Some uncomfortable truths about photography

<p>I cane across a thread with the subject title on Reddit and thought it might make an interesting discussion for us to get a sense of our community thoughts on the matter. </p>

<p>The thread was started by an alleged professional photographer about how changing times is affecting the industry:<br>

<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/ovy78/i_am_a_professional_photographer_id_like_to_share/">http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/ovy78/i_am_a_professional_photographer_id_like_to_share/</a></p>

<p>I think his thoughts probably accurately represent his PJ industry, but there are segments of high end photography that will probably remained unaffected into the foreseeable future, notwithstanding the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_amateurization">mass amateurization</a> of everything. </p>

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

 

<p>This guy would sound more professional without all the 4-letter words, but all the same he has a point of sorts. I am old enough to have 50 years’ experience of the photographic trade, and I can tell you that photography was always a low-rent operation for the average guy, with just a small handful of superstars making serious money.<br>

I decided to move out of professional photography in 1974 when I read that David Bailey was moving into directing commercials, allegedly because there was no money in stills photography. I also recall getting my first front-page publication (in a local newspaper in 1972) and being paid £1.25 for a pic used 5x7 with a 50-word caption also written by me. The main change in 50 years is that the number of well-paid superstars has grown smaller, they are more likely to be celebrity portraitists than advertising people (photojournalism was always badly paid) and users of photography today have many more ways to get pictures for little or no money, which has depressed the rates pros get paid.<br>

Entry into the profession is hard today, particularly if you can’t start by working for free as an intern, but this was always the case. We pros have a saying: “Photography is a rich man’s hobby and a poor man’s profession!” For some reason, against all evidence, photography continues to be regarded by numbers of young people as glamorous, hence the supply of photographers far exceeds demand and rates of payment take a further nosedive.</p>

<p>He's dead right to say that:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>4. Photography is easier than we'd like to admit.</strong><br>

Here's something for you: I've been doing this for a long time. I am an excellent photographer. Give me an assignment and tell me what you want and I assure you, I'll come pretty f***ing close to the picture you had inside your head. I am very, very good at what I do.</p>

<p>You know what? You could learn everything I know in a few months.</p>

<p>Maybe less if you really focus on it.</p>

<p>That's it.</p>

<p>My knowledge, my experiences, all of it- from professional sports to weddings to news to feature to product to portraits.. A few goddamn months.</p>

<p>In college, I studied alongside classical artists like we were equals.</p>

<p>We were not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mixing up the words "opinion" and "truth".</p>

What Ian said

<p>Is photography and the position of the photographer really any different from other creative graphic pursuits? The struggling artists (painting, sculpture) also know the difficulty of surviving as a professional. It is true that the basics of photography, that is, the in-camera making of a photo, are quite simple and technically automated to a large degree, as I think Keith implies, and quite easily acquired up to a certain level. However, the situation is more challenging in regard to good post exposure treatment work (whether darkroom, or Photoshop or its equivalents) and certainly also in terms of perceiving and creating a photograph in the mind before or during exposure. Of course, only some photography is highly creative (as in the arts) or subject to considerable research by the practitioner; the society places a relatively low value on that (unless you are an exceptional artist and photographer) as well as on the more conventional professional activities in photography (PJ, weddings, industrial photography, other commercial photography), although these activities can also be undertaken at quite high creative level. But then we get into the broad pyramid of recognized (and paid for) value, with relatively few at the top of that distribution. </p>

<p><em>"In college, I studied alongside classical artists like we were equals.</em><br /> <em>We were not."</em></p>

<p>Most likely not, but also likely not because of the differences in mediums.</p>

<p>Artists are generally not working on assignment, though some clearly are, like the great FSA photographers. Still, they brought enough to their assignments, other than following orders, that their "assignments" were somehow transformed, and while fulfilling the assignment they also transcended assignment.</p>

<p>Art is something in addition to craft. Photography can be more than a craft, but that takes a lot extra. Not putting down craft. Good craft is an incredible achievement and not to be sneered at.</p>

I am a slow learner. My method of learning has been to shoot lots of bad pictures to try and figure what makes those bad pictures and then to try and condition myself not to make those bad pictures. This method allowed me to stumble upon a good picture every once in a while. As I started doing this with my own photo business in 1997 with film it was a slow process. Now with digital since 2002 I have been able to speed the process because I can shoot thousands more bad pictures and speed up my learning of what makes a non-bad picture. My hit rate is still pretty low but my learning process is much faster with digital as I am no longer buying fifteen or 36 rolls of film out of my business proceeds.. Shooting 300 pictures in an afternoon is not uncommon for me although I am only a sometime semi-pro doing mostly pro-bono work. So today, as Keith says, someone can really speed through my twenty-five year process in a matter of a few months. Some of these younger people are much faster learners than I am and the equipment is so good that maybe they don't have to learn as much as I did technically with film. Just saying.

<p>For me, rarely can learning, in a significant sense, be reduced to quantity. I can see digital speeding up the learning process but not turning years into months. I started with digital 10 years ago and still consider myself to be learning quite a bit. I generally learn more from my keepers than from my rejects. I also learn from books, other photographers, looking at paintings more carefully, going to galleries and museums, encountering different subjects for my portraits and getting a sense of how to work with people, how to relate to them and how they relate to me. Those aspects of learning don't seem to have so much to do with what photographic medium I choose and how many photos a day I take.</p>

Just another internet rant full of references to camera technology, but with nothing to establish credibility or

his level of "professionalism," other than his level of writing and his photographs.

<p>To whom his statements are supposed to be uncomfortable - to the author himself? It's an irrelevant rant and badly written.</p>

<p>For MOST professional photographers:<br>

1- PJ is being hurt - hard to make a name or a living. Newspapers get a ton of free stuff<br>

2- Stock photography is no longer a way to earn a living. Too many penny stocks<br>

3- Senior photography is now VERY mass produced<br>

4- Fine art photography is dying (or dead)<br>

5- Real estate photography is a joke<br>

6- Event photography is a rapid fire and "hope to sell"<br>

7- Wedding? You better be damn good or you will be competing with the newbie and his/her brand new camera<br>

8- Sports? Better be on contract or salary<br>

8- Teaching? You will need a MS or MA for starters - and connections - and a name.<br>

Suggestion. Find another career and shoot because you love it.</p>

 

<p>Steve -- I'd agree with your list except for this:</p>

<blockquote>4- Fine art photography is dying (or dead)</blockquote>

<p>Unless your definition of "dead" refers to the ability to earn a living? In which case it always was "dead". ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would add to the rant that nobody buys photographic fine art anymore. Those who appreciate photographic fine art have the availability of powerful and inexpensive tools to create their own, and even if their own artwork isn't as good as something they might buy from an accomplished artist, it's still better to THEM, because they created it. I can understand that.</p>

<blockquote>I would add to the rant that nobody buys photographic fine art anymore.</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, I would respectfully disagree. From galleries to websites to weekend art shows, there are people who are buying. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>nobody buys photographic fine art anymore</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And of course, some of us assert that there's no such thing anyway - which is why it's "easy" for people to produce their own idea of it, which goes right back to the comment from the article that I quoted up the page.</p>

<p>People have been asserting there's no such thing as photographic art from the time of photography's inception.</p>

<p>Since the world has progressed well beyond the original notion that photos are not art—helped in great part by such photographers as Stieglitz—museums, galleries, curators, art critics, art appreciators, art patrons, and art buyers, as well as most artists themselves, think of at least some photographs as art. I do, too. What other folks on the Internet think is interesting and doesn't much change my own point of view or that of the world of art. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is photography and the position of the photographer really any different from other creative graphic pursuits?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is. It is a technical endeavor, not inherently a creative one. Some visual artists may use photography as a tool to create their images - but the important thing to note is that they are artists first and photography is just a medium for them. A photographer is just a technician. If photography was not so easy, a visual artist would just hire a photographer to capture their vision; to make a parallel to movie making, the artist would act like the director, the photographer would be like the cameraman. But because photography is so darn accessible, artists just pick it up themselves. Most pro photographers are just technicians - that post is about their demise - there is just not that much demand for such technicians, because the skill required has diminished and the modern equipment has made it easy for almost anyone to become such a technician with a minimum of training. Real artists will flourish in whatever medium they choose to use and there will be no abandonment of photography for artistic purposes - photography is just a darn great tool, just like video is. But just like not every cameraman is a director, nor every photographer is an artist either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I would add to the rant that nobody buys photographic fine art anymore.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Sarah, I would respectfully disagree. From galleries to websites to weekend art shows, there are people who are buying.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can attest to this: Over the last three years I've taken my own photography more seriously while also finding myself buying a handful of photos taken by others; a couple at weekend shows and a few from photographers who I have come across on the internet. At the same time, I may be the only person to define what I've purchased as fine art.</p>

<p>Perhaps photography is shifting toward a time when a good percentage of the world's fine artists will be serious <em>hobbyists</em> rather than full-time professionals. Some, of course, may see this as a loss of a profession.</p>

<p>When I was in college I told a professor I wanted to be a writer. He asked what I wanted to do for a living and detailed the day jobs of a many great writers throughout history. What he said didn't dissuade me from writing. It did, however, change my youthful idea of writing as a profession. The funny thing is writing ended up being what I do for a living, just not quite in the way I imagined.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Keith Reeder -- <em>And of course, some of us assert that there's no such thing anyway - which is why it's "easy" for people to produce their own idea of it, which goes right back to the comment from the article that I quoted up the page.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G. -- <em>People have been asserting there's no such thing as photographic art from the time of photography's inception.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anything can be defined out of existence: “Fine Art can only be X, Y and Z. Photography does not have X, Y or Z, so therefore there is no such thing as Fine Art photography.” As Fred pointed out, this debate raged over a century ago. Based upon the galleries, museums, writers, artists, critics, auction houses and collectors who have taken photographic art quite seriously now for many decades, I’m not sure what’s left to debate.</p>

<p>But in the section of the article quoted by Keith Reeder, I think there are some real grains of truth in regard to certain types of photography. As an example, there are those who speak of National Geographic photographers with a certain reverence. I was watching a NG special the other night that dealt with “their” photographers. As I watched, I wondered how much could be credited to the talent of the photographers, and how much could be credited simply to the fact that they were competent and that <em>they were there</em>. Put any one of a hundred talented Photo.net members in the same place and you come away with photographs just as good. Whether it’s a view from a never before climbed peak in Antarctica, or a portrait of an Afghan girl with piercing eyes, it was the simple act of being there that mattered most. (Yes, I know. To some I’m speaking heresy.) Of the various photographers featured in the NG special, only Jodi Cobb’s work on 21^st Century slavery displayed a talent that went beyond journeyman photographic skills and simply happening to be in an exotic location. In that regard, I think the author of the article did hit upon a truth when he said he could teach people to do the same thing that he did.</p>

<p>But what neither he, nor anyone, can do is give someone the same eye and outlook as Alfred Steiglitz, Richard Avedon, Nan Golding, Robert Frank, Minor White, William Eggleston, or Diane Arbus. Could any of them (or many contemporary photographers) stand as equals with a “classical artist”? You’re damn right they could.</p>

<p>Oh year, back to the linked article: I don't buy the writer's <em>D3 gives the rich kid a big advantage in his sports portfolio theory</em>. I know an actual working sports photographer who is still shooting his Canon ID MKII. Street value, what, $600 tops? Why because he says it's all he needs to do his job. He's a highly amusing chap of the grizzled-pro persuasion; cleans his sensor with a Q-Tip. I think it's the rare student or hobbyist who is actually held back by his gear.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Whenever I see someone complaining they are losing work to people who have just bought cameras, I think one of two things:<br>

- they are crap and not long for the photo world<br>

- they are going after the wrong customers<br>

If I was say, a professional trombone player, and all of a sudden everyone bought a trombone, I would like to think my trombone playing stand above the overall din. I wouldn't worry about losing work, just sleep.</p>

<p>@ Steve Gubin</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...it was the simple act of being there that mattered most.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So glad you raised a point that is so often on my mind.</p>

<p>I call it the <em>privileged observer theory</em> of what is often called great photography. It could have been an amazing moment, or magical light or a captivating subject; but was it great photography?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Put any one of a hundred talented Photo.net members in the same place and you come away with photographs just as good. "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, I thought the same for years believing access was everything to a competent photographer, but over time I began to realize it's much more than that. <br>

<br>

Whether a National Geographic or BBC documentary photographer/cinematographer, or the official White House photographer, the required professional attribute go way beyond photographic skill. Their work and consistent results under the most challenging of circumstances call for a host of intangible complementary skills such as perseverance, endurance, will, and the ability to perform consistently under extreme pressure in order to deliver their high quality results. <br>

<br>

Of course even these guys aren't immune to becoming displaced by the onslaught of mass amateurs, so they reinvent themselves to achieve the next level that a tourist sitting in back of a truck shooting predictable wildlife in an African game park with his D3 can never attain. They make use their resources creatively to produce results that few can replicate, which probably explains why these guys are still around. <br>

<br>

There are so many dimensions to this and so many disruptive prongs pointing at professionals in every discipline that the only conclusion I draw from it all is this - versatility rules and specialization is dead. If you're only a good photographer under a singular circumstance and possess no other skill, then be prepared to remain an amateur and let the big boys do their thing. <br>

<br>

I don't know the statistics on the total amount of dollars spent on photography services, but I'm guessing it's probably higher than it ever was, and even if I'm wrong, there are many professional disciplines whose operating climate has changed even more dramatically than photography yet have survived through adaptation and interdisciplinary skill development. Automotive mechanics come to mind. <br>

</p>

<p>Michael -- Good points all.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Their work and consistent results under the most challenging of circumstances call for a host of intangible complementary skills such as perseverance, endurance, will, and the ability to perform consistently under extreme pressure in order to deliver their high quality results.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. My error for oversimplifying. But what I was primarily referring to was the photograph itself. I do not mean to minimize the host of intangible skills required of a photographer to obtain some of those NG photographs. But that is not photographic skill. In the context of Keith Reeder’s contention that there is no such thing as fine art photography, few NG photographers rise to that level because they are in many ways the “privileged observer” that Paul Cervantes alludes to. They record. Of course there is creativity and interpretive skills involved, but the recording is what is paramount (albeit of a certain level of quality). An Arbus, an Avedon, or an Eggleston does more than record. They expose, they reveal, they infuriate, they shock, they confound, they teach, they show us what was there but in a different way than we previously had seen. They create. They do not record exotic eye candy. I maintain that even given the need for those intangible skills you mention, you could find a number of photographers here on PNet capable of doing everything Steve McCurry ever did. But I seriously doubt that you will find a single Arbus or Eggleston. </p>