Everyone's a photographer

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian,

Unfortunately for you, it's not years ago, it's now, and now is not the best time for professional photographers, but it's the best time ever for amateurs. What you refuse to accept is that the 50 million people who fit the definition of photographer, are photographers. Some are more accomplished than others, some more active, others more knowledgeable, or more creative, fewer and fewer professional, but they are all photographers. I agree that in time the term photographer could take on a very different meaning and usage, similar to the term writer. There was once a professional class called scribes who had a skill few others in their time did; they were able to read and write. A scribe was not an author, but mainly a copier of manuscripts. Scribes were not valued for their creativity, but for their productivity, accuracy, and legibility. The word scribe is derived from the Latin, scribere "to write", so a scribe was literally, a writer. Technology caught up the scribe in form of Gutenberg's moveable type printing press, and typography. We no longer have much need of scribes, though it can be argued the manuscripts they produced are more beautiful, and required more learning and skill to produce than any printed page, yet no one who argues the printing press was bad for books is likely to be taken seriously. Authors remain a valued professional class, and are often referred to as writers, though the ability to write is commonplace, even among children.

Your characterization of the unscrupulous photographer preying on the ignorant consumer is laughable, and illustrates your lack of understanding of the way the market works. yes, I, the lowly amateur, dare to challenge you, the mighty professional, because, in this case, we're talking basic economics and the mechanisms of the marketplace, in which we all participate. As I've noted, and you've ignored, the standards of quality and value are defined by the consumer, not by the producer. I've already provided a historical example of this concept, but if you still don't get it, try this: the next time you're undercut by someone providing lower quality (by your standards) work for less money, go to the client and say, "You've been had! For 10X as much money I can provide you a product I feel is 20X higher quality, according to my standards, and I should know; after all I'm the professional." the only cure for ignorance is education, and I'm sure the client will thank you for it, and you can rest secure in the knowledge you've restored the reputation of all (real) professional photographers, everywhere.

I don't remember claiming to "love photography"; that seems a little dramatic and/or goofy to me, but my standards are my own, and the standards of others are of no concern to me. If you get excited about pictures of sand dunes, or piers in still water, or kittens under rainbows, good for you! I hope you truly enjoy viewing and/or making those images, but your standards have no impact on me. There are many, many photographers, and more every day, doing work I find interesting and inspiring, and I have my own work to do, to my own standards.

I don't put all photographers on the same level, but I acknowledge a person who makes photos, to whatever standard, is a photographer; maybe not a very good one, by my standards, but by definition, a photographer. If you think I am ambitious, or crave fame and recognition, you just don't know me very well. You might have noticed I've made very few references to my photography, and I think you'd have a hard time finding any claims by me of being a great photographer, because I understand that only an egomaniac would think in those terms. I'm quite happy to continue my experimentation and education, and do the work I'm motivated to do, and I don't need the approval or recognition of anyone to do it. I'm quite certain my attitude towards my photography is completely beyond your grasp, so Im not surprised to see it so grossly misrepresented by you.

I hope you enjoy your piano, and I'm sure it's very nice, and very expensive.

I don't feel the need to justify anything to someone I respect so little.

Self aggrandizement is two words, and you should know them well.

[jnantz]

Hi John,

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.

jay,

the people who are surfing and then buying / licensing
rights to publish the images could at least pay what an actual professional
would get for buying / licensing the images ... 100-150$ is 1/10th what should be paid.
the fellow who is being paid sometime is paid that same small amount for a full buy-out,
and sale of the copyright. not sure how could be considered "good"
for anyone except the photographer.
after taxes the amount paid for a full buy-out should be more than
a large bottle of yellowtail wine.

[Corran]

Jay, if you are making a long response to a post two pages ago, might I suggest quoting? You had me very confused for a minute.

[Steve Smith]

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 play guitar professionally (i.e. I get paid to do it). Sometimes I do it with a very cheap guitar. Does this make me non-professional?

EDIT: Oh yes, +1 to what Jay wrote.


Steve.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi John,

The people selling their work cheap probably don't have much invested in it, and made it on their own time, for the fun of it. Getting paid anything is probably a compliment to them, and might be good for them, and for the people paying them. The only people it's not good for are the ones competing with them. I think the photographers pros should be most worried about are not the hacks working for little money, but the skilled amateurs giving their work away for free. The market for many kinds of photos is simply washing away in a flood of amateur images, as sites like Flickr become more fertile ground for image harvesters. It's an adapt or die situation for those looking to make a living from photography, but a very exciting time for amateurs. I hope I don't seem insensitive, and I'm confident anyone as talented as you are will adapt.

[toyotadesigner]

@ Brian K:

Thank you very much for your valuable input, I really appreciate it!

'Yesterday' we needed enthusiasm, knowledge, experience, the gift to see light and shadow, the ability to produce consistent and reproducible results and PRIDE. No, not only yesterday, today and tomorrow as well.

'Today' all you need is a large community in social networks and a herd of brainless 'voters' to be featured as a 'star'.

A change of paradigm? Hell, no, just a decrease/deterioration of the (visual) standards, where 'bad is sufficient'.

'Cheap' rules the world. 'Cheap' exported the jobs to Far East. 'Cheap' killed jobs in the western world. The result? The western world is bankrupt (USA, Europe - just look how much value had been burned the last 4 weeks!). The eastern world is wealthy in a certain sense: they produce all consumer products for the US, they have the highest amount of financial reserves...

I got married in Florida 1984. We selected a professional photographer and asked him to do our wedding. We talked with him about the where and how, we liked his style he showed us in his samples (he wasn't a 'dedicated wedding photographer', just a plain, experienced professional photographer). He showed up with a Rollei twin 6x6 and made fantastic images. We knew this would be a once in a lifetime ceremony for us, so money didn't play any role within our limits. Today we still enjoy the photographs.

Today we see a generation without memories. Digital files have gone forever. What remains are lousy and shitty amateur images if they ever had been printed.

Anybody here who is going to call this a 'value' of life?

Talking about wedding photography: This is what I perceive as being today's standard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IxNV...eature=related

'Cheap' (but still far too expensive!), lousy, greedy, you name it. Welcome to the new world of modern values! Welcome to the new world of visual art!

[patrickjames]

Patrick,

You agree with Brian. I disagree, and I say why. When I disagree with anyone, I always say why. I don't remember disagreeing with photo chemists, but it's possible. If I did, I'm sure I said why. It's easy to take sides in a disagreement, and it's easier to take sides based on titles than on substance. I'm not a professional chemist, or a professional photographer, but I learned sensitometry, built a sensitometer, and tested my formulas as rigorously as I was able, and made my data available for review. I don't remember anyone claiming my developers don't work as described by me. I made all of my formulas public, have never tried to profit from them, and have done my best to support users of them. True, that doesn't make me a professional, but it does confer some measure of expertise, and speaks to my motives. For what it's worth, neither John Wimberley, Barry Thornton, Gordon Hutchings, nor Sandy King are chemists. Photography has a long history of innovation and invention by amateur photographers, including George Eastman, and I'm proud to count myself among them.

This is a forum for large format photographers, of which I am one. My experience and expertise in various aspects of LF photography lie on a spectrum with the other members of this group, amateurs and professionals. If I'm not qualified to comment here, than neither are many others, yourself included.

In reply to your comments of more substance:



On what do you base your contention that "the craft is gone"? I don't think that's true. I think craft photography, in the sense I believe you intended, has shifted from professionals to amateurs and artists, but it's still very much alive. I think your wrong to disparage images made with cell phones, or Flickr. I've seen beautiful images made with cell phone cameras on Flickr, and it's not out of ignorance that I say so. Are poor images made with cell phones? Sure! But poor quality images have been made with every imaging system ever devised. If you want to discuss quality intelligently, you should make a distinction between commercial work, and art. In commercial work, quality and value are defined by the consumer. If a couple prefers the photos made of their wedding by the brides niece with her new DSLR (or cell phone, for that matter) to those made by a professional wedding photographer, you can say they're wrong, but you'd be wrong. It's a misunderstanding of the job the couple was hiring to do. They were hiring someone to make photos they like, for their own reasons, and not hiring someone to make images that meet some technical standard.

The last wedding I attended was photographed professionally, and additionally by one of the guests, with a Polaroid 600 camera. They much preferred the Polaroids, and the professionally made wedding album sits in a drawer while the scanned Polaroids are shared with friends and family.

I'm not suggesting that professional wedding photographers are hacks, or unskilled, or that they don't make well crafted photos; what I'm saying is that what matters most to the people doing the hiring is not the credentials of the photographer, his professionalism, or the technical quality of his work, but the emotional impact of the images produced. The best wedding photographers can out compete the guests, despite the guests advantages, but even the very best of them can expect their albums to be supplemented by images from guests. When friends ask me to shoot their weddings, I usually tell them I'm happy to take some photos, but if they want a formal album, they should hire a pro. Most say they don't care about a formal album they just want great pictures. I tell them that everyone who attends their wedding will have a camera, and make photos, and they should provide a website for the guests to upload their images to. This is not just the future of wedding photography, but of all event photography, including photojournalism.

Well, I just won't argue with someone clueless enough to think that he is on the same level as Wimberly, Thornton, Hutchings, King and Eastman.

Crap like this reminds me why my well known friends don't post on the internet. I think I might join them.

[Steve Smith]

It's an adapt or die situation for those looking to make a living from photography

Yes. You can complain about all you want, but you're not going to change it.


Steve.

[Brian K]

Brian,



Your characterization of the unscrupulous photographer preying on the ignorant consumer is laughable, and illustrates your lack of understanding of the way the market works. yes, I, the lowly amateur, dare to challenge you, the mighty professional, because, in this case, we're talking basic economics and the mechanisms of the marketplace, in which we all participate. As I've noted, and you've ignored, the standards of quality and value are defined by the consumer, not by the producer. I'm quite certain my attitude towards my photography is completely beyond your grasp, so Im not surprised to see it so grossly misrepresented by you.

I don't feel the need to justify anything to someone I respect so little.

Self aggrandizement is two words, and you should know them well.

Jay, I've made a very substantial living in the photo market place since I was 21 years old. I did well in the most competitive photography marketplace in the world, NYC advertising photography. I won every award available in that field before I was 30. My clients also hired people like Penn, or could hire any photographer in the world, so we are not talking about unsophisticated clientele. You on the other hand are an oil field worker. Not even a marketing guy, or an MBA, or a business man, or an actual professional photographer, you're an oil field worker. And you are making statements as though you, who NEVER actually participated in the photo market place, actually know what you're talking about. If you had even the SLIGHTEST clue, then how come you're the oil field worker, and I'm the guy traveling the world getting paid to shoot photos? I guess maybe your marketing ideas didn't work out?

And when you say,"standards of quality and value are defined by the consumer, not by the producer.", you're wrong. It's defined by BOTH. If all that is available to the consumer is crap, then that it the standard. If it's a competitive market with many talented photographers competing for the same client pool, then the quality available to the consumer is higher and more diverse. Consumers always want better, whether they have access to better, can recognize better, or can afford better is another story. If there's a small town with one wedding photographer, then that is the quality level available to those residents. If an even worse photographer moves to that town, he might get some of the cheaper clients from the better one, because for some their budget is a hard limit, but the top end standard, the benchmark, is still the original photographer. If a much better photographer comes to town, then the original photographer will lose his higher paying clients. Because there are always those who are willing to pay more for better quality.

But you're right I can't grasp your view on photography, but that's because it's based on assumption and fantasy while I've spent 37 years in the real world of it. What ego or self esteem issues allows you to make stupid comments and ignore empirical evidence from those who have actually experienced the area of discussion is beyond comprehension to me. You are one brain fart after another. But maybe that's how you have always been and why you ended up as an oil field worker and I ended up as a photographer. I was willing to listen and learn from those who actually succeeded in the field of my desire. I doubt if you listen or learn from anyone.

But the reason why you cling so thoroughly to the need to identify yourself as a photographer, and reduce all photographers professional and amateur alike to the same level is ego. It must gall you to no end to profess one thing, and yet be another. You can't simply enjoy your photography like I enjoy my piano playing and not require some unearned title to enjoy it. You need the status of being a "photographer". And you're more than willing to devalue the decades of work and devotion, risk and investment, made by others who have actually EARNED that title.

[Marko]

Marko, I am of the older generation, not grumpy, or as far as I know, senile.

However, I do have standards for viewing photographs, both technical and aesthetic. My introduction to photography was as a teenager, viewing gelatin silver prints at Edward Weston's house. I was privilged, or perhaps harmed, by that experience. But, to this day, I am very critical of the presentation of a photographers concept if it lacks a high degree of technical competence. Simply put, I find much of what I see today, produced by the younger generations, lacking that competence.

Merg,

It is always nice to hear from you, one of the nicest voices around here and the most competent at the same time.

I am at the age when I could also be considered "older generation" - I could have been a grandfather for almost ten years now if only my kids did the same as I did back then. But they have different priorities and it is their life and I am certainly not going to hold it against them. My priorities and my approach to life was even more different compared to my parents. That's life and that's what I was referring to.

Your point about technical excellence is very apt and very true. It applies to every aspect of the craft. But the lack of the expected rigor in non-professionally produced (i.e. one not done for a living) photography is not all that surprising - people have different aspirations and different expectations from a photograph today then 50 or a 100 years ago. One of the reasons might be availability - four times more pictures are taken (and I use these terms deliberately to imply the type of expectations the general public puts into the act) today than a mere 10 years ago, and the trend is getting steeper still. I linked to an excellent article over in the Lounge a couple of days ago, but it got predictably misunderstood/dismissed.

So, I wonder if they are victims of the ease of making images. The title of this thread is apt. I have seen an overwhelming amount of mediocre photography the past few years and wonder if the ease of image making is responsible. To produce good work, one must study what has gone before, much like any discipline.

I am not suggesting that it is to do with process, but rather with the ease of process, lacking an historical perspective.

The point I am making is that the priorities are shifting along with the sheer numbers and photography is far from being the only field to experience the shift. Yes, everyone is a photographer these days, simply because photography is more accessible and more available to everybody, not because younger generations have become sloppier and careless compared to the older ones. The ease of process does not diminish the quality of output, but it does increase the number of participants and therefore the level of noise. It's the nature of progress and the consequence of increasing number of people at the same time.

Those who care about photographs and art will keep producing high quality work which will be accessible to many more people than ever before, also as a consequence of that same ease of process. We live in information age now, where communication is everything and everything has become communication. Never before did we have so many good things available to so many people at such a short time. Information, education, art... And that is a great thing, IMO, not one to lament. The noise is just the price we pay for that.

Just my $0.02.

Thank you again for your thoughts,

Marko