Everyone's a photographer

[Greg Blank]

Passed along from a photo instructer friend of mine :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhalmKt1IXU&sns=em

[Brian K]

Yep, that just about sums it up.

[Jay DeFehr]

Everyone is a photographer, and more and more, everyone is a film maker, too. I think these beginners who go out and shoot weddings, etc., don't usually do a very good job, but I don't feel much differently about most of the established "Pros" who shoot weddings at much higher rates. The quality gap is closing very quickly with the dropping prices of high quality DSLRs, and beginners, who often shoot seasonally, without the overhead of a studio, can work for far less than their professional counterparts, and often a friend/relative with a camera is pressed into service as wedding photographer as a gift to the new couple. This is bad for the traditional professional wedding photographer, but good for everyone else. Some people will always be willing, and even insist on paying a professional, but most are happy to save some money for the honeymoon by using a willing friend or relative, eager to put a new DSLR through its paces.

[Greg Blank]

How many weddings have you shot Jay- just curious? The part about saving money on a craft that actually has paid rather well for years kind of sticks in my crawl, because you indicate that is a good thing. Parts of what you say I agree with. Providing a professional experience to the client requires more aspects than newbies or dabbers tend give so that part I do not agree with. The element of getting participation for group photos is the overriding factor why people have chosen me to do the weddings I have done & I remember a lot of stories related to those 200 some weddings. There is plenty of room for everyone to do weddings but there is a client base always going to be out there wanting the best money can buy. I started out doing really low budget weddings 35mm film, Then once I had enough dollars saved moved to 6x6 and then to digital SLRs- I have taken images with my 8x10 at weddings. The digital is certainly easier, but there is a big difference between using a prosumer slr and an 8x10 and there are folks that will pay extra for silver prints because the quality dif is easily seen. That said I have a lot of knock out creative images both film and digital that the average newbie or Uncle Ernie doesn't have a clue how to produce and never will. All I can say is folks get what they pay for. I have done enough weddings now that I could do more, most likely I will not as they tend to run together, once that happens its best to change gears or slow them down and charge more. If I do more it will be those looking for a more customized product than is being offered at the low ends of the trade. Even the best of the industry looks cookie cutterish when every photographer supplies the same books, style and experience...so wedding photography - I agree does attract the easy dollars seekers and hack :)

[Marko]

If learning by trial and error is indeed the main learning method for most humans, then everybody (or at least a great majority) should pick an upper-end professional wedding photographer by their third wedding, given contemporary culture. :D

But seriously, that's assuming that everybody a) wants artistic, professionally done images and b) can tell the difference.

Which is assuming a lot, especially in the afore mentioned contemporary culture. Many people, in fact, don't. All they want to have is something by which to remember days gone by. It's similar to music - professional musicians and hi-fi enthusiasts always assume that reproduction quality is something everybody should naturally strive for. Except that lots of people don't. They mostly simply want to listen to the actual music without much concern for the technicalities.

Coming back to marriages, I suspect a shoebox full of Uncle Ernie's photos would be much more valuable and enjoyable to a happily married couple than an elaborate leather-bound album full of masterpieces shot by the famous name will be to a couple busy fighting over custody rights and divvying up their other valuables.

But it's all a matter of perspective. The contemporary culture is just an indicator of the direction the majority goes.

[Brian Ellis]

If learning by trial and error is indeed the main learning method for most humans, then everybody (or at least a great majority) should pick an upper-end professional wedding photographer by their third wedding, given contemporary culture. :D
. . .

Anyone who's getting ready for their third marriage should know by then not to waste their money on a professional wedding photographer. Even I learned that. There is no album for the third, just some nice photographs made by a good friend. : - )

[Jay DeFehr]

Greg,

I've shot a few weddings. When I began to get interested in photography I thought it might be fun to shoot weddings and make a little money for film, etc. I went to our local wedding photographer and told him I would assist him, free of charge, to see whether shooting weddings was something I was really interested in pursuing. He said he'd think about it, and asked me to bring in some of my work. I did, he agreed to allow me to assist, though he was clearly concerned about aiding potential competition. He shot MF film with RB67s and monolights with softboxes. His work was technically very good, and his customers were very happy with it, though it looked stiff and commercial to my eyes. After assisting him with half a dozen weddings, I decided wedding photography was not for me, and went about making my personal photos. I was very grateful for his instruction, and he for my help, and we've remained friends since then. He reluctantly switched to digital, and eventually gave up wedding photography.

I said the ubiquity of high quality DSLRs and people willing to shoot weddings for little or no money was good for everyone but professional wedding photographers, and who can argue? If people were not happy with the work of these amateurs, they still have the option to hire a pro, but more and more, they don't. "Providing a professional experience", whatever that means, is of debatable value. Many people are happier with a familial experience at what is, after all, the beginning of a new family. I acknowledged there will always be people willing to pay a professional, but I don't agree that these paid pros necessarily do better work, or work more valued by the clients than the work provided by friends and family. Often the most meaningful images come from knowing the relationships of the attendees, and insiders have a big advantage here. Also, the wedding party is more likely to be relaxed and comfortable with a friend or family member than with a paid stranger. With the latest generation of DSLRs, the technical hurdles to even photography are practically removed, and there are more serious amateurs than ever before, many of whom are every bit as capable as the local pro, and who enjoy the advantages noted above. I think you're being far too generous to the pros, and far too critical of the amateurs; it's almost as if you're taking this personally. There's no point in arguing about this; if most people preferred pros to amateurs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Brian K]

Our society as a whole is becoming one in which quality in any form is being devalued. If you're educated, articulate, etc, you're an "elite" and that's a bad thing. Everyone is celebrity or has an attitude that they are because in the old days being a celebrity meant that you were celebrated for having accomplished something. Not anymore. Now the bigger the train wreck that is your life, the easier it is to become a celebrity.

The reason why there are people who will accept a piss poor photo is simply because they are ignorant. With experience of any given area comes sophistication and a far greater reference base. If the only wedding albums you see are crap, and your's is just slightly better crap, then you think you got a good wedding album. And to be honest, I'm very much a photo snob and consider wedding and event photography to be pretty much the lowest end of the photography spectrum, still I've seen some wedding albums that are near art or at least extremely moving documentary work. I've seen wedding albums that told a story, not just recorded who was there. Done by truly professional wedding photographers. But that kind of quality is rare, and the vast majority of people shooting weddings today are not skilled professionals but too often some part time photographer or hobbyist who thinks they're a professional because some ignorant people have paid him.

If you look at wedding albums from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, they're beautiful. Incredible tones, and image quality. The formal pictures look as though a top stylist worked on making the dress look incredible, with the train perfectly styled and flowing from the bride. Just gorgeous stuff. But today, it's too often a non professional getting paid far more than their worth.

Experience is a very relative thing. Many people try to short cut experience, as though a 4 day workshop is the equivalent of 10 years of work. And for those that have no real experience, or who think they have but really only have a second or third rate level of experience, it's hard to fully explain to them what it's like to have learned from, and worked in the highest levels. They really have no idea of just what is required. it's the major leagues versus AA baseball. But that level of experience is getting harder to come across now. That level of experience evolved because the requirements and competitiveness kept increasing. You were forced to get better just to survive. But now the required quality level in so many fields is dropping, and it is purely price that matters. Give me good enough that's cheap instead of give me something great that costs more. And in that world the photo poser can survive and the master photographer will struggle.

The truly professional photographer has a facility, a studio to pay for. Has vastly more gear than the poser, because many jobs have differing requirements and the perfect tool is required for each and there has to be redundancy on gear because missing a deadline because of faulty equipment is not acceptable. The poser needs none of this. They have their day job, and while a blown assignment may make them feel bad, they'll still have a roof over their heads. For the professional blown jobs threatens their very ability to provide shelter and food for their family and they risk all they have worked for.

[Greg Blank]

I agree with you Jay on your last post, and I commend you for deciding to do otherwise. I chose to run my own business of 17 years + for numerous reasons and made weddings a portion of it. Once I had enough $$ to do weddings the way I wanted, I lost an affinity for being under paid. Once I had my Speedtron 1205CX system and cameras and backup cameras I started resenting the people who expected me to work for pennies on the dollar. I also resented the huge cost of advertising my service to people that wanted you to compete with Uncle Ernie at the lowest price range . I completely agree with Brian K's post and would add that there are a lot reasons wedding photographers get a bad rep. If you cherry pick your work and only show the best of, but can't do a reasonable job being consistent then you will be so percieved maybe after you are over your head. Doing a wedding requires a general proformance level that should exceed expectations everytime, but its tough thing to do for many reasons. I think that having a style in weddings can produce a sense of timelessness, but unfortunately it can make the work look dated....if its not your style and just an attempt to follow the style de jour.

You can go from hero to zero with one or two missed shots, or awkward moments of conversation. Weddings are about emotions and being
beyond that for the photographer.

I doubt Uncle Ernie has a three light radio controlled 1200 watt second system, but you never know. I have done weddings for family. Family and friend weddings are generally more issues during the day. If done well I imagine as you say appreciated in the end give the relative cost of paying a pro.

[jayabbas]

Thank-you Brian K for your clarity.

[Sevo]

This is bad for the traditional professional wedding photographer, but good for everyone else.

At least hereabouts "traditional professional wedding photographer" is pretty much the lowest life form in the trade - it is pretty safe to say that half the wedding guests are doing a better job on their cell phones that these scumbags (whose main job otherwise was doing mug shots, and whose only qualification up to a decade ago used to be one of Hitler's guild protection laws which gave them an exclusive privilege to photograph in registrars' offices).

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian, as usual, I disagree with almost everything you've written, and find your arrogant, smug tone particularly grating.


Our society as a whole is becoming one in which quality in any form is being devalued.

I agree, in principle, but not in your absolute terms, and not in this context.


If you're education (educated?), articulate, etc, you're an "elite" and that's a bad thing. italics mine.

Unless you're applying for a job, in which case it's becoming a required thing.



Everyone is celebrity or has an attitude that they are because in the old days being a celebrity meant that you were celebrated for having accomplished something. Not anymore. Now the bigger the train wreck that is your life, the easier it is to become a celebrity.

How old are the old days to which you refer? Celebrity and scandal have gone side by side for as long as there has been either.


The reason why there are people who will accept a piss poor photo is simply because they are ignorant.


Syntactical problems aside, the above is as good an example of your arrogance as any. Clearly, there are people who disagree with you about what makes a photo "piss poor", but instead of considering their opinions, it's more convenient to label them ignorant. Classy!


If you look at wedding albums from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, they're beautiful.

The above would be more convincing if none of us had actually seen wedding albums from the 40s-60s. I think it's more accurate to say the quality of wedding albums during that period varied- a lot. That being the case, your point is lost.


Experience is a very relative thing.

Here, I agree completely!


That level of experience evolved because the requirements and competitiveness kept increasing. You were forced to get better just to survive. But now the required quality level in so many fields is dropping, and it is purely price that matters. Give me good enough that's cheap instead of give me something great that costs more. And in that world the photo poser can survive and the master photographer will struggle.

The above cuts to the core of your misunderstanding. In consumer products, quality is defined by the consumer, not by the producer, and the producer who fails to understand that will be marginalized by those who do. The U.S. was once the world's largest producer of radios- fine vacuum tube radios in beautiful wooden cases. We invented the transistor, but sold the patent to Sanyo because transistor radios were deemed to be of too low quality to compete with vacuum tube radios. I think you see where this is going; if everyone had the same ideas about quality you share with the vacuum tube radio makers, there would be no iPods. You can argue all you like about the superior quality of vacuum tube radios relative to iPods, but the world has settled the question in terms of what is valued by the consumer, which is what ultimately drives production. Thinking of wedding photography in terms of fine art is a mistake only photographers who misunderstand their role are likely to make.


The truly professional photographer has a facility, a studio to pay for. Has vastly more gear than the poser, because many jobs have differing requirements and the perfect tool is required for each and there has to be redundancy on gear because missing a deadline because of faulty equipment is not acceptable. The poser needs none of this. They have their day job, and while a blown assignment may make them feel bad, they'll still have a roof over their heads. For the professional blown jobs threatens their very ability to provide shelter and food for their family and they risk all they have worked for.

The above, including your arrogant use of the term "poser" is a good explanation of why the photographers you describe as "truly professional" are an endangered species.Chalk it up to the cognitive surplus, but the amateur is displacing the pro in more fields than I can list here. You can be as bitter, nostalgiac, or angry about it as you like, but it's not personal. The world has changed, and the professional wedding photographer's role in it has been diminished- not eliminated, but certainly diminished. Yet, people continue to be married, and like almost every conceivable event in their lives, their weddings are documented with photos, and increasingly, with videos made increasingly by themselves or people close to them. This hardly seems a tragedy to me.

[Jay DeFehr]

sevo,

Professional wedding photog's do seem to have a bad reputation, and many have earned theirs, but I don't want to disparage the trade absolutely. I know some PWP's who maintain the highest degree of professionalism and integrity, and who are highly skilled photographers, but none of the above makes them immune to the changes in the world I described in my previous post.

[Marko]

Anyone who's getting ready for their third marriage should know by then not to waste their money on a professional wedding photographer. Even I learned that. There is no album for the third, just some nice photographs made by a good friend. : - )

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. :D

[Greg Blank]

Actually some of the better paying gigs were the second timers, or older folks that were getting rehitched. They didn't have the money the first go around -etc. Two of my favorites involved other photographers and I was chosen because I did B&W silver printing and my own color enlarging.

[Ed Kelsey]

Brian, as usual, I disagree with almost everything you've written, and find your arrogant, smug tone particularly grating.

As usual these kind of comments point more to the one making them than who they are aimed at. I saw nothing arrogant or smug at all.

[CantikFotos]

http://i53.tinypic.com/5tzbyq.jpg

[Jay DeFehr]

As usual these kind of comments point more to the one making them than who they are aimed at. I saw nothing arrogant or smug at all.

Well, Ed, we're not all equally perceptive.

[Robert Hughes]

My teenage stepson has a dynamite electric guitar that cost a lot, and he's even pretty good on it. Does that make him a professional musician? He just bought 25 tickets from the local coffeehouse to sell to his friends at a modest markup, so yes, I suppose. He might even make enough to pay for gas to and from his show.

So he's not a real pro. OTOH he's a teenager - in 10 years he may be giving me his spare Bentley.

[Robert Hughes]

"I hope their memory card breaks on the 499th Shot!... Why don't they go wait tables, or work at a call center?"

Hitler Reacting to EVERYONE being Professional Photographers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coWT767Lvs0&feature=related)

[Jay DeFehr]

Robert,

Based on his business plan, a case could be made that your son is behaving professionally. Does that, or the cost of his instrument have a direct bearing on the quality of his performance? Maybe. The quality of his instrument surely relates to the music he makes with it, even if it doesn't in itself guarantee quality results, and his professional behavior demonstrates a certain level of seriousness and commitment. He might not be a seasoned pro, but I don't think there's much of substance to separate your son from other professional musicians.

[Greg Blank]

You can't be sure without hearing him, and even then its a matter of what you like. If one hundred other folks say he is good they trump your preference, despite the fact you may be making a better assessment for a variety of reasons & perhaps valid reasons. This leads back to the client and vendor relationship. As Brian stated an awful lot of folks are ignorant, but then again there are plenty of snobs basing assessments on serialized education and no practical experience. Having an education in a field does not always equate to having talent, I think we can all agree that natural ability does exist. There is no shortage of people doing many things without the background and calling themselves experts and with that part I completely agree with Brian.



but I don't think there's much of substance to separate your son from other professional musicians.

[Jay DeFehr]

Greg,

My point is that the term "Professional" is a market distinction, and not a badge of quality. Robert's son is functioning in the marketplace as a professional does, and the quality of his performance has no bearing on that. I think we can all agree there have been many successful professionals of questionable ability, in many fields. Expert is different than professional, and one need not be one to be the other.

[Greg Blank]

True, you earn money then you are able to claim to be a professional, but it does carry connotation. To act professional one does not argue with the clients, hired hands or denigrate the competition- despite one's expertise. If one is an expert and perhaps the only one, then one can certainly choose to break those rules but its a lonely path I think, however right one answers tests.

What I find far more interesting than this discussion is that no one here has made the specific observation that the Photographer in the video looks a lot like Sarah Palin. I think this video was an excercise in commentary of choosing someone with experience versus someone that simply says they are a valid choice. As a people watcher I noticed it, too bad no one else did. Oh well.


Greg,

My point is that the term "Professional" is a market distinction, and not a badge of quality. Robert's son is functioning in the marketplace as a professional does, and the quality of his performance has no bearing on that. I think we can all agree there have been many successful professionals of questionable ability, in many fields. Expert is different than professional, and one need not be one to be the other.

[Alan Gales]

Our society as a whole is becoming one in which quality in any form is being devalued. If you're educated, articulate, etc, you're an "elite" and that's a bad thing. Everyone is celebrity or has an attitude that they are because in the old days being a celebrity meant that you were celebrated for having accomplished something. Not anymore. Now the bigger the train wreck that is your life, the easier it is to become a celebrity.

The reason why there are people who will accept a piss poor photo is simply because they are ignorant. With experience of any given area comes sophistication and a far greater reference base. If the only wedding albums you see are crap, and your's is just slightly better crap, then you think you got a good wedding album. And to be honest, I'm very much a photo snob and consider wedding and event photography to be pretty much the lowest end of the photography spectrum, still I've seen some wedding albums that are near art or at least extremely moving documentary work. I've seen wedding albums that told a story, not just recorded who was there. Done by truly professional wedding photographers. But that kind of quality is rare, and the vast majority of people shooting weddings today are not skilled professionals but too often some part time photographer or hobbyist who thinks they're a professional because some ignorant people have paid him.

If you look at wedding albums from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, they're beautiful. Incredible tones, and image quality. The formal pictures look as though a top stylist worked on making the dress look incredible, with the train perfectly styled and flowing from the bride. Just gorgeous stuff. But today, it's too often a non professional getting paid far more than their worth.

Experience is a very relative thing. Many people try to short cut experience, as though a 4 day workshop is the equivalent of 10 years of work. And for those that have no real experience, or who think they have but really only have a second or third rate level of experience, it's hard to fully explain to them what it's like to have learned from, and worked in the highest levels. They really have no idea of just what is required. it's the major leagues versus AA baseball. But that level of experience is getting harder to come across now. That level of experience evolved because the requirements and competitiveness kept increasing. You were forced to get better just to survive. But now the required quality level in so many fields is dropping, and it is purely price that matters. Give me good enough that's cheap instead of give me something great that costs more. And in that world the photo poser can survive and the master photographer will struggle.

The truly professional photographer has a facility, a studio to pay for. Has vastly more gear than the poser, because many jobs have differing requirements and the perfect tool is required for each and there has to be redundancy on gear because missing a deadline because of faulty equipment is not acceptable. The poser needs none of this. They have their day job, and while a blown assignment may make them feel bad, they'll still have a roof over their heads. For the professional blown jobs threatens their very ability to provide shelter and food for their family and they risk all they have worked for.

Brian, I agree whole heartedly with everything you said except for the statement that you feel that wedding photography is the lowest end of the photography spectrum. I feel it's a bit unkind.

I have shot two weddings. One as the only photographer and one as an extra. I was asked to do each and I did them both for free. Fortunately, the two couples were extremely happy with my work. I learned that there is a lot more to being a good wedding photographer than just being a quality photographer. I would never want to do it for a living but since I have done it I have a lot of respect for those that do. Of course I'm talking about quality wedding photographers!

[Alan Gales]

True, you earn money then you are able to claim to be a professional, but it does carry connotation. To act professional one does not argue with the clients, hired hands or denigrate the competition- despite one's expertise. If one is an expert and perhaps the only one, then one can certainly choose to break those rules but its a lonely path I think, however right one answers tests.

What I find far more interesting than this discussion is that no one here has made the specific observation that the Photographer in the video looks a lot like Sarah Palin. I think this video was an excercise in commentary of choosing someone with experience versus someone that simply says they are a valid choice. As a people watcher I noticed it, too bad no one else did. Oh well.

I thought it was Sarah Palin! I showed it to my wife and daughter and we were all a little confused as to why they used Sarah Palin.

[Alan Gales]

Passed along from a photo instructer friend of mine :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhalmKt1IXU&sns=em

Greg,

I call them Craigslist photographers. Here in St. Louis there are always people on Craigslist who own consumer DSLR's and post that they are photographers looking for jobs. The line usually is that they love photography and they shoot portraits, pets and nature photography and pretty much anything you would want and of course they also shoot weddings! Of course they charge very little since they just love photography!

They always show a sample of their work and it is always horrible. It looks like snapshots that my mother-in-law shot! Sorry Jackie!

Alan

[Brian K]

Brian, as usual, I disagree with almost everything you've written, and find your arrogant, smug tone particularly grating.




Gosh Jay, I'm so sorry you take offense at what I wrote, although it seems that you are the only one to feel that way, and what I wrote seems to have actually struck a chord of agreement with most here.

Arrogant? I seem to remember the definition of arrogance as being," having an exaggerated sense of one's own abilities, experiences or knowledge". So who would the definition of arrogance best fit when the topic being discussed is the quality and requirements of professional photography? A very experienced, highly accomplished professional photographer or an oilfield worker (your own listed occupation).

I have known 100 times more professional photographers, seen them work, assisted them, rented my studio space to them, then you ever will. Yet you speak as though you actually have something of value to say. But to be fair Jay, if I ever have any questions about working on an oilfield, I will give your opinions on that subject my full respect and attention.

And the reason why you disagree with everything I write, and find me "particularly grating" is that I tend to burst the bubble of the illusion that you have about yourself and photography. My POV is almost always that it takes years of full time study and hard earned experience to really master photography, while yours is more of the "if you own a camera you're a photographer".

I guess you might feel more like I do about professionalism in photography if you had anywhere near the investment in it that I, and most professionals, have. But I guess you can never relate to that because not many people pose as "oilfield workers" so your professional designation is not being dragged in the mud by people posing as professionals.

I'll tell you what Jay, if you want to get a sense of what it's like to be a pro, then quit your day job, invest all your savings, open a studio and compete with real professionals. See how long you last. And if by some miracle you do, I can guarantee that you will look back at the uninformed crap that you spout, about a field with which you have no actual experience, and feel like an idiot for having said anything.

[Brian K]

Brian, I agree whole heartedly with everything you said except for the statement that you feel that wedding photography is the lowest end of the photography spectrum. I feel it's a bit unkind.



Alan, I did start off by saying I'm a photo snob and I also write that I have seen wedding albums that are art. But to be fair in my original area of photography, advertising and editorial, my peers held a similar view regarding wedding shooters.

[Greg Blank]

Then what about child pornographers and those cheesy folks in the mall that shoot pass- port photos? I guess your friends weren't applying all that fancy edu-macation they and you have ;)


Alan, I did start off by saying I'm a photo snob and I also write that I have seen wedding albums that are art. But to be fair in my original area of photography, advertising and editorial, my peers held a similar view regarding wedding shooters.

[Brian K]

Then what about child pornographers and those cheesy folks in the mall that shoot pass- port photos? I guess your friends weren't applying all that fancy edu-macation they and you have ;)

Greg, sorry, I just don't have a clue as to what you mean? Obviously child pornographers are not professional photographers and I don't think anyone need explain why they are the lowest possible area of photography and above all give photography a bad name.

[Frank Petronio]

This whole thread should become an extranormal movie but lose the Palin character, instead just have it be middle-aged men and one pompous oil-rig worker.

[Alan Gales]

Brian,

I have seen your work and I am in awe of it. In my opinion you are one of the top photographers on this forum. Photography wise, I have immense respect for you, but.

I don't know what a photo snob is. I'm not sure that I want to know. You can have all the peers that you want backing you up. It really doesn't matter. I still feel that what you said about wedding photographers wasn't exactly nice.

Believe me that I'm not picking on you, I'm just being honest. If I want to pick on someone I'll pick on Frank. :D

Alan

[Alan Gales]

This whole thread should become an extranormal movie but lose the Palin character, instead just have it be middle-aged men and one pompous oil-rig worker.

Frank,

You are simply twisted! :D

[Frank Petronio]

I gotta say that I didn't think very highly of wedding photographers when I was coming up as a commercial shooter either. But those guys I ridiculed in the 1980s look pretty good compared to what passes for wedding photography nowadays. And having done a couple weddings myself, to do them well is really hard work.

Anyone who earns an honest living from photography without soiling the waters for other photographers is a champ in my book.

In hindsight I wish I hadn't been a snob and shot them on weekends when I could have really used the money to build my business. It probably would have helped me be a better people shooter faster as well.

~

I gave up the notion that the photographer with the best work ethic, skill, and talent would be the most successful, thanks to Annie Leibovitz, Mert and Marcus, Markus Klinko , etc.

~

Listen to Brian, I don't hear anything smug, just reality and straight talk. It's these weird tangents into child pornography and passport pictures I don't get?

[Alan Gales]

I gotta say that I didn't think very highly of wedding photographers when I was coming up as a commercial shooter either. But those guys I ridiculed in the 1980s look pretty good compared to what passes for wedding photography nowadays. And having done a couple weddings myself, to do them well is really hard work.

Anyone who earns an honest living from photography without soiling the waters for other photographers is a champ in my book.

In hindsight I wish I hadn't been a snob and shot them on weekends when I could have really used the money to build my business. It probably would have helped me be a better people shooter faster as well.

~

I gave up the notion that the photographer with the best work ethic, skill, and talent would be the most successful, thanks to Annie Leibovitz, Mert and Marcus, Markus Klinko , etc.

~

Listen to Brian, I don't hear anything smug, just reality and straight talk. It's these weird tangents into child pornography and passport pictures I don't get?

Amen.

[patrickjames]

Jay, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Brian is almost totally correct. You have a history of arguing with people who actually know what they are talking about, and you do it from a perspective of someone who dabbles in photography. I have read your arguments in the past with people who have done photochemistry for a living and somehow you think you are right. It boggles the mind. Maybe you should start a forum about working in an oil field, or at least learn some humility.

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.

[Richard Mahoney]

Our society as a whole is becoming one in which quality in any form is being devalued. ... But now the required quality level in so many fields is dropping, and it is purely price that matters. Give me good enough that's cheap instead of give me something great that costs more. And in that world the photo poser can survive and the master photographer will struggle. ...

Brian, I've wondered and chatted about this a bit. I don't think that there is any question that -- in general -- there is a decreasing `commercial' demand for photography displaying high technical quality or craftsmanship. I sometimes wonder though if we are somehow missing the point, a little like the extremely likable curmudgeon in this cartoon:

Posy Simmonds, Literary Life, Why're we publishing this disgusting book? (The Guardian)
http://books.guardian.co.uk/posysimmonds/page/0,,881451,00.html

Is it just that the emphasis has changed and that our likes and dislikes have somehow become irrelevant?


Kind regards,

Richard

[tangyimail]

Can't agree more......


[QUOTE=Brian K;778107]Our society as a whole is becoming one in which quality in any form is being devalued. If you're educated, articulate, etc, you're an "elite" and that's a bad thing. Everyone is celebrity or has an attitude that they are because in the old days being a celebrity meant that you were celebrated for having accomplished something. Not anymore. Now the bigger the train wreck that is your life, the easier it is to become a celebrity.

[Greg Blank]

Point was, that I would say a few other categories fit at the bottom before wedding photography, I have seen plenty of really bad so called photographers doing weddings. The guys showing up in Tee shirts, sandles and unshaven don't help the perception.

Oh and you forgot Monte Zucker, talk about cheesy. I didn't like his work from day one I saw It.




Listen to Brian, I don't hear anything smug, just reality and straight talk. It's these weird tangents into child pornography and passport pictures I don't get?

[Greg Blank]

Just my typical weisenheimer commentary, these people make money apparently so technically they are professionals using rather broad terms.


Greg, sorry, I just don't have a clue as to what you mean? Obviously child pornographers are not professional photographers and I don't think anyone need explain why they are the lowest possible area of photography and above all give photography a bad name.

[Frank Petronio]

We had a local Monte Zucker acolyte, his Yellow Pages ad was for "Artistic Misty Mood" photographs. Now I remember why I cringed at wedding photography in the 80s ;-p

[Brian K]

Being a professional is far more than getting paid for it, because even supposed professionals, that is people who earn their living through photography often work unprofessionally.

The majority of the people I assisted were very professional, partly in the sense that most of them made very lucrative incomes, but partly and perhaps a major contributor to those incomes was that they worked very professionally. They rarely if ever screwed up, rarely. But even then a client would never see a screw up because of the way in which the photographer worked. They worked in such a way as to understand that screw ups can happen and set in place methodology to prevent and repair any screw ups.

In my own case I built a super well equipped studio with more than enough space to shoot anything short of cars. My last studio, 7500 square feet. I had enough cameras, lenses, lighting gear,camera stands to do 4 complex still lifes at once. At one point I had about 40,000 watts of strobe. If anything broke there was a backup, and the back up had a backup, and that had a backup. And the quality of the gear was the best.

When I would be called to see a client about a job, or would get a job delivered by messenger, I had enough experience to look at the layout and know exactly what problems existed in the layout. If you can look at the layout and tell the client that the perspective indicated is not physically possible, they can amend their layout or agree to do it as two images and compose them together. If the product or a required prop is Teal in color, a combination of green and blue that looks more green to the eye but more blue on film, you could tell the client that in advance and let him know that correcting for the color of the product will throw off all the other colors in the shot. If you can communicate all the possible problems and hopefully solve them or give the client time to deal with the problem or make a change in advance, then they are not surprised or shocked when the film comes back with an issue or if issues arise on the shoot day. And to be able to look at a layout and be able to see all the problems in advance in a matter of seconds requires one thing, experience. Having photographed nearly every object, surface, color, texture, and shape before, I've already experienced those issues. And could see them on the layout.

When I was booked for a shoot, the entire shot was completely set up the day before the shoot day. No client likes to see you struggling to make something work, or wants to sit through endless polaroids while you make that one highlight perfect. So all the effort was put in the day or days before the booking. It was finished before the clients even arrived. They would show up at 9 or 10am, there would be an 8x10 chrome on the lightbox, perfectly matched color. There were multiple reflective/transmissive light boxes for them to view the product and film side by side but it was always perfect because it was shot for color tests once or twice, the day before. The lighting also fine tuned on the test images. For all intents and purposes they could have left right then and there with the film. But knowing clients as I do, I know they always need to make some change, and they would.


After viewing the set, they'd then sit in the kitchen/work area and look through the view camera on a TTL video system I had. They could see, while they sat and ate a muffin, what was actually in the view camera. No need to have them climb up a ladder and lean over the camera and set. (I got this system after seeing a 7 month pregnant AD do that) They could ask my assistants to move this or that a fraction of an inch and they could just yell, "Stop" when it was in the right spot. No other photographer I know of had this system.

The assistant would then shoot a polaroid and bring it to us. And within an hour of the client's arrival the new film version would be off to the lab. We'd then break for a rather nice lunch, often catered, or go out for lunch at a really nice restaurant. Two hours later, the film would walk through the studio door, it would be perfect, having in reality been shot 2 or 3 times already, but only once in front of the client. By 1 or 2pm the client would be back to their office, or out shopping having been scheduled to spend an entire day in the studio because most often and with most other photographers that's how long it took.

From the client's perspective, could this have been ANY easier or more pleasant for them? Or appeared any more professional? And the quality of the work reflected all the pre planning and thought given, as well as the serious attention to detail required. And if multiple photographs were being produced that day, then up to 4 sets could be up and running at the same time.

After the clients left, we'd start setting up the next job. If the job was more complicated or required a complicated set or a room to be built or heavy prop styling, casting talent, these projects would start days or weeks ahead of the shoot date.

[Greg Blank]

No doubt & treating the client well- is; "good business". I appreciate the insight related to the studio. A lot of people never have these sort of experiences because higher end studios are farther and fewer between. Corporations that would have spent money on services like this, now hire some recent college grad to shoot the photos in an office or closet and Photoshop the heck out of the file for web use. Goes back to your original statements, which I agree with. I was kind of fortunate when I went through the AAD program I received my Photography training in (here in the Baltimore area). The Program director had a large product illustration studio and we took a journey there to see it, he had some bigger clients like McCormick Spice Company-etc. Most people have no basis for what a studio did or does. I kind of went the route of working in labs, testing Forte Photo paper for Omega, and then doing my own thing, and I like to write.

I never did much product illustration, beyond school projects with the 4x5 and the schools studio, but I have a pretty decent body of published scenic and editorial
work.


Being a professional is far more than getting paid for it, because even supposed professionals, that is people who earn their living through photography often work unprofessionally.

<Snip-good stuff>

From the client's perspective, could this have been ANY easier or more pleasant for them?

[John NYC]

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.

[Mike Anderson]

Point was, that I would say a few other categories fit at the bottom before wedding photography...

I was a surf school photographer once. That's definitely a couple rungs below wedding photographer. :)

...Mike

[Frank Petronio]

There are classy clients everywhere but unfortunately they aren't always the norm... but every little compromise we let slip makes it easier for the bad practices to percolate up and become the new normal. Basically we've let things go to Hell because photographers didn't keep their standards up, people caved on rights and prices, and embraced digital and sloppy practices in a race to the bottom.

What we should have done was to go en masse and burnt Getty and Corbis to the ground. Skewered iStockPhoto, literally. Stood up to magazine's right's grabs. Sued and punched internet thieves. And tarred and feathered all the shysters and lousy photographers who gave this business a bad name.

[Greg Blank]

You really are crazy, but I like you :D


And tarred and feathered all the shysters and lousy photographers who gave this business a bad name.

[Jay DeFehr]

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.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Brian is almost totally correct. You have a history of arguing with people who actually know what they are talking about, and you do it from a perspective of someone who dabbles in photography. I have read your arguments in the past with people who have done photochemistry for a living and somehow you think you are right. It boggles the mind. Maybe you should start a forum about working in an oil field, or at least learn some humility.

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.

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:


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.

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.

[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. :D

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.

[Vaughn]

Nice post, good points, Brian, thanks.

For myself, I do not draw lines between my life and my art. Each informs and is connected to the other.

Vaughn

[Brian K]

Brian, I've wondered and chatted about this a bit. I don't think that there is any question that -- in general -- there is a decreasing `commercial' demand for photography displaying high technical quality or craftsmanship. I sometimes wonder though if we are somehow missing the point, a little like the extremely likable curmudgeon in this cartoon:

Posy Simmonds, Literary Life, Why're we publishing this disgusting book? (The Guardian)
http://books.guardian.co.uk/posysimmonds/page/0,,881451,00.html

Is it just that the emphasis has changed and that our likes and dislikes have somehow become irrelevant?


Kind regards,

Richard

I think it's that the emphasis has changed but more to the point there's an arrogance that has permeated our society, the arrogance of the ignorant feeling that their baseless opinions are meritorious. It used to be that people were humbler. A person without education or first hand experience in whatever topic would feel uncomfortable rendering an opinion. It's different now. it doesn't matter if you don't have the faintest clue as to what you're talking about, you're going to speak your mind anyway!

Look at drug advertisements. People are now telling their doctors what drugs to prescribe to them. And look at cable "news" where opinion is being touted as fact, and when the facts are checked those that stated falsehoods, still stand by them. Then again all one need do is read some of the posts in this very thread, in which some people without any basis in reality pontificate their opinions as fact.

[Merg Ross]

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.

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.

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.

[John NYC]

I think it's that the emphasis has changed but more to the point there's an arrogance that has permeated our society, the arrogance of the ignorant feeling that their baseless opinions are meritorious. It used to be that people were humbler.

Perhaps people have not changed. It is just that technology now allows you access to read/hear their opinions. In the past, you were only interacting with your circle in New York. There was no Internet or digital video or blogs to bring to you instantly the opinions of anyone interested in photography from the corners of the earth.

And there was just as much crap professional work done before as there is now. Witness this for instance...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkponk/sets/72157600267969060/

[Brian K]

Perhaps people have not changed. It is just that technology now allows you access to read/hear their opinions. In the past, you were only interacting with your circle in New York. There was no Internet or digital video or blogs to bring to you instantly the opinions of anyone interested in photography from the corners of the earth.

And there was just as much crap professional work done before as there is now. Witness this for instance...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkponk/sets/72157600267969060/

That work is not necessarily crap, it is in the style of the day.

And the internet has nothing to do with face to face conversation where people are instead seeking the opinion of someone knowledgeable in a certain field but now are telling that person their assumptions. A good example. I hired assistants from the early 1980's to the 2003. as part of that I interviewed perhaps 50 assistants a year. The assistants from the 1980's would ask me questions, they were eager to learn, the assistants from the late 1990's and the 2000's would TELL me things, usually about their own work and rarely ask me about what i expected of an assistant.

[Brian K]

Nice post, good points, Brian, thanks.

For myself, I do not draw lines between my life and my art. Each informs and is connected to the other.

Vaughn

Exactly!

[John NYC]

the internet has nothing to do with face to face conversation where people are instead seeking the opinion of someone knowledgeable in a certain field but now are telling that person their assumptions. A good example. I hired assistants from the early 1980's to the 2003. as part of that I interviewed perhaps 50 assistants a year. The assistants from the 1980's would ask me questions, they were eager to learn, the assistants from the late 1990's and the 2000's would TELL me things, usually about their own work and rarely ask me about what i expected of an assistant.

On the contrary, I think the Internet could have a lot to do with why the kids came to you thinking they knew it all. Look at the time frame you are talking about... That is when the Internet arose and the age of easy access to bits and pieces of information started. Cultural styles are changing, and that is certain.

[Corran]

I really hate this discussion, because I essentially see valid points on both sides and so the whole thing bugs me.

If someone pays someone to take photos or for a print, they are a photographer. Doesn't mean they are a good one, just they are one. Better photographers will attract better clients. The real winners will be the ones able to make a living. At least that's how it is supposed to work.

Of course there will always be bottom-feeders seemingly encroaching on business. It's best to ignore them in my opinion.

We see the same thing in the audio recording industry but even worse, in my opinion. Good clients can be led astray by complete amateurs with $200 worth of audio gear and some fast talking, and often they will be strung along until it's too late and they have a junk recording and no money.


This discussion also eats at me another way. I picked up a camera for fun when I was 7-8 and was hooked. I took pictures like there was no tomorrow. I put it away as I got more into music and computers but eventually got back into the hobby when I was finishing my undergrad degree. I was enjoying it, and learning a lot, and pretty soon lots of people were asking me to take photos. I started charging a fee based on what I felt was fair and appropriate. In context of many of the 10-20 or more year veterans on this site I am probably one of those people you view with disdain as I say "I'm a photographer" even though I've only really owned a decent camera for 2.5 years. And maybe if you saw a print from me you would feel that's a valid opinion. But regardless, I AM getting paid for what I do, and that's a fact. And that's all that really matters.

If you can do better than other "photographers" then you'll be the one with the job.

[John NYC]

We see the same thing in the audio recording industry but even worse, in my opinion. Good clients can be led astray by complete amateurs with $200 worth of audio gear and some fast talking, and often they will be strung along until it's too late and they have a junk recording and no money.



No kidding! And I saw the same thing in commercial music when I was involved in that in the early 1990s. MIDI came, and it didn't matter if you knew how to write with a pen and paper anymore for a lot of jobs.

It is odd to hear the same groans going on only now in photography, but I guess it took that long for technology to really change the business paradigm in that field.

[Corran]

Well from what I gather it was the introduction of ADAT that started the revolution of buying some gear and calling yourself a professional recording engineer, similar to what the early consumer DSLR did 10 years later. If things stay so similar the photography world will be in an even bleaker place in another 5-10 years. Just like the recession...we haven't hit the bottom yet folks!

[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=1IxNVGYtW1g&feature=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 (http://1000memories.com/blog/94-number-of-photos-ever-taken-digital-and-analog-in-shoebox) 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

[Robert Hughes]

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..
That sounds like a quote directly out of Mortenson's 1939 book "The Negative". The more things change...

[Jay DeFehr]

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.

Patrick,

It's clear you insist on seeing everything your way. My point in noting that Wimberley, Hutchings, et al are not chemists was to point out one doesn't need a degree to contribute something useful to a field, and I count myself among those who continue that tradition. I think most people with a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension would have understood that. Only someone with an axe to grind could read that as me claiming to be as accomplished as George Eastman. If you want to argue the merits of my developers relative to those formulated by the others I noted, I'm happy to.

I think opting out of the internet might be a good idea for you, and I encourage it.

[John NYC]

Well from what I gather it was the introduction of ADAT that started the revolution of buying some gear and calling yourself a professional recording engineer, similar to what the early consumer DSLR did 10 years later. If things stay so similar the photography world will be in an even bleaker place in another 5-10 years. Just like the recession...we haven't hit the bottom yet folks!

You got it.

The ADAT at $2K per 8 tracks meant the guy down the road with the quarter million dollar 24 track had effectively no advantage for 99 percent of applications. And this basically happened overnight. Once 100MP fully intelligent auto magic cameras are available to deliver that perfect computer pre-analyzed exposure in complex light at ISO 100,000 for $4K, things will be much worse.

Ironically, this may also be when the skills of those who are truly great -- and only those who are truly great -- might differentiate themselves above the automagic pack.

But all of this is just speculation.

[toyotadesigner]

In certain types of the imaging industry the worst case already happened: I used to shoot a lot architecture during the past years. Today they render their CAD files and love the unreal and artificial plastic look.

I won't be able to change their attitude or values, so I'm looking for another area to excel in.

[jnantz]

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.

hi jay

you are right ... if someone doesn't adapt they are gone ..

sorry i can't write more, but i gotta go hot transfer some puppy with angel wing photos to coffee mugs and mousepads and sell them on ebay and flea markets.

[John NYC]

In certain types of the imaging industry the worst case already happened: I used to shoot a lot architecture during the past years. Today they render their CAD files and love the unreal and artificial plastic look.

I won't be able to change their attitude or values, so I'm looking for another area to excel in.

Interesting. I hate that look personally, but I am not a commissioner of such stuff.

Sorry to hear it is forcing a job change. I moved out of music in part because what I loved was going away effectively, but I found something else I really enjoy and in a lot of ways, my life is much better for it. Change can be good sometimes. I wish you the very best!

[Jay DeFehr]

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.

Brian,

Thanks again for your resume. You've summed yourself up pretty well in the above post, and there's little I can add to describe you better than you've described yourself. I am humbled by your magnanimity.

Your reasoning, however, is as poor as an oilfield worker, and like all whose reason fails them, you've begun to contradict and undermine your own argument.


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.

I agree with the above, 100%. In the above scenario, the photographer offering the highest quality at the lowest price gets the sale. So, why are times so hard for professional photographers? Because they are not offering the highest quality at the lowest price. Why not? One word: internet. It's a peer to peer world, and sharing is the new economy, and the qualities offered by professional photographers are not the ones valued by internet age consumers. You can cry all you like, call the consumer ignorant, the photos they choose crap, and despair the decline of quality in photography until your committed to a home for elderly professional photographers, and it won't change anything but your living arrangements, because no one cares what you think. In a world where hundreds of billions of photos are produced every year, and more than 2 billion people are connected by the internet, the consumer/user defines quality. Your small town with one wedding photographer is a much better illustration of your outmoded thinking than it is of our current economic model.



Consumers always want better, whether they have access to better, can recognize better, or can afford better is another story.

You still don't understand we're debating the definition of better, and carry on as if quality is an absolute term. You seem to think that to the extent people are affluent and sophisticated, they will always prefer your definition of quality. By your reasoning and reckoning, these should be the best of times for your profession, since the pool of affluent and educated people has never been as large as it is now. But that's not the case, is it? So what gives? Either you're wrong about what consumers want, or people are generally less affluent, educated, and connected than in times past.

If you were right, and I was wrong, this thread and your anxiety wouldn't exist; you'd be far too busy in your successful, spacious, well equipped, professional photography studio to post to amateur photography forums, and I'd be busy envying you, but none of those things are true.

[toyotadesigner]

Hey John NYC, sorry for the misunderstanding, I only want to substitute the architectural photography part of my biz with another one. I won't give up my job as long as I can, because it is part of my life and vice versa. But thanks for your kind words - we are facing hard times...

[Robert Hughes]

I think opting out of the internet might be a good idea for you, and I encourage it.
Zing! :p

[toyotadesigner]

@ John DeFehr:


Your small town with one wedding photographer is a much better illustration of your outmoded thinking than it is of our current economic model.

Would you please be so kind and give me a brief and precise resumé of your current economic model? I mean another one than going bankrupt like the US? And I mean another one than just printing more money to pile up the debts even higher to ruin the next generations? I am serious! I really would like to know and learn new insights into economy and business, because it might help me to survive the next decade...

[Robert Hughes]

Well from what I gather it was the introduction of ADAT...
ADAT - shmaydat. That race to the bottom with audio gear started with the Teac 4 tracks in the 70's. I've still got a 40-4 somewhere in storage, and it probably still works. Those are handy little machines for folks on a budget who have some creativity and moxie. All those Wookie grunts and laser blasts from the original Star Wars were run across a Teac 4 track at one point or other prior to hitting the big screen.

[toyotadesigner]

@ John DeFehr:

If you were right, and I was wrong, this thread and your anxiety wouldn't exist; you'd be far too busy in your successful, spacious, well equipped, professional photography studio to post to amateur photography forums, and I'd be busy envying you, but none of those things are true.

Could it be that you have lost your job? I mean, what's the real reason behind your insulting behavior? I just don't get it. Maybe it's better to add you to my ignore list. Reading your posts is a waste of time.

Don't you realize that you are pretty much isolated with your shrewd opinion? What about visiting a psychiatrist? I've heard that in the US every second citizen has regular meetings with these folks...

[John NYC]

ADAT - shmaydat. That race to the bottom with audio gear started with the Teac 4 tracks in the 70's. I've still got a 40-4 somewhere in storage, and it probably still works. Those are handy little machines for folks on a budget who have some creativity and moxie. All those Wookie grunts and laser blasts from the original Star Wars were run across a Teac 4 track at one point or other prior to hitting the big screen.

We are not talking about where it started, but where it hit critical mass.

[Jay DeFehr]

[QUOTE=jnanian;778895]hi jay

you are right ... if someone doesn't adapt they are gone ..

sorry i can't write more, but i gotta go hot transfer some puppy with angel wing photos to coffee mugs and mousepads and sell them on ebay and flea markets.[/QUOTE

I knew I didn't need to worry about you. ;)

[Merg Ross]

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 (http://1000memories.com/blog/94-number-of-photos-ever-taken-digital-and-analog-in-shoebox) over in the Lounge a couple of days ago, but it got predictably misunderstood/dismissed.



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

Good morning, Marko

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comments.

As most often, I find myself in agreement. Sometimes the truth is difficult to accept. The linked article provides staggering but plausible numbers.

By the way, I enjoyed the recent posting of your image from Bodie; excellent quality of light.

Now, off to slosh some chemicals around in the darkened room!

Regards,
Merg

[Jay DeFehr]

@ John DeFehr:


Could it be that you have lost your job? I mean, what's the real reason behind your insulting behavior? I just don't get it. Maybe it's better to add you to my ignore list. Reading your posts is a waste of time.

Don't you realize that you are pretty much isolated with your shrewd opinion? What about visiting a psychiatrist? I've heard that in the US every second citizen has regular meetings with these folks...


John DeFehr was my father's uncle; my name is Jay DeFehr. I haven't lost my job, in fact I'm at work now, but I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion. I assure you I am not isolated in my opinions, or my assessment of the cultural zeitgeist and it's effect on professional photographers. You're certainly not the first to insult me, but insulting my country as a whole is quite tasteless, and landing on your ignore list is a distinction I would welcome.

[Jay DeFehr]

In certain types of the imaging industry the worst case already happened: I used to shoot a lot architecture during the past years. Today they render their CAD files and love the unreal and artificial plastic look.

I won't be able to change their attitude or values, so I'm looking for another area to excel in.

Are you suggesting the users have redefined quality for themselves based on changes in technology, and that you, as a producer of higher quality (by your standards) alternatives can't change their minds about it? That kind of radical thinking must surely place you in the minority, and indicate the need for psychiatric care.