sense of the other's job. None of them could ever hope to match the other's skill or years of experience in that job. Then, "we" did not reasonably expect them to be able to do the other's work, or the work that the service bureau was expected to perform. Today, how can we expect the same quality output when we have people trying to do all of these things on their own? I suspect it is a rare individual who can pull it off.

I think that is why we are seeing poorer output in many areas. Maybe there was a reason the work was divided (especially after most clients no longer wanted b&w). I think it is extremely unreasonable to expect one person to do all of these tasks to the same level of competence as the team that I used to work with. Maybe we don't care. Maybe all the clients care about today is saving money. I don't know. I am not responsible for catalogs, photography, or websites for anyone anymore.

As I think about it though, the only people that I think can fairly be called camera operators are the people who many companies have handed a digital camera, a computer, and some software, and who, without any experience, apprenticeship, or education, are now labeled photographers. They photograph products or whatever, and handle everything up to, and perhaps including, the creation of the final output. Does that make them superior to photographers like the one I worked with? Denigrating photographers like him, or Kirk or Steve, or any others because all they could do year after year was deliver exactly what the client needed, and because they would rather be making photographs than sitting in front of a computer is inappropriate.

[roteague]

Excellent points David. I think that Kirk, and Steve, like the rest of us see the frustrations putting quality first, only to be undercut by the industry and those photographers willing to work for almost nothing.

One other trend I've noticed is the use of contests to get images - the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau had one, where the entrant gave up all rights to their images, just for the chance to win a round trip ticket to Las Vegas. The HVCB got lots of images to do as it wished, and no need to hire a photographer, or by stock images.

[Henry Ambrose]

Have any of y'all recently looked at a printed piece from maybe......... 1977?

The quality of average printing today is much higher than thirty years ago. And today's printing is done with a chain of work that is much smaller than ever before. If you shoot digital and deliver CMYK files to the designer the two of you have replaced the photo lab technicians, the scanner operators, the graphic arts camera operators, the strippers, the typesetters, the plate burners, and so on right on through up to the pressman. (well probably there's a preflight guy in there somewhere) Any way you cut it someone still has to do the work of multiple obsolete job classifications.

But more to the point of the orginal question, yes photography is very much more a desk job than in the days of "hand in the perfect transparency" But going back before that time there was the "hand in the perfect to be shot for reproduction B&W print" and someone was standing in the dark hours on end to make that happen. If you were hands-on-serious that someone was the photographer or someone who worked for directly for them. So I think this is partly about the baseline to which you refer or are familiar with.

When handing in film all the work had to be done before exposure. Now more of it happens afterwards. It might even be the same amount of time overall to get the job done. I know that I often shoot with the knowledge that I will do X and Y and Z in the computer. So instead of X being filtered, and Y being flagged and Z getting a separate exposure with the lamp turned on this time, I'm going to spend that time sitting at a computer and finish making the picture there. I don't think its that different (timewise) from knowing I would have to print something in the darkroom and perform various steps there to complete the final product.

On the bright side we have unprecedented control and hardly ever dreamed of before ability to create exactly what we or the client wants. With that comes the added responsibility of making that happen while seated at a keyboard. It might even be a good thing that we can do so much these days. Or rather it -is- a good thing because if you couldn't do these things you might not be working at photography.

For now I'll leave out the part about how many photographers have to buy a bunch of new expensive digital gear every few years to get paid less for doing more work.

[Greg Lockrey]

Hey, I didn't mean to offend anyone on this forum. Being a camera operator is not a negative thing, it's one of many skill sets. Most important part of photography is lighting. You don't need to be an electrician to set up lights for a photo shoot. 90% of the people here have got it together other than some are being stubborn to change. I work with people every day whose skill sets has been replaced by the computer. My degrees are in both Fine Art and Visual Communications Technology, so I am what you call "trained". Computers when I went to school were slide rules. How many techno geeks know how to operate one of those.
Yes, there are good photographers that don't do the lab work themselves. They do know what to expect from their media. One of the most successful portrtait photographers I know never got his hands wet. Didn't have a clue how to work in the lab. He also by the way was one of the first to go digital when high end cameras were still under 2 mp. He understood the limits of his tools and got the most out of them. Yes there are less than adequate photographers. These wouldn't make the camera operator classification. I would name them "camera shooters" if I was to be derogatory. Many are artist wanna be's that can't draw and become photographers instead. Others see photography as a quick buck. The weekend wedding photographer for example. The digital age isn't the start of those types either. I delt with them for over 35 years.
The media requirements have changed. It's time to stop trying push back the avelanche and go with the flow. Your chromes are going to be scanned, and that's it.

[roteague]

Yes there are less than adequate photographers. These wouldn't make the camera operator classification. I would name them "camera shooters" if I was to be derogatory. Many are artist wanna be's that can't draw and become photographers instead. Others see photography as a quick buck. The weekend wedding photographer for example. The digital age isn't the start of those types either. I delt with them for over 35 years.
The media requirements have changed. It's time to stop trying push back the avelanche and go with the flow. Your chromes are going to be scanned, and that's it.

I didn't take your comments to be derogatory at all. There are photographers who make a living at what they do, but they aren't what I call "good", just competent.

Time do change and we with it. However, there is also the old axiom, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I accept the need to deliver files these days, instead of transparencies. I don't accept that I have to use digital to do it however - as digital capture technologies have gotten better, so has scanning technologies.

[Marko]

The media requirements have changed. It's time to stop trying push back the avelanche and go with the flow. Your chromes are going to be scanned, and that's it.

Yes, the media requirements have changed, because so did the medium itself. Your chromes are not just being scanned, they are being obsoleted as we speak. I am not saying that this is either good or bad thing, I am just stating the fact. The 35 mm has already fully switched, MF is rapidly on its way, all of this within last seven years or so. I don't think LF will stay all that much behind, probably no more than another 10 years or so, if not less.

The big question is not if that will happen, but what will you do about it? Are you going to:

a) Retire in disgust

b) Whine about it wherever you can and to whoever will listen

or

c) Adapt and keep going?

[Robert Oliver]

ALL OF THE ABOVE
<BR>The big question is not if that will happen, but what will you do about it? Are you going to:

a) Retire in disgust

b) Whine about it wherever you can and to whoever will listen

or

c) Adapt and keep going?

[Greg Lockrey]

I didn't take your comments to be derogatory at all. There are photographers who make a living at what they do, but they aren't what I call "good", just competent.

Time do change and we with it. However, there is also the old axiom, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I accept the need to deliver files these days, instead of transparencies. I don't accept that I have to use digital to do it however - as digital capture technologies have gotten better, so has scanning technologies.

As long as you can meet the deadline. To give you a simple example: I don't do weddings, my last real wedding prior to the one I did last summer was about 1983-4. The hassle after the wedding just wasn't worth my aggrevation. I'm not a people person. One of my artist clients happen to notice that I make stereo photos. Mind you, I do these because I enjoy them and learning how to do them is like learning photography all over again. The process of learning different aspects of photography has always been a turn on. Don't know why either, just is.

Back to the story. She asked me if I happen to do weddings besides my custom printing service. My reply (as a joke) "only if they are stereo". To my surprise, that's what see wanted! She hired me and another (2D) photographer to photograph her wedding. Because I have a complete printing service including the capablility of doing on location printing, I was able to have 200+ 4x6" stereo pairs delivered the next day. Where as the "professional" didn't deliver for another two weeks because he had to depend on an outside service. He told me that normally the client doesn't buy prints anymore but get the edited CD's. He was also shooting digital btw. I made good money, he lost about half of what he could have made. Morale of the story, offer something no one else can provide, do it in a timely manner at a fair price. FWIW she took all 200+ stereo views, paid for the four hour fee "for being out of the studio" and she even bought one of my Holmes stereo viewers.:)

[steve simmons]

Re contests, always read the fine print. It is a tough choice for any photographers who were very anxious to be published as a sign of success. Some contests just want one-time edit rights for contest photos which seems much more fair to me.

But, this thead is wandering. My initial comment was meant to compare the ideas/practice of taking a small digital camera to a location/job and taking multiple images to go home and blend them together vs taking a larger camera and getting it on one shot. I would prefer the one larger camera approach. I am not a mountain climber but Wisner and Chuck Farmer took an 8x10 to the top of Mt. Whitney several years ago and Jody Forster took an 8x10 to the Himilayas (sp) as well so it can be done.

No matter how you shoot - film or digital - there will always be post shooting time spent in taking film to the lab, processing it yourself, and perhaps scanning it, etc., etc. Some of this time will be spent at a desk.


steve simmons

[Robert Hughes]

It is hard to place blame on graphic designers, when many companies are using temps through Aquent, Addecco, or Creative Partners; people who barely get paid to do work they know will last a very short time, and usually at a place that has no interest in hiring someone permanently.

I was trying to find a reference to "Slaves to Cheapness" but came across slavery and cheapness.

Interestingly, Great Britain in the late 1700's and early 1800's was concerned that the newly formed USA would swamp the British textiles market with cheap merchandise because its huge slave system allowed the production of cotton at cut rate prices. Now the table has turned and the USA job market suffers from Chinese slave labor. Poetic justice, perhaps?

[QT Luong]

But, this thead is wandering. My initial comment was meant to compare the ideas/practice of taking a small digital camera to a location/job and taking multiple images to go home and blend them together vs taking a larger camera and getting it on one shot. I would prefer the one larger camera approach. I am not a mountain climber but Wisner and Chuck Farmer took an 8x10 to the top of Mt. Whitney several years ago and Jody Forster took an 8x10 to the Himilayas (sp) as well so it can be done.
steve simmons

The point of my post is that, depending on location and travel logistics, sometimes it involves much, much more work to take the big camera. The top of Mt Whitney is reached by a horse trail that can be done as a day trip even by an unfit person. The Himalayas are not a mountain, but a large mountain area where most people travel either in populated areas, on trails, assisted by porters, or all of the above. Even without engaging in climbing, there are a lot of areas where getting the big camera there is a lot of work.

[Gordon Moat]

I was trying to find a reference to "Slaves to Cheapness" but came across slavery and cheapness.

Interestingly, Great Britain in the late 1700's and early 1800's was concerned that the newly formed USA would swamp the British textiles market with cheap merchandise because its huge slave system allowed the production of cotton at cut rate prices. Now the table has turned and the USA job market suffers from Chinese slave labor. Poetic justice, perhaps?

Hello Robert,

The rise of temp workers in creative professions comes from a slightly different causal effect. Corporations have moved back and forth between create departments and outsourcing (not offshoring). What many of them discovered was the indirect costs of employees was lessened through the usage of temp workers. The agencies handle all the legal state-by-state requirements (workers comp, insurance, unemployment taxes, or even vacation allowances). Quite often the agencies got more money directly per hour per temp worker than what a regular employee would have been paid; though the workers actually get less due to the agency cut of the hourly wage. So from an accounting point of view, it makes sense to many companies to use temps.

The downside of using temps is inconsistency. Temps are only there when a need is identified for creative services, or graphic arts, or more often production work. When each need is filled, the temp workers time at a location ends; that can be three days, one week, sometimes one month, and rarely longer. This was the reasoning behind my earlier posting. The temps know they will not be there for long, so what incentive do they have to do a good job? If something ends up screwed up in print, quite often it can be after they are already gone from a company assignment.

I don't know what could change this situation. It is no longer creative temps, since many companies now use other trained and skilled labour for temporary work. Maybe the problem is government regulation, or lack of regulation; though it does not help that in the US, it is like dealing with 50 countries when it comes to workers laws. Many laws well intended to help workers have pushed companies to look more at using temp workers.

So this could apply to a photographer too. Imagine that your nice chrome (or capture) gets mangled by some temp worker. The temp leaves prior to the printing (or publication). Then when the so-so or plain aweful reproduction is seen by the client, and no temp worker to blame, the client can think that the photographer is the problem . . . sh*t rolls downhill.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't know about the creative temp market, but when I was in grad school, I used to earn some extra cash by doing word processing as a temp, mostly for legal firms. The temps were usually more capable than the full timers, because they had to be able to go into any situation and produce good work on short notice, and if they did well, they would be hired for more work. The regular employees usually were secretaries who had been entrenched in their jobs for years and were hired originally because they were fast typists, but they usually couldn't do things like formatting complex documents with tables in Word Perfect for Unix.

[Gordon Moat]

I would not want to give the impression that all creative temps are hacks. However, it is definitely a roll of the dice whether a really good one is handling an assignment. At least with Aquent, they often try to put the same people back at companies on future requests, though not entirely a guarantee of quality.

The people most likely to fall into creative temp assignments are recent graduates. In college, if you made a mistake, then you got a lesser grade and moved on to the next assignment. In the professional world, if you want to further a creative career, you need to get all "A" grades on everything. The people staying in a creative profession after five or more years often amount to less than 10&#37; of graduates, implying those with some experience do good work; though the more experienced rarely stick with temp worker status.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Alan Rabe]

The issue with me is that I am a software developer and spend most of my day in front of a computer writing software. Photography is my escape from it all. I love my time in the field and in isolation in the darkroom tinkering with prints and just having fun.

[David Karp]

Perhaps that is the reason we are seeing somewhat of a resurgence in use of 8x10 and bigger cameras. So many of us are tied to a computer all day (with all that is both good and perhaps not so good about that), who wants to spend more time at the computer with your hobby. I enjoy the darkroom process, where I am thinking, moving my arms, walking, lifting, etc. For me it is far more enjoyable than thinking, sitting and moving my fingers.