Interesting quote from a former photo rep on how digital changed things

[Daniel Stone]

This fella is a former photo rep

Entire article here:
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Photog...-J-12033.shtml

"Digital changed the landscape. Before the pixel, craft was still an elemental component of the narrative. A process that involved trusting strips of cellulose in a mysterious dark box was replaced by instant, impeccable rendering, in situ on vast monitors. The photographer’s role as sorcerer and custodian of the vision was diminished: The question "have we got it?" became redundant. Now it was the photographer asking the art director asking the client. Which is a big deal. Because the previous dialectic was that you engaged people who brought something to the party you couldn't provide yourself. Like Magi, the "creatives" brought creativity; photographers, vision. By abdicating those responsibilities to the guy who's paying, you're undergoing a sort of self-inflicted castration. A culture of fear and sycophancy develops. Self-worth diminishes, because nobody really likes being a eunuch, even a well-paid one. There’s less currency in having a viewpoint. The answer to the question "What have you got to say?" drifts towards "What do you want me to say?" There’s reward in being generic, keeping one’s vision in one’s pocket. Trouble is, when your vision has spent too long in your pocket, sometimes you reach for it and it's not there any more. Something Pavlovian sets in: the bell rings when it's kibble-time and you drool on cue. Suddenly many jobs can be done by many people, photographers become more interchangeable, the question of "Why him over her?" shifts to ancillary aspects of the process; personality, speed, stamina, flexibility. And there’s profit in mutability; being able to gather several photographers under a single umbrella with a shared mandate makes you more flexible and attractive. But the corrosive byproduct is that the unique sniper's eye of a Greg Miller, Chris Buck, James Smolka, Sian Kennedy becomes not only less relevant, but actually an obstacle. In shifting ground to garner a larger share of the mainstream, you risk losing identity, licking the hand that feeds you."


I can shoot both ways, digital or film. I much prefer film, but if I were to ever pursue shooting for paying clients, and they wanted digital, I'd be happy to shoot digital.

[Dirk Rösler]

It's less about a technical process, but about control. The "mystery of analog photography" and the photographer as a master of the craft gave the photographer more control, even if the client wanted it. The smart people used this control to insert their creative vision at the same time. When the photographer sets up the shoot and the client sits at the workstation for instant evaluation, the photographer's role of course is diminished, unless the creative director is leveraging the abilities of another creative professional by empowering him... anyway, it can be the way as described above, but it does not have to be that way. Empowerment vs. managerial control-freakery is a problem everywhere.

[Peter Lewin]

The quote is very much aimed at the commercial photography business. In "the old days" the artistic director chose photographers largely for the photographer's vision (Richard Avedon and Annie Leibovitch jump to mind as photographers with an instantly-identifiable style). Now the photographer has been made more of a technician, and the art director's vision has moved to the fore.

[Oren Grad]

This story seems to depend entirely on the presumed non-immediacy of film. Didn't Polaroids give the AD at least some opportunity to look over the photographer's shoulder? If so, were they not in the habit of using it?

[Dirk Rösler]

In the old days they just shot loads of film and the art director chose the shot from the contact sheet. Now they sit at the monitor...

[Ari]

This story seems to depend entirely on the presumed non-immediacy of film. Didn't Polaroids give the AD at least some opportunity to look over the photographer's shoulder? If so, were they not in the habit of using it?

Yes, of course, but I think the quote is more about the transfer of power/control from the creative team to the client, and the subsequent environment it has created.
We would rarely allow a client on the set, most of the time the AD or associate AD would drop in, look at some Polaroids, see that we were on the right track, and maybe make a few suggestions.
The better clients relinquished control completely, and usually got much better results; after all, what does a guy who sells carpets know about advertising or photography? And what do I know about carpets?
The lines are very blurred nowadays, the quote shows another off-shoot, albeit at a higher level, of "camera owners" and "photographers" becoming synonymous.

[paulr]

This story seems to depend entirely on the presumed non-immediacy of film. Didn't Polaroids give the AD at least some opportunity to look over the photographer's shoulder? If so, were they not in the habit of using it?

This was my reaction also. All the pros I know used polaroid, and many of them complained about being micromanaged by art directors before digital came along.

It wouldn't surprise me if things have gotten somewhat worse. Still, the devaluation of creative people (the "content creation class") seems to me like a very broad cultural phenomenon, and it's myopic (not to mention pointless) to blame it all on a new camera technology.

I really think the unspoken anxiety here is about turf. When you're a "sorcerer," job security comes from your magical / expensive tools and the arcane knowledge needed to use them. Any democratization of technology is threatening to the sorcerer class.

Some of this threat is a good thing: opportunities open up to a greater range of people, including ones who (for economic reasons) never would have had the chance to compete. The market gets tipped toward being a meritocracy.

And some of the threat is bad. Clients realize they can get the job done for next to nothing, so many of them lose interest in paying to get it done well. So at the high end of the market, there are more people competing for less work, while at the low end, there's a near infinity of people competing for work that barely pays.

The impression that "digital has ruined everything" seems to be held by people whose main asset was their technical skills or the stuff they owned. This is always a precarious position. People with real vision are much better able to roll with the punches, and even grow with them. Unfortunately the current cultural and economic climate punches a lot!

[Jmarmck]

I think it also has an "instant gratification" aspect tied to it. I see this in music as well. Technology has given the individual the ability to do the enter job eliminating the evaluation process by a "second set of eyes" or more importantly opinion. As you know I can take 50 shots of a white painted concrete wall at various exposures with a digital camera, post them to some imager server, then use the image server application to print an entire book of the concrete wall images, perhaps call it a study in light, exposure, texture and contrast. There is no one in the entire process to say "Hey, no one is interested unless your name is Adams". The professional being is a thing of the past in many trades thanks to technology.

In music ones sees many beat makers (not my term) that call themselves "Producers". I have audio gear at home. I record music. I mix it. I might even try to master it. Like the photobook example, I could even use some of my photography to create some sleeve art and have 1000 copies burned. But it does not make me a producer. I do not have the knowledge base to wear that tag. I barely have the knowledge base to call myself a photographer. But the technology is out there for me to play like one in real life.

Does this take way from the professional. Sure it does. Is there anything to be done about it? Not really except become an excellent salesman.

[Oren Grad]

It wouldn't surprise me if things have gotten somewhat worse. Still, the devaluation of creative people (the "content creation class") seems to me like a very broad cultural phenomenon, and it's myopic (not to mention pointless) to blame it all on a new camera technology.

I really think the unspoken anxiety here is about turf. When you're a "sorcerer," job security comes from your magical / expensive tools and the arcane knowledge needed to use them. Any democratization of technology is threatening to the sorcerer class.

Some of this threat is a good thing: opportunities open up to a greater range of people, including ones who (for economic reasons) never would have had the chance to compete. The market gets tipped toward being a meritocracy.

And some of the threat is bad. Clients realize they can get the job done for next to nothing, so many of them lose interest in paying to get it done well. So at the high end of the market, there are more people competing for less work, while at the low end, there's a near infinity of people competing for work that barely pays.

The impression that "digital has ruined everything" seems to be held by people whose main asset was their technical skills or the stuff they owned. This is always a precarious position. People with real vision are much better able to roll with the punches, and even grow with them. Unfortunately the current cultural and economic climate punches a lot!

This interpretation, nuances included, sounds right to me. Of course, the challenge is not unique to photography. The legal profession, for example, has been hit hard - no more gravy train from billing junior staff at high markups for performing what amounts to mechanical work.

[Dirk Rösler]

I suppose when you are surprised that things have changed (to the worse) compared to what they were before, it is a sign of getting old

Yes, the "digital democratization" which has served us heaps of under average stuff, also also genuinely empowered everybody out there. Of course this has impact on commercial balances, too. Again, control shift is the key aspect here and the one who has more control, will get more money (or has to spend less).