From your post I thought that you were saying you saw the writing on the wall years ago for commercial work, and moved on to fine art. I am the one who assumed you did so because the prospects in fine art looked better.Originally Posted by Brian K
From your post I thought that you were saying you saw the writing on the wall years ago for commercial work, and moved on to fine art. I am the one who assumed you did so because the prospects in fine art looked better.
Who knows? There are world-class musicians who do other work during the day. The same must be true for photographers.
One question is the relationship between technique and vision. A professional (in the original sense of the word--one who professes to offer services to the public for money) must have reliable technique. I choose the word "reliable" because they must deliver competent results every time, but rarely is a professional expected to demonstrate state-of-the-art technique. A professional may or may nor require much in the way of vision depending on their clients and subjects. We have all seen (and many of us have produced) work of great technique and uninspired vision that nevertheless fulfilled all the requirements for the photograph.
But we all know rank beginners (in terms of technique) who were blessed with vision and timing in the genius category.
Those who have genius vision don't necessarily need to practice much, and perhaps they would really benefit from automation. And they still might produce superb photographs.
We keep trying to portray photography as an art but then we keep valuing it as a skill. Anyone can learn technique with enough training and experience. But if the product of vision has value, then someone out there will find ways to make tools to allow visionaries to manifest their vision without having to struggle so much with technique. So, in the end, any art medium devolves into two camps (overlap allowed, of course): Those who revere technique and those who revere vision.
The problem is that the market has lost touch with the value of vision, perhaps because photographers haven't really been demonstrating it, or perhaps because society no longer appreciates it. When photographers are paid only for skill, however, they are at risk of their skill be displaced by more powerful tools in less skilled hands. They end up in a niche of artists and art buyers who value skill for its own sake. I would expect that the magazine industry would represent an extreme corner of this dichotomy, being concerned only that the image does what it's supposed to do and not caring at all about how it does it. I also suspect that the reverence for the individual's expression of technique is more valuable in other branches of photography.
In music, less and less utilitarian music is produced by musical ensembles. Examples of utilitarian music include music for commercials and background music for TV (and, increasingly, for movies). More and more of it is produced by composer/technicians who use sampling and software to produce extremely realistic ensemble music. This is a case where skill is valued only to the extent that it produces the desired product, and a cheaper way of producing the product displaces the skill and demonstrates just how little the skill itself contributes to the music's value.
Rick "noting that most mere skills are eventually superseded by technology" Denney
Rick, in my three decades in photography I have never come across a rank beginner who was a genius in photography. I have seen people with aptitude, or as would most commonly be called a "good eye" but none who were genius.
Photography is inherently technical. If all one can do is merely press a button on an automated camera, then the resulting image will have lost the following aesthetic controls:
Selective focus, intentional exposure deviation to alter perception and mood, the use of contrast, color, and other filters that further change the mood and perception of the image, long exposure, night time photography,
For those who choose not to print, either traditionally or digitally, they lose:
Contrast control, color control, dodging and burning, selective de-focus, exposure control
For those who choose to not use a view or filed camera, they lose:
perspective control, focus and defocus options.
And for those who lack lighting skills they lose:
the ability to really control mood, to control subtlety, to enhance or subdue detail, the ability to define form and shape as well as possible, the ability to control reflections highlights and shadows
That's an awful lot of creative control that you give up by being merely a P&S shooter and having NO real manual ability to alter the image. While such a person still has control over composition, image selection and timing, things which a technically proficient photographer also has, the technically incapable are at an enormous disadvantage.
The problem that many people have is that they think that the technical aspects of photography are purely technical and automation renders them unnecessary, they have no idea of the creative control, and vastly more unlimited creative possibilities that someone with serious technical skills also has. They also underestimate the number of years, even decades required to get skilled at all of that.
True.A professional (in the original sense of the word--one who professes to offer services to the public for money) must have reliable technique.
A client doesn't ask: do you think you can do that?
A client says: I want a mood like this, a sunset and nice sky behind my factory building, some emotional shots from the staff in the welding or whatever department, I need the images for XYZ.
Period.
This is an example for architecture photography. There are others. This client can't skim Flickr for images - no way. This client (usually) doesn't know anything about the technique behind the scenes. He **expects** minuscule and incredible details so he even can use the image as a background for his exhibition booth. He expects a perfect exposure.
This is the point where amateurs or 'wanna-be-professionals' fail or at least feel scared and horrified.
I am not talking about event photography, weddings, sports, magazines, etc. Not advertising or fashion which is a completely different world. I'm just talking about the biz I am in - architecture, industry, interiors, documentation.
Professionals are hired because they not only can deliver results, but because they do. Constantly. At a very high level. Any time. Any weather. Anywhere.
Any professional could be creative **if** the client would give him more funds.
If for example a client would ask me to do some shots from his latest truck, I'd agree and just ask: indoor or outdoor? What's your goal? What do you want to achieve? Then I'd start and I know I will deliver because I know how to handle light, perspective, composition. Sure, there will be other professionals who have more experience with trucks, but if the client wants me he knows I **will** deliver. He does have confidence in me and my work. Reliability is the buzzword.
An amateur or Flickr won't. It's simple as that.
The problem is not that there are too many photographers, but too few clients.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
The 'cheapifying' effect of digital technology had this same effect on music about ten years sooner than photography. Everyone with a MIDI keyboard and sampler became a musician.
Musicians that actually get paid to blow into an instrument or make strings vibrate are few and far between.
Not arguing at all that creative control isn't important. But I wonder what creative control H-CB applied to make the photos of the kids playing in the street. It seems to me that a camera with Sunny 16 exposure and zone focus probably would have done the job, and I doubt he did anything tricky with the development or printing. The genius of that photograph is utterly non-technical, it's all about timing. I'm quite sure there are photographs of that caliber made by technical beginners who had a "good eye".
Obviously, technique is required for reliable quality. But my point was that technique is a separate issue from art. I think it's quite possible for just about anyone to attain technical proficiency if they are willing to work hard enough. Their results may still, however, be uninspired. Some photography is more subject to this issue than other photography, and it seems to me that the general magazine photography discussed in the article is probably the most vulnerable, especially for general-interest magazines like travel magazines and so on.
My point is that we portray advanced photography as an art of vision, but then price it in terms of mere skills. Skills can often be replaced by technology, and eventually all currently marketable skills will be superseded by technology, which itself will demand new skills. If the price is based only on skills, especially labor-intensive skills that many are willing to undertake just for fun, the price pressure will be downward in the presence of improving technology.
These overlap, of course, and disinguishing between vision and skill completely isn't possible. But understanding the conceptual distinction might shed some light on the commercial issues.
Example: My professional expertise is in traffic flow theory and control (traffic as in cars and trucks and control as in traffic signals). I know many who have defined their value in terms of skills: They spend their time learning how to run various simulation and optimization models, and there are a lot of them. They often spend their careers in back rooms because of that, and they are subject to being replaced by more advanced technology. I have chosen to understand underlying theory and optimization principles, and those endure through the many changes in implementation technology that have occurred in my career. I can learn a new optimization software product or adaptive control system in a day because of that, but I can also do something the merely skilled cannot usually do: I can explain why the optimization is correct, or not, or to what degree, and I can explain it so that others can understand it. My skills with those tools are not as finely honed as one who uses them all day every day, but I'm much more valuable for what I provide beyond mere skill.
There will be automated tools that will provide selective focus and many other of the techniques that you mentioned, eventually. They won't be as good, but the results will probably be good enough for many applications that will be done more cheaply because of them. We may think that creative control over those techniques is necessary to success as a professional, but in some parts of professional photography that may be a delusion.
Rick "not against skill, but against skill alone" Denney
The number of clients varies by price point. If the price is high, there will be fewer clients, because many clients don't need or appreciate the quality associated with a high price. If quality is measured by fulfilling requirements rather than by subjective artistic merit, and must surely be the case in many commercial situations, the price will find that level that just fulfills requirements. Those who charge more will not get the work even if their work is better.
Rick "who knows what it is to be priced out of a market" Denney
I don't know. I tend to think of the term amateur in the context of what it is supposed to mean: someone who does something without benefit of being paid for it. Not that they necessarily perform that function at a lower level of quality.
Perhaps the sense of the word as it is evolving in this thread is different from my own.
I consider myself an amateur because I never earned a dime from 20+ years of photography and I only do it for fun. Who knows. Someday I may offer some for sale but it's not something I think about and not my day job.
Whenever I'm perusing a magazine or at a galery with fine professional photos, yes many times I say to myself I would like to go there and duplicate that shot. Rarely do I actually get there to do that but the thought crosses my mind.
Although most of the time I do have my own sense of the image I'm trying to create from the places that are accessible to me. And it's not necessarily for sale, just for my own enjoyment. Bob G.
All natural images are analog. But the retina converts them to digital on their way to the brain.
That is a very important point - that you rarely get there. Because you have primary profession in another field.Whenever I'm perusing a magazine or at a galery with fine professional photos, yes many times I say to myself I would like to go there and duplicate that shot. Rarely do I actually get there to do that but the thought crosses my mind.
A hired and paid professional can and will go there any time. At least he should, no matter what time of the day or if it'll be a holiday, Sunday, 4:30 in the morning.
The clients are still there, but they have - especially these days - very limited funds and have to stretch the dime. Just because is client wouldn't assign a project to me it wouldn't mean he will use images from Getty or Flickr shooters, he just skips the brochure or whatever. I have customers who in 2008 used to run a publication (company magazine) every 3 months, in 2009 just twice a year and now down to nothing, holding their breath in the hope to survive the next 6 months...The problem is not that there are too many photographers, but too few clients.
At least in my biz I am not scared by Flickr or amateurs. But I've always been scared by unprofessional photographers who delivered lousy results, spoiling the client for quality work and removing the confidence out of the biz.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks