The AI thread

[Alan Klein]

the problem is that the wedding party EXPECTS 36thousand files, not the edited down to 100. we live in an age of blown out expectation, where the photographer might not be judged by the quality of one's work but the volume provided to the wedding party. Besides the bride / groom typically don't remember any of their wedding anyways, so it's everything+everyone they missed, and if they hired a photographer and 5 second shooters they were pretty much covered.



maybe it's priority is to keep you from being ejected from your car into a ditch, or run over by a pick up truck, or going through your windshield if you are TBONED or hit head on by someone texting while driving, or some self driving vehicle gone rogue. often times the air bags don't deploy like they are supposed to. pretty soon there will be a breathalyzer built into the steering column and you won't be able to start your car if you have had too much to drink. Italian food .. maybe it was dropping you a slight hint since all the yelp reviews for your chosen-restaurant were from a troll farm, and it got news from another AI Bot in the fleet that if it just drove you around aimlessly you might decide to go to a different restaurant instead.

Siri is usually pretty good. It's that idiot in my car a Lincoln that couldn't find a way out of a paper bag.

[Michael R]

Maybe you should try another way.

Luckily I don’t have to deal with UPS very often - basically only when there are no other options (with the exception of DHL - they’re the worst).

[Drew Wiley]

No different than architectural photography. I got out of it at just the right time. But a particular local well-known fine art photographer made most of his living shooting architecture and related corporate facilities. He used classic 4x5 monorails, the last being the Toyo VX system. Back then commercial photography meant, "I need it tomorrow". After the tsunami of the Digital Revulsion arrived, it meant, "I demand it yesterday". So he switched to an expensive Arca MF digital setup with live view. What that led to is clients hovering behind him like a vultures, peering into the screen, and pontificating every twitch of his fingers, and constantly asking, How about this or how about that? He commented to me that it was driving him mad, and that, for the first time ever, he was beginning to hate his career.

That fellow had some serious talent, and could sell prints to collectors for a decent sum. But now, all of a sudden, he's just the monkey being pointed this direction or that, being told what to shoot. Why hire someone of that skill level, pay rate, and with that kind of equipment, if he can't make his own compositional decisions? - and for what ... frankly, just another minor tweak to the company website!

The next time around, the manager hired his daughter instead, with her $200 digital camera. Typical. Then when that didn't work out so well, he hired a crew of DLSR machine-gunners, and after a day of them running around amuck with their clumsy lighting assistants, ended up selecting only two usable shots. I would only shoot for showroom framed display prints, and on my own terms (4X5 film, no backseat drivers, delivery at my own pace, and seriously priced per print; otherwise, phone another baboon troop).

[bdkphoto]

No different than architectural photography. I got out of it at just the right time. But a particular local well-known fine art photographer made most of his living shooting architecture and related corporate facilities. He used classic 4x5 monorails, the last being the Toyo VX system. Back then commercial photography meant, "I need it tomorrow". After the tsunami of the Digital Revulsion arrived, it meant, "I demand it yesterday". So he switched to an expensive Arca MF digital setup with live view. What that led to is clients hovering behind him like a vultures, peering into the screen, and pontificating every twitch of his fingers, and constantly asking, How about this or how about that? He commented to me that it was driving him mad, and that, for the first time ever, he was beginning to hate his career.

That fellow had some serious talent, and could sell prints to collectors for a decent sum. But now, all of a sudden, he's just the monkey being pointed this direction or that, being told what to shoot. Why hire someone of that skill level, pay rate, and with that kind of equipment, if he can't make his own compositional decisions? - and for what ... frankly, just another minor tweak to the company website!

The next time around, the manager hired his daughter instead, with her $200 digital camera. Typical. Then when that didn't work out so well, he hired a crew of DLSR machine-gunners, and after a day of them running around amuck with their clumsy lighting assistants, ended up selecting only two usable shots. I would only shoot for showroom framed display prints, and on my own terms (4X5 film, no backseat drivers, delivery at my own pace, and seriously priced per print; otherwise, phone another baboon troop).

None of this rings true - architectural photography was always a collaboration between the architect and the photographer. The project was always estimated beforehand and shot lists, preproduction scouting, and budget was determined even before you loaded your camera. Depending on the firm there was the either the principal, or project architect, or the marketing director, or all of them on set, reviewing the polaroids as you worked on the shoot. Most of the time things went great, if you had a cranky micromanaging client you had them sign their approval of the polaroid so you didn't get into a dispute after the fact. Digital has made the production far more efficient and opened up new techniques that allow for better and more work which equals a larger profit for the shoot. Office prints are just a tiny part of what architects need from photography.

[jnantz]

Siri is usually pretty good. It's that idiot in my car a Lincoln that couldn't find a way out of a paper bag.

well, maybe Siri can have a meeting of the minds with Henry and Wilfred Leland if they can figure things out. They're all electrostatic at this point..

[Drew Wiley]

bdk - How can you say it doesn't ring true? Maybe not in your experience. Does that apply to everyone else? I think not. Even when I was still doing it in the 80's and 90's, Polaroids would have been laughable. They either trust your reputation and your own portfolio, or they don't. Admittedly, I had a somewhat different niche because I was doing technical and color consultation for many of the same projects, and was already tight with that set of architects and renovators which asked me to shoot their finished projects. So my own "project pre-scouting" had connotations far more in depth than any regular photographer! I was not an unknown quantity. Some of these same people also bought personal framed work from me which they saw in galleries. But just like in other areas, word of mouth is a key element. If a client seems squirrelly and cantankerous, you just bypass that one and move to someone else.

Of course, commercial photography is intended to flatter the client's own vision and achievements, and not so much your own. But if they didn't want my personal take on it, why would they hire me in the first place?

So no - it wasn't just "office prints" (though sold at serious "fine art" pricing because it was of the same quality, mind you!), but the whole ball of wax including travel time fee, spinoff projects, new connections, etc. And I had very low overhead - worked by myself, had everything I needed, even had my own lab and dedicated frame shop. We're not all the same. When an architect or designer-builder is working for one the wealthiest men on earth, or doing a Maybeck, Morgan, or Wright renovation where the wood refinishing budget by itself can run in the millions, those a marquis projects, and they'd pay a premium for a well-printed portfolio that stands out too. Fun era. I've run into some of them lately, some still at it, others retired like me.

Ha. Someone with a very successful studio back East once wanted me to partner with him and one other individual. I flew there and checked it out.
He mainly dealt with Fortune 500 companies, and never bothered with art directors and marketing types. Didn't need them around either. His secret?
A $20,000 per year golf club membership! It was money well spent. Same club as big time politicians, lobbyists, and CEO's. He just made sure he lost more rounds of golf than he won. I'm not a golfer; but when I was there I helped a Senator in denim overalls cut and load firewood at his house, and had breakfast with the CEO of major oil company dressed in bluejeans and a plaid shirt, who just wanted to be a regular guy on the weekends, and then Monday morning put back on a suit and then bribe some Nigerian official for more drilling rights. There's no substitute for networking.

Once I got married, and as my parents got older, didn't have the spare time anymore for all that extra running around juggling three incomes.

Anyway, styles are often so different regionally. The work you do makes sense in your context, and you obviously do it well. But when some tech mogul or wealthy vintner out here wants to spend mega-millions on a house or ranch of Zen character, with all kinds of classy woodwork inside and out, right down to $40,000 apiece garden gates and deck benches, a landscape photographer like me is likely to have a distinct edge. And the people either renovating them or building new ones became lifetime personal friends of mine. it's a surprisingly tight circle with strong loyalties.

[wclark5179]

I did just fine with my photography business.

Early in my career I met Monte Zucker who became my coach and friend. He pointed me in a direction leading to success. The avatar photo here was made by Monte during a visit in Sarasota Florida.

Humans are social creatures. More photographs are being made today than ever before.

I’m retired now but when I was in the business I really enjoyed it. My clients could tell it as I was happy and so were they. It would show on their faces.

[jnantz]

None of this rings true - architectural photography was always a collaboration between the architect and the photographer. The project was always estimated beforehand and shot lists, preproduction scouting, and budget was determined even before you loaded your camera. Depending on the firm there was the either the principal, or project architect, or the marketing director, or all of them on set, reviewing the polaroids as you worked on the shoot. Most of the time things went great, if you had a cranky micromanaging client you had them sign their approval of the polaroid so you didn't get into a dispute after the fact. Digital has made the production far more efficient and opened up new techniques that allow for better and more work which equals a larger profit for the shoot. Office prints are just a tiny part of what architects need from photography.

couldn't agree with you more !
polaroids were king before they were exiled

[BrianShaw]

And how! I loved working with Polaroid, primarily as an art media in both prints and transfers. Of all the photographic tools no longer available, Polaroid sheet film is the one I miss the most.

[Alan Klein]

I worked for NYC School Construction Authority with a Polaroid often in capital improvement projects making progress construction photos. We didn't use film cameras. We needed photos to verify work when arguments would occur later in the project, or verify subsequently hidden work was done correctly later, or use them later to estimate additional change order work. That was up until around the early 2ooos. Then we switched to digital cameras and many more pictures were taken. Sometimes videos. Of course, we could upload them and send them around with email. With the polaroids, we would Xerox and fax them, but got very poor results. Of course, none of the pictures were professionally done just taken by project managers like myself. Also, contractors themselves kept their own progress photos for the same reasons.