Everyone's a photographer

[Marko]

Photography is drastically changing. There is no doubt. I contribute this to the fact that the mystery is gone. The craft is gone as well. People think that if they can take a photograph with their cell phone which all of their friends on Flickr think is great, then why pay for a photographer? Ignorance is bliss, but it gets you shitty photographs.

Mystery? What mystery? Photography has always been a highly technical craft. There is no mystery in sloshing a bunch of chemicals around in the darkened room. Not unless you also happen to believe in Santa Claus and such.

Younger generations are not becoming increasingly stupid and shallow, as you seem to imply, it's the older generations that are becoming increasingly grumpy and senile, as some comments seem to demonstrate here.

[Michael E]

In any artistic field, professionalism means nothing to me if the person is not also a great artist.

The path to mastery is more than just doing the steps and putting in the time. Many people have practiced long and hard and correctly at their arts, yet ultimately do not produce anything that has an artistic voice of their own.

People who confuse their commercial work with art are poor suckers. Art is always an "assignment from within", commercial work usually is giving the client what they want/need. A commercial assignment can be executed with creativity and high aethetic achievement. That doesn't make it art. Let's not confuse that.

Acting professionally involves a lot of communication with the client, finding out what they want (if they want a photo of a tree, atre they thinking oak or pine?). It involves a lot of empathy (is a photo of a tree really working for the client? Or are there better options the photographer can suggest). It also involves reliability. This thread once was about wedding photography: The cheap version of oncle Eddie with his DSLR might produce charming results - or not. You don't know until after the wedding. That is one of the strongest arguments for a pro: A wedding can't be done over. Get someone who knows what they are doing.

I usually do documentary/editorial/product photography, not too many weddings. When I do, I cover the whole day. OK, I do the pretty pictures in the park, get out the 8x10 for the group shot, but mostly I try to act unobstrusive (no flash for example) and capture moments. People are happy with my photos. One of the biggest compliments I get is "when did you take all these photos? We barely noticed you at all".

Michael

[Brian Ellis]

I agree.

But then again, what are the chances of someone getting ready to repeat the same big mistake for the third time would realize they shouldn't repeat a small one?

Purely theoretically speaking, of course. I'm still on my first marriage, which is also the number of weddings I shot. I tend to learn fast.

You know what they say about second and third marriages - they're a triumph of hope over experience. : - )

[John NYC]

People who confuse their commercial work with art are poor suckers. Art is always an "assignment from within", commercial work usually is giving the client what they want/need. A commercial assignment can be executed with creativity and high aethetic achievement. That doesn't make it art. Let's not confuse that.
Michael

Yes agree. But my finer point was that just because one can do commercial work at the highest level, that doesn't mean one will ever be a great artist when one does personal work. And you certainly don't need to do commercial work as a prerequisite to becoming an artist.

Conversely, there have been great artists that would have failed miserably had they been forced to be professional commercial artists.

[Greg Blank]

So true, Would and did. No prerequistes for being an artist, shamelessly pretentious word that is,..but a necessary one, I think for descriptive reasons.

Conversely, there have been great artists that would have failed miserably had they been forced to be professional commercial artists.

[jnantz]

these days its more about the multi media presentation, and the 10,000 proofs ... it is less about good photographs ...
its kind of sad, and the video ( and the other 15 like it ) said it all ...

i agree jay, everyone is a photographer, but it is diluting the quality of what is to be considered
good photography, now it is " good enough " photography. and it stinks for
most people who are trying to make a living at it ..

it makes me cringe when i hear of folks on flickr getting paid 100-150$
for a photograph (or 3) that are going to be used as a spread in
an annual report.

[Greg Blank]

Sorry to keep barging on the discussion, ten years ago...I did a series of real estate brochures each generated about 650-700 each, good money for my local north of Baltimore thirty miles. People paid good money and the work was shot with 6x6 medium format transparency and people liked what they got. I was looking at the ATT brochure that i recently got and the imagery is pathetic. It is decidely digital, it has that flat metallic-E sheen like that which comes from bad raw conversions and blown PS processing technique. All the images are stock from Getty. Each has the photographers credit, but damn if I would want that shit in my portfolio..

it makes me cringe when i hear of folks on flickr getting paid 100-150$
for a photograph (or 3) that are going to be used as a spread in
an annual report.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi John,

I agree, times are hard for professional photographers, and bound to get worse, but I think the only people suffering for it are professional photographers. Before high quality desktop printers were available for little money, there were a lot more professional printers. There are still professional printers, but their role in the marketplace has been redefined, and I don't hear many people lamenting the change, except a few printers I know. I'm sorry for anyone on the downside of evolution, but I think most creative people are very adaptive, and will find their place in the new scheme.

I'm a big fan of Flickr, and I see a lot of very creative work shared there. Many members of this forum have Flickr pages, myself included. There's plenty of stuff there I'm happy to skim over, too, but that's inevitable. The important thing is that the barriers to participation have been mostly removed, and people all over the world are able to make personal photos and share them in unprecedented ways and numbers, and I think that has to be good for photography, in general.

[Brian K]

Brian,

I was not offended by what you wrote, but it's clear you were by what I wrote. What you wrote, far from being offensive, is just trite and grating, like an incessantly whining child.

I'm glad you were able to look up the definition of arrogant, and I'm not surprised you want to apply the term to anyone but yourself, however accurately it might describe you. I wonder if you could also look up the definition of photographer? Allow me:

PHOTOGRAPHER

One who practices photography; especially: one who makes a business of taking photographs.

The above, according to Mirriam-Webster.

By definition, anyone who makes photographs is a photographer. Insecure photographers love to repeat the old saw; Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer, and with that I agree; one must make photos to be a photographer, but who doesn't? Today there are more photographers on the planet, many, many times more, than all of the photographers preceding this era, combined. Whether or not it bursts your bubble, there is nothing special about being a photographer, in fact,in technological societies, belonging to that defined category is more common than not. So, the title of this thread, Everyone is a photographer, is a lot more accurate than you might like.

If you'd actually read my post you might have noticed most of my comments about professional photographers were limited to professional wedding photographers. One doesn't have to be a professional wedding photographer to understand how that profession has been impacted by the availability of low cost, high quality DSLRs, combined with unprecedented quantities of unstructured time for citizens of developed countries. But you don't dispute my claims, do you? No, you just take yet another opportunity to blather on about your experience and credentials, and denigrate anyone who makes photographs for the love of it, or even just for the fun of it.

If you haven't already recuperated the investment you never tire of reminding us all you've made into photo equipment, I suspect you never will. Whatever fame, fortune, recognition you're ever likely to receive, I suspect has been received already. I might be wrong. Time will tell.

Dictionary definitions are updated regularly to reflect changes in common vernacular. Years ago the term "photographer" was a PROFESSIONAL designation. But when 50 million people start calling themselves "photographer" because they own a camera, that changes the common vernacular and Webster's changes the written definition to reflect that. In 30 years there may no longer be the word "photographer" because it might become a given that ALL people are also photographers and it won't be necessary to make note of any one person being a photographer.

As for denigrating people who take pictures for the fun of it, I don't. Those people are NOW referred to as amateur or hobbyist photographers. What I do take issue with are people who lack the skills and training but who pose as a professional photographer, defrauding the ignorant folks who hire them and ruining the reputation of all real professional photographers.

And if you truly love photography as you claim you should be behind keeping the standards of photography high by noting that there are those who through effort and long devotion have achieved a higher standard, a standard to be aspired to. Instead you are more interested in lowering the bar and putting all photography and photographers on the same level. I suspect you do this because you realize that as long as there is a meritocracy in photography you will always be relegated to the hobbyist level. And that disturbs you.

I've played piano for 40 years. I own a really nice piano too. A "professional" model.( doesn't that make me a professional?) I can play a tune, pretty well in fact. But I am not a musician, I am not a pianist, I am not even a piano player, I'm just a guy who plays piano. And I'm fine with that. My self esteem does not need to be bolstered by living under the delusion that I possess skills that I do not. So why do you feel such a strong need to feel that you are on the same level as a professional?

Further I can not imagine arguing with a long established professional musician about the professional world of music or the music business. So how can you justify your baseless comments when you have absolutely no factual basis or actual experience on the topic of which you are rendering opinions and contradicting the comments of those who have the experience you so desperately lack?

Here's another word to check out in Webster's: self aggrandizement.

[Brian K]

People who confuse their commercial work with art are poor suckers. Art is always an "assignment from within", commercial work usually is giving the client what they want/need. A commercial assignment can be executed with creativity and high aethetic achievement. That doesn't make it art. Let's not confuse that.

Michael that quote flies in the face of both history and fact. Starting with the ancient Greeks and maybe even the ancient Egyptians, going through Gothic, Byzantine, Rennaissance, etc, all the way until the mid 1800's when a social class was formed that had both free time and affluence, nearly all the art celebrated and appearing in museums was done either on assignment or for sale, usually on assignment. Those artists were professionals who did their work out of love of it and as their livelihood. You don't choose to go into photography or art because it's the easiest way to make money, you go into it because you love it.

Skip to more contemporary times, many noted photographers were commercial photographers. Ansel Adams for one. Irving Penn and Arnold Newman were commercial photographers, and you'll find some of their commercial assignments hanging in the world's most prestigious museums. Having worked for both of the latter, I can attest that they made little distinction between their commercial assignments and their art. Penn shot ads, and editorial, Newman did editorial, annual reports, etc. Every time they used their camera, they tried to create art.

As one of the few people here who have made their living both through photography assignments as well as solely through the sales of my work via galleries, I can state without any reservation that my effort and intent on both genres is no different.