Jump to content

Has digital photography made commercial photographers poor?


Recommended Posts

Thanks to all perticipents. Everyone explained from their point of view. Mark Keefer has written well. Some said internet, some prints or about skills. Well, hard to say what went wrong in a word. But you have to adapt new ideas of doing commercial photography business for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If anything digital photography opened up more opportunities...

 

I agree with Phil S we've gone from a print media where only the super big companies employed the use of photography in their marketing to the internet where every company, the local auto mechanic to the motel, needs to have a website and consequently visual artwork to communicate with their prospects.

 

In all this discussion nobody is mentioning that our education system for the most part ignores the business aspects of being an entrepreneur. Every time I hire a new assistant (with a 4 year + degree in the arts) I have to coach them in how to write up an invoice. A while back I was a DP on a short film project for a UCLA professor and in our down time discussing the nature of the industry she admitted none of her classes touch base on the business aspect of production. In other words students are coming out of school with minimal experience using spreadsheets, accounting practices or even any type of education on licensing their artwork. They are given a false sense that a production costs zero money and at some time in the mystical future bills will be paid.

 

My rift with ASMP is that for the past ten years they have had more educational programs welcoming students into the realm of professional photography but not the business talks/seminars they had fifteen twenty years ago. I feel the last hope our profession has is the internet forums and even that is peppered with non-working fanciful opinions or fear mongering.

 

Finally here in the US art/ photography/ images in general are completed devalued. Could you imagine if the internet /digital couldn't handle the photograph and everything online was text based? How much photography helps communicate. If home sellers had to put up with 5 times more walk throughs from buyers that weren't even interested in the home the moment they got there. I'll bet they (both the home owner and buyer) would be more than happy to pay five times what a real estate photographer is charging today. Local motels use to advertise with a big sign (in ten years can you imagine how ridiculous that is going to seem) Today I can get a much better sense of a hotel miles down the road and Quality images communicate quality.

 

just my humble opinions on the subject

--------------

My Architectual Photography:

Architectural-Cinematographer.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there's a lot more images floating around than their used to be, but that doesn't mean that they were taken by people who make a living being photographers. One thing that digital changed is that you can immediately see the results, - granted it's on a small screen but it's not hard to upload to something with a larger screen right in the field, - tablet or laptop. An amateur can get the shot they want by virtue of trial and error and the smarts built into the camera, - and/or via post processing.

 

And professional photographers can also get results quicker and easier, meaning that one photographer can churn out more volume than they could in the past, - meaning you don't need as many photographers for the same volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An amateur can get the shot they want by virtue of trial and error

I've watched amateurs at work and seen the results they get when they want a particular shot and beg to differ with your conclusion. They very often cannot get the shot they want, even with trial and error, because they don't know how to use light, how to work with strong contrasts of shadow and light which are often present, or even how to place their child so their face isn't in dark shadow. It takes more than an LCD screen in the field to get the shot desired. Very often, my friends with kids will hand me their cell phone and ask me to take a photo because they're smart enough to know that my skill and experience is more important to getting a decent shot than is their equipment and ability to chimp (a term most of them, thankfully, wouldn't know).

  • Like 1
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched amateurs at work and seen the results they get when they want a particular shot and beg to differ with your conclusion. They very often cannot get the shot they want, even with trial and error, because they don't know how to use light, how to work with strong contrasts of shadow and light which are often present, or even how to place their child so their face isn't in dark shadow. It takes more than an LCD screen in the field to get the shot desired....

 

Hmm... digital is great for

letting people know how

bad they are immediately

instead of waiting a week

to get film developed...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They very often cannot get the shot they want, even with trial and error, because they don't know how to use light, how to work with strong contrasts of shadow and light which are often present, or even how to place their child so their face isn't in dark shadow.

I'd say many don't even know what they want........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems fairly obvious that the advent of high end digital tech including phones and social media has induced. or seduced a lot of people into thinking they can be pros. Pretty much a no brainer. That doesn't mean that everyone who thinks they can make a living at photography, or be good photographers. But still, those who really take it seriously, are smart, aggressive, talented and driven can do it. (Not me:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen some discussion here of product photography.

 

This is an area of interest of mine. Specifically, I collect American pocket watches, and photographing them both for "show and tell" and as a record of my collection has made me really start hunkering down and trying to make my photos better. I've received a lot of advice from a watch collector friend who IS a professional photographer, and I feel like my photos have improved first by realizing how helpful having good lights and modifiers and more importantly knowing how to use them.

 

Watch movements can be a VERY challenging subject to photograph. You often have areas of very high contrast, and numerous fine details(which can amount to basically fine lines etched into the plates) that you want to show.

 

This particular one I show below is a bit easier as it's gilded and not nickel. Still, the "one size fits all" solution is to make the light as flat as you can. Unfortunately, it also tends to hide details also. One of the things my friend has repeatedly advised me is to use use more sidelighting than overhead and to BE SURE I have some ratio from one side to the other. In fact, on his advice I often use a light with bare silver reflector about even with the movement and off to the left of movement to "grab" some of the detail that otherwise the relatively diffuse light from softboxes or umbrellas would hide.

 

The below isn't by best work, but I'm showing it for specific reason

 

448650991_DSCF0060copy.thumb.jpg.50bc564f9e8874df86c0d40b4b2e2458.jpg

 

I bought this watch from a major auction house in 2015. Here's the listing with their catalog photo

 

Bonhams : Waltham. A rare silver hunter cased watch with vibrating hairspring studAppleton Tracy & Co., no. 140138

 

I do have to add the caveat that I've had it apart and cleaned it since buying it, so the fingerprints they show are no longer there. Regardless, their photo honestly just makes the watch look bad.

 

I wasn't able to attend the sale or preview in person, but was glad that a friend was willing to take notes for me on a few lots of interest. I was glad that he did that as a similar watch I was also considering sold for a much lower price(in fact it didn't make reserve). It had some serious issues that were absent both from their description and photos, but that fortunately my friend caught.

 

Again, this isn't an outstanding example, but still I feel like this house could AFFORD to hire good photographers for their catalogs but instead put out lackluster photos. I'd be VERY unhappy if I were the seller-in fact this was the second auction of four planned from this seller's collection, and he took such a blood bath on the first two that he used Sotheby's for the rest. Granted part of that was market conditions, but I also think Sotheby's catalogs better.

 

BTW, I do admit to chimping when I'm doing these sort of photos. With that said, part of my purpose is to check exposure(it's faster than using a flash meter) and part is to see if the light looks like I want it to. I can spend an hour moving lights around and even adding or removing them before I get a photo that "sings." The more I've done it, the less trial and error I need. I'm glad that I'm doing this as a hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched amateurs at work and seen the results they get when they want a particular shot and beg to differ with your conclusion. They very often cannot get the shot they want, even with trial and error, because they don't know how to use light, how to work with strong contrasts of shadow and light which are often present, or even how to place their child so their face isn't in dark shadow. It takes more than an LCD screen in the field to get the shot desired. Very often, my friends with kids will hand me their cell phone and ask me to take a photo because they're smart enough to know that my skill and experience is more important to getting a decent shot than is their equipment and ability to chimp (a term most of them, thankfully, wouldn't know).

 

But most shots aren't that hard, and most people aren't that particular about the results. And in your examples, did you charge them? Would they have hired a professional if you weren't around? .

 

One thing that professional photographers still get hired to do is photos of kids' sports teams. I have a distinct memory of a photographer yelling at a parent not to take pictures of their kids lined up for a picture at T-ball "picture day". This was his livelihood and he was there to sell pictures, not have parents take their own. This conflict happens because he's not adding a whole lot in their minds and the pictures the parents take would be good enough for most of them, - and a lot cheaper.

 

I'm not questioning the fact that a professional photographer still has a lot to offer, but I do think that the "image culture" as someone else has referred to it has in many ways lowered the bar, and lowered the price that people are willing to pay for a photograph. Weddings are an exception for a few reasons. One is that it's seen as a rite of passage and once in a life time event (hopefully). There is a desire for a wedding to be "perfect". And people spend a fortune on weddings so the idea of spending a little money on a photographer isn't so hard to swallow.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But most shots aren't that hard, and most people aren't that particular about the results.

You mentioned TRIAL AND ERROR. Most shots that aren’t hard and where the results don’t much matter don’t require trial and error. Most shots taken by amateurs are quick one-offs. “Trial and error” suggested to me a shot that was a bit more difficult to get and one where the results did matter. Often, those shots require a bit of know-how.

And in your examples, did you charge them? Would they have hired a professional if you weren't around?

No and no. I don’t charge my friends for taking snaps of their kids on the spot. I’ve even stopped to help strangers with photos when they see my dslr and ask me to take a pic with their phone. I don’t charge them either. Maybe I’m not mercenary enough, but I’m happy to help when I can and have the time.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mentioned TRIAL AND ERROR. Most shots that aren’t hard and where the results don’t much matter don’t require trial and error. Most shots taken by amateurs are quick one-offs. “Trial and error” suggested to me a shot that was a bit more difficult to get and one where the results did matter. Often, those shots require a bit of know-how.

 

But a bit of know-how doesn't mean professional. Take backlighting for example. A professional can use it effectively or just avoid it. An amateur might try and get a picture of their kid with the sun shinning into the camera. They look at the results and aren't happy. Some might not know what to do, but plenty of non-professionals of will figure out that they can just take a picture from a different angle. Camera technology has also progressed to the point that it can often figure out what to do and compensate for the lack of knowledge that the shooter has.

 

No and no. I don’t charge my friends for taking snaps of their kids on the spot. I’ve even stopped to help strangers with photos when they see my dslr and ask me to take a pic with their phone. I don’t charge them either. Maybe I’m not mercenary enough, but I’m happy to help when I can and have the time.

 

I think if you were to try and be more mercenary, it wouldn't really work anyway. IMO there are fewer situations in which people are willing to pay someone else to take a picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from experience, every one of my friends who have kids all had their own cameras and regularly took their own pics. I’m sure they were good at the trial and error thing. At some point they also all paid for a pro to take pics of their kids. Some parents have probably not done that. I imagine the ones that got pro pictures recognized what they were paying for and my friends were glad they did so.
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from experience, every one of my friends who have kids all had their own cameras and regularly took their own pics. I’m sure they were good at the trial and error thing. At some point they also all paid for a pro to take pics of their kids. Some parents have probably not done that. I imagine the ones that got pro pictures recognized what they were paying for and my friends were glad they did so.

 

Even at that, quality can be variable.

 

Many "chain" photo studios pretty much have fixed lighting set-ups, which honestly in most cases can be fine and do get better results on the whole than the person who uses the pop-up on their DSLR or even uses a hot shoe flash blasting straight-on.

 

Beyond that, though, there's a wide variability in skill in posing and "capturing" the right moment. Kids can be a difficult subject in that situation, and the ability of the photographer to actually extract the best from an unhappy or uncooperative kid can make a HUGE difference.

 

I'm glad that my parents had a lot of professional photos taken of my sister and I both, and my sister and BIL have photos taken at least annually. They've managed to have some very technically good photos taken-I remember reading up a while back on Rembrandt lighting, and as I was reading I looked up at a framed photo of my oldest nephew on the shelf and thought "that photographer nailed Rembrandt." They also have some great professional photos that are both technically excellent but really let the personality of the kids come through. They keep doing it because they realize how much of difference it makes.

 

I'll also add that my sister is quite the shutter bug(she has close to 100K on her D3100, and actually manged to wear out the 18-55 that it came with). She's taken some great photos, but she's always amazed that when we're standing side-by-side I take a fraction of the photos she does but still manage to end up with at least as many if not more "good ones." Last Easter, we got all the family kids together(not just hers) and took a posed photo. I had my Bronica SQ-A on a tripod and burned a roll of Tri-X even though I realistically could have gotten away with 2-3 photos(I'd have not hedged my bets on one given that it was like herding cats to get them all there). The 8x10s that I printed and gave to everyone blew her away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that digital changed is that you can immediately see the results, .. An amateur can get the shot they want by virtue of trial and error and ...

 

I've watched amateurs at work and seen the results they get when they want a particular shot and beg to differ with your conclusion. They very often cannot get the shot they want, even with trial and error, ...

 

But Fred, many amateurs CAN. Are you not an amateur yourself? And I'm presuming that you can use trial and error to get the shot YOU want (within reason)? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

Prior to digital, the way this was done was to shoot a series of test shots, along with copious notes as well as id "slates" within each shot. Then the film was developed/printed, and the results evaluated. It was much more tedious, and the photographer essentially had to develop an understanding, of sorts; you might say rules of thumb, for future use of these ideas. As an example, a portrait shooter might keep in mind several different lighting ratios for different situations. The desired ratio could be achieved by using a flashmeter, or some combination of light power/distance to subject. In many cases, the photographer would simply write down the "recipe" for the preferred shot(s).

 

In contrast, the modern digital shooter does not need to develop these "understandings;" they can simply dial a particular light up/down, snap a test shot, then adjust as desired. Now, to be clear, I'm talking mostly about somewhat static shots, not those with a constant "moving target."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I don’t think of myself in terms of amateur and professional because I’m mostly doing photography as art and expression. And, no, I don’t do a lot of chimping and trial and error unless I’m specifically trying to work out an issue. When I’m actually shooting, I shoot, and try to use my experience, knowledge, and gut to guide me rather than my LCD screen. I’m fine with seeing the results when I get home. If I missed something . . . well . . . tomorrow is another day.

 

I was using “amateur” to mean a person not very interested in photography per se, but rather interested in getting decent pics of his kids or tourist attractions.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people do not grasp the concepts of, and relationship between, Time and Quality in their daily lives. Time gets away and moments will never return.

Quality photographs are like fine wine and only appreciate with the passage of time. A lot of skill and time investment goes into the baseline product quality that many never see. Things like wine, art, even refined seed stocks manifest their full value over time, and widespread wholesale hard sell of instant gratification works against maintaining the process of producing quality.

Time is the enemy of poor quality and the ally of high quality.

Edited by Moving On
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many "chain" photo studios pretty much have fixed lighting set-ups, which honestly in most cases can be fine and do get better results on the whole than the person who uses the pop-up on their DSLR or even uses a hot shoe flash blasting straight-on.

 

I've done a fair amount of lighting design for those sorts of situations, including overhead rail systems with softboxes hanging on scissor-lifts. Here's the odd thing about this - the "photographers," even the more adept ones, tend to settle down to only a small handful of configurations that they use over and over again. So there is not much sense in putting in the expensive rail systems; a semi fixed system with a couple of configurations (plus height adjustability) is nearly as good, plus it does not allow as much opportunity to "screw things up."

 

But the real skill here is in handling the people, setting up basic poses or arrangements, then cajoling and manipulating to get the desired expressions. Now this is not something that can be learned from the camera's LCD screen; it has to be learned by actual "doing," generally speeded up via coaching by someone who knows what they're doing.

 

Very few hobbyists will ever come even remotely close to the skill level of the best of these "photographers" (perhaps better called camera operators, or people handlers); it simply takes too much difficult, uncomfortable work, gained by "practicing" thousands and thousands of times.

 

But what the hobbyist usually has is a surplus of available TIME, and they can use this to follow the subject around, snapping shots as they happen to occur. This, combined with the instant feedback of a digital camera, lets these shooters periodically get images that the pro has very little chance of getting. The studio operator doesn't have this luxury of time, as it has to be a sustainable business, and there is generally not much profit in a chain operation; they have to produce results on a tight time schedule.

Edited by Bill C
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using “amateur” to mean a person not very interested in photography per se, but rather interested in getting decent pics of his kids or tourist attractions.

 

I see. To me, an "amateur" is not so limited, although they can be. It's too bad we don't have some better terms to distinguish between levels of amateurism.

 

Personally I don't take offense at the label of amateur. A lady friend used to periodically introduce me as "a professional photographer." People typically respond with, "Oh, are you really?" To which I'd say, "No, not really; I used to be, but nowadays I do mostly more technical work." My friend then says, "But you ARE a professional photographer" (I've spent a number of years actually doing so). So we have a disagreement about what this means; to me it's not pro work unless it's being paid for. Although non-paid work can definitely be of what I'd call professional-level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL things are like that.

 

Methinks this is a sweeping generalization, Denny. The term "older" is not necessarily equivalent in meaning to "better." Moreover, I have no doubt that I've learned from the past in many and varied ways. It does not follow that my life, taken as a whole, is better because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. To me, an "amateur" is not so limited, although they can be. It's too bad we don't have some better terms to distinguish between levels of amateurism.

 

Personally I don't take offense at the label of amateur. A lady friend used to periodically introduce me as "a professional photographer." People typically respond with, "Oh, are you really?" To which I'd say, "No, not really; I used to be, but nowadays I do mostly more technical work." My friend then says, "But you ARE a professional photographer" (I've spent a number of years actually doing so). So we have a disagreement about what this means; to me it's not pro work unless it's being paid for. Although non-paid work can definitely be of what I'd call professional-level.

 

Bill, "amateur" often is used pejoratively. Example: "Linder is just an amateur." I get the feeling that there's at least a few photogs getting paid for their work and occasionally deserving the label "amateur."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people just seem to have a talent for it, supporting what I've always suspected- if you weren't born with it, school probably won't help.

 

Hi Conrad. I've mostly seen it as to whether one has a driving ambition to do it, or not. I think that this sort of thing is perhaps what we often call a "natural talent."

 

As a case in point, I spent a number of years as the QC manager at the outfit where I worked when I met you. My department had included a chemist who did the support work, analytic and otherwise, for our chemical mixing and regeneration operations. Although I was pretty intimately familiar with those things at the general level of a lab tech, I kind of came to the realization that I would never be able to have the sort of know-how that he did, because I didn't have that driving ambition. He ate and slept chemistry. When he went on fishing trips with his buddies, I'm sure he was thinking about the effects of runoff water, including residual fertilizers and pesticides, and how that was affecting the ecosystems. Anyway, no matter how much I might try to "force" myself to "learn" chemistry, I would never have his passion.

 

My fixation would have been on getting images to to tell those stories, and learning an "adequate" amount of chemistry to support anything in the photo process, but not too much beyond that.

 

So to me, some sort of passion, or driving ambition, however it might come about, is the key thing that is often seen as a natural talent. But I dunno, perhaps there is more to it than that.

Edited by Bill C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, "amateur" often is used pejoratively

 

Michael, I understand. I just don't generally like to think of it that way. When I do use it that way, I like to say something to the effect of "amateur, in the bad sense of the word." That aside, I like to see the thing similarly to the photographer Elliot Erwitt. He is quoted as having said, "I'm an amateur photographer, apart from being a professional one, and I think maybe my amateur pictures are the better ones."

Edited by Bill C
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title of the thread refers to commercial photographers and I've used the term professional. In this context what I'm referring to is somebody for whom taking pictures is a source of income. I'm sure there are amateurs who are as skilled technically and artistically as many professionals. Making money from photography involves other skills that an amateur photographer may or may not have. Or may not be interested in obtaining.

 

My sense is that the "image culture" associated with digital photography has indeed created more ways for one to make money from taking pictures, - at least part time. However, if you asked someone what they did for a living, my guess is that fewer would answer "photographer" today than would have a decade or two ago.

 

I would bet if I put my mind to it I could eventually sell a photo or two on a stock photo site. I don't think you have to be that skilled or talented to do something like that. I could never make a living at it (nor would I really want to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sense is that the "image culture" associated with digital photography

And my sense is that the only so-called “image culture” associated with digital photographers is the one some film photographers seem to fabricate for whatever variety of nonsensical reasons.

 

The myth is that because people shoot digitally for their own amusement and occasionally get a decent enough photo of their kids to show off to friends that they’ve all suddenly lost their minds and think they’re of the caliber of a professional.

 

Well, it’s a lot of malarky is what it is. Folks still go to museums to see photo exhibits and they still hire pros for weddings and family portraits. They’re not quite as stupid as the old-time film aficionados would like to make out. That they can take a decent picture themselves does not mean they can’t recognize the skill of and better results achieved by talented, experienced photographers.

 

The idea, as expressed by JDM, that non-photographers think everyone with a digital camera is an expert is both ludicrous and condescending. Then again, it comes from an old-time photographer so it’s not that astounding.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...