Is our craft dumbing down? If so, why?

[cjogo]

GARRY--I have also been engineering/recording for over 30 years...and the technology available, has escalated > beyond anything I could even fathom 15 years ago. I hear a "dumbing down" process in the quality of song material produced, across the industry. It's like mastering in PS or on your DAW >> one can fix it later. No fundamentals of tape recording (i.e. film ) - the early principles that we cut our teeth with, in the studio. ANd I apply the same economics of pricing, for clients in the recording studio. Editing/mastering is costly. I hand over a "rough" CD of the clients music :: just as I do in photography. They can return for polishing, when they have the funds.

[fotografz]

Concerning client influence on this business:

 

To me there are basically two categories of extremely successful wedding photographers:

 

Ones that blow smoke up the client rear with incredibly skillful social skills, then apply

mediocre photographic ability ... but are good enough to not be a hack.

 

Then ones that are really good photographers and passable sales people with decent

people skills.

 

There are clients out there that DO discriminate between the two. It's why photographers

like Jeff Ascough are booked into their next lifetime ... at a pretty penny I might add.

 

I prefer aspiring to the latter not the former.

 

P.S, I also noticed that the type of client I aspire to (and fortunately have been booking) are

quite creative and actually do recognize it when you bust your hump to improve your art

and craft. They also tend to be more interesting to photograph sometimes ...<div></div>

[fotografz]

Sorry again Ben,

 

"yada, yada, yada ...is going to be a very poor professional photographer."

 

I'm hardly "poor" Ben.

 

The only time my photo business didn't put bread (as in money") on the table, was when I

didn't attend to the art of it all. The better you get, the more money you can command.

Not just in this business, in ANY business. Yes, you need to promote your art, but that's a

separate discussion.

 

But everyone is entitled to go at this any way they want. I prefer making more money, not

figuring out how to shoot for less.

[eric merrill]

Marc:

 

"So here was an ancient way of shooting coupled with the latest technology. No meter, no ability to focus."

 

I think that if you used a coke bottle bottom for a lens and a leaky shoebox for a camera, you'd still come back with amazing images. :)

 

Is photography being dumbed down? Absolutely. I went to the movies the other night with a buddy. His wife is a high school teacher. He mentioned that she's using a digital camera that belongs to the school to take senior pictures of students at a local park. They go to Walmart to have them printed. These kids aren't able to pay for a professional job, so whatever quality they're getting, they're happy with. This would concern me if I set up my business so that I'm competing on price. Hard to compete successfully against Walmart's cost of prints only.

 

Digital photography is enabling the masses to create better photos by only having to explicitly pay for the "keepers." It doesn't really matter if my friend's wife takes 300 pictures to get one acceptable shot. She's not charging for her time, and the end cost to the student is the same as if she took one exposure and had a 100% success rate.

 

My opinion? I say good for her. She's performing a service that these kids need.

 

 

Eric

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

We are operating in very different circles Marc...

 

My only wish is to make my clients go 'wow' when they look at their pictures and walk out very happy. The vast majority of them would not know why the pictures pop, just that they do. I don't do mediocre pictures, it's the reason why I'm popular at the moment, that I'm willing to go the extra inch and be inventive whereas the other photographers in my price bracket do the same old thing each wedding. That I do not have to charge more for that extra inch means that I can be competitive in a lower middle class area.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Nice shot Ben. And no wrist slapping : -) Cloning out a teen's embarrassing acne is a

perfect use of the wonders of PS. Of course, a Softar filter would do the same thing

without all the work ; -)

 

Plus, don't think the circles I travel in are teeming with wealthy dilettantes. They're just

people who place a premium on creativity and artistic endeavor who come from all walks

of life. Remember, I'm based in Detroit not LA or NYC.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

And I'm based in Manchester, one of the scummy and very common parts of the UK (I'm a Mancunian I'm allowed to say it;-)).

 

Only one of my clients so far in my opinion attached serious importance to the photographic side of the wedding to the extent of saying "charge what you want, hire who and what you want, just get me photos on par with 'x'"! (the top Jewish photographer in the UK who charges about 10 times what I do). That's fine with me, an assistant, unlimited contol over the lighting and a family who won't lose patience with me, I'm in heaven. Most of my clients have the photographer as part of the whole deal and wouldn't know artistic photography if you hit them over the head with it, neither are they particularly willing to pay for a top class job. It's very fustrating not being able to spread yourself, due to the client and their budget. If my pictures are mediocre it's due to the boring clients!

I try to express myself with my landscape work, at least there the mountain is not saying that 'it's sure that was enough portraits' after two shots!

[andre j.]

And the answer to Marc's original question is :

 

(drum roll)

 

________________________________________________ !

)&*%@# ( )%@($(@$ %@$#@# @^@ +*

[khitrovg]

Marc,

Excellent thread. I too find myself edited and adjusting those shots that don't need adjusting in PS. Why? Perhaps allowing me to see what else can be done to the image. I too agree with you with regard to the film photographs. All of my film gets drum scanned and I almost never ps manipulate them, perhaps to covert to B/W at times but that's it. With digital and I am talking about 300-700 images I tend to go through all of them add a bit of sat here or a little bit of USM there.

 

I think for my next gig I am going to try to go straight without any PS. Very possible especialy since most of us shoot RAW now.

 

Best,

Greg

[cjogo]

drum roll-and cymbal crash'/" the answer is

=== the clients are dumbing us down ====

Our quality/craft is being dictated by the dumbed-down economics, and somewhat by the fact that everybodies carrying a digital camera; with open-ended skills. When we produce a CD of images --with direct from the camera files ->- for the budget clients ..we always include one duplicate selected~image :: crafted fully to a "finished" product ,in PS. So, they now know what quality can be delivered ..if they so choose.

[fotografz]

Sorry, but I just don't buy "there's no money in improving your work" or "the client made

me do it" excuses. Looooong suffering experience as proven to me that exactly the

opposite is true. The more you strive to improve, even when faced with difficult

circumstances, the more likely you are to succeed at removing yourself from those

circumstances.

 

Do I understand the situations being debated? Sure, I didn't just fall off the Turnip Truck.

 

Nothing we face at weddings can be worse than the advertising business ... where

extremely big money is involved. Creative people strive like hell to improve the work, and

it's judged by a committee of individuals who's wives won't let them dress themselves.

Or worse yet, is offered up as a sacrificial lamb to a focus group made up of people who

had to decide if they'd take the $50 participant fee, or sell their blood.

 

People in the ad business that capitulate to these circumstances ALWAYS loose the account

eventually, because doing what you're told almost never works out in the real world. In

addition, you get tagged as an agency that does mediocre work, and no one will hire you

to do their ad campaign ... not even mediocre corporations who never did a decent ad in

their entire history.

 

In the end, it a highly personal, introspective task to improve ones art and craft. It may

take a long time to pay dividends. But in the process I think you get plenty of rewards

other than the financial kind.

[cjogo]

MARC-- "there's no money in improving your work" Yes, quite the opposite. There is great money in improving your work--and I make sure my clients pay for that improvement. <>

I have managed to stay very busy, and improve my skills : both in sales/and the craft, for over 25 years. Every client receives the exact amount of quality they pay for --never more or less. The price only dictates the time I spend --both in the actual photography performed and the back-end skills I apply. I guess business is first these days, for me at least. Early retirement is something to look forward & much more rewarding for me == than that perfect photo hanging on someones wall ( or probabaly in a closet by now )<>

 

 

I apply the same business format in my recording studio and the fine art images, that have been fortunate to sell, in the galleries all these years. I started 2 years ago, to teach/lecture :: from high school class level programs > to individuals. From FineArt B&W field skills --to the money aspects of the business. The young students, that I have encountered from the MidWest to local West Coast Schools, are really more money driven > than I ever was at their age.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

I see your point Marc and I think you are right, if you are willing to expend more money on making sure this one is 'right' even though you are cutting into your profits then the next wedding could be more lucrative as by then you cn put your price up and work for a different class (price wise) of clientele.

 

If your sole living is from your photography then having anything cut into your profit hurts and hurts a lot. What you are saying is that shooting more is an invesment to your art, I agree, I just cannot afford at the moment to make that invesment. Or at least I couldn't with film, with digital I take as many pictures as it takes to get 'the' definitive moment and my product is a lot better for it.

 

Marc, yes I will go to the nth degree to make sure that my pictures are perfect, what I'm saying is that I couldn't afford to last year. Since I've been supplying a better product I've gone more upmarket as my pictures are good enough for that market. I've just ordered a print run of sleeves for my CD cases, again to try and present a more professional package. What digital did was enable me to jump into this market without having to invest the extra rolls of film at each event for a year or so until my portfolio would enable me to go further upmarket.

 

I agree with your point, but for me and maybe others out there, the ability to make sure that your level of art is as good as it can be (i.e. without limitations) while trying to make a living means sacrificing profits until your prices can match your extra expenditure and effort....or invest in digital so that getting the picture 'right' doesn't cost you any extra.

 

and before you say it, digital could be more of an investment than a year of shooting a roll or two extra per event, it wasn't in my case by a long stretch, if you work out the math of two extra rolls of film with 7X5" prints, about 3 times a week, and at the prices my lab charges plus film costs, I could have bought a 10D in a month and a half.

 

I think that it is a valid point though that the attitude of 'let's get the best possible deal' on the part of the client as was mentioned above means that photographers are not particularly willing to stretch themselves when the client is not particularly willing to pay. It's probably a reflection on modern day society in the modern world more than anything else.

 

I came to the conclusion recently as I went more upmarket with my pricing, that if you charge little then they will try to bargain you down, if you charge a lot then they will pay without a whimper...

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

BTW my wife says she's going to ban me from this thread.... ;-)

[mike bauer]

Howdy folks~

 

I thought I would put in my .02, even thought I only read about 70% of the posts all the way through.

 

I am an amateur photographer, and I read this forum because I find it interesting, and also because I may attempt to shoot weddings professionally at some point. For now, my concentration is on concert photography, with a little bit nature thrown in.

 

I can see both sides to the coin when it comes to "dumbing down" I certainly have seen a LOT of posts where people are heading off to shoot a wedding and asking what gear they need. Obviously, it would have made more sense for them to do some research beforehand, but you have to keep in mind that probably 90% of these folks have no intention of "going pro" with the craft.

 

The other side I see, and it took me a while to come to this conclusion, is that a lot of the fixes people attempt to do in PS have always been available in the darkroom. Dodge, burn, changing exposure times with the enlarger and developing times, etc - good photographers have been doing this forever. What's the difference between pushing your negs a little longer in the bath and bumping up the RGB levels in PS? Not much, if you ask me. Same goes for adding filters to the enlarger head to adjust the color.

 

As I mentioned, I am an amateur, but I do have the desire to do this for a living at some point. For about 90% of the shots I "fix" it's simply out of necessity - for a lot of the shows I shoot, there is very little light, and I can't use a flash. I do, however, think the results are worth it.

 

I love shooting film, but I find I am learning a lot more shooting digital, nevermind the fact I don't have to spend hours scanning. I do, however, treat my digital shots as film, and never go in with the mindset that I can fix them later - but it is handy to know that I can

 

 

Just my .02

 

Mike

www.badcatphoto.com

[anner]

I feel highly unqualified to say anything of meaning but I do find the opinions here

facinating. I think that, as photographers, we make choices about what KIND of

photographer we are going to be. Some photographers make a living (and an art) by

being very careful, judicious, and selective in the subjects which they choose to capture

and in a way that may please only them with a very specific technical skill. Other

photographers approach wedding photography as a business and cater to the client's style

and requests rather than definining their own style, which may warrent a lot of changes to

accommodate each client's individual needs (enter PS). And still there are even other

photographers who don't care about their work, or the client's needs, and just provide

inexpensive alternatives as a form of income for themselves. Fortunately or unfortunately,

there is a bride, and wedding work, for each of these photographers.

 

While I absolutely LOVE fine art work, especially when it is applied to the context of a

wedding, I would not turn to someone else and say that their work is less important or

"dumbed down" because they have chosen to be a different type of photographer or

perhaps do not have the technical knowledge or eye of someone who is also qualified to

do fine art. Some people seem to be perfectly happy with not having the technical skills of

an experienced photographer and they do well compensating with graphic design and PS

skills. Who am I to say that a graphic artist's work is less important than a

photographer's? Essentially, I feel there is no right or wrong- no smart or dumb- only

different ways of doing things and as someone who always seeks to improve, I embrace

what it is that I can learn from people who have different skills than I do.

[cjogo]

I'll just stay with the art of film >> until our clients can afford the craft of digital.

[anner]

Your image reminded me a lot of my own.. only, of course, with equipment worth 80% less

than yours...<div></div>

[fotografz]

Very PC Anne.

 

So it's okay to shoot bad photographs and fix them later depending on who you are or

who you are shooting for?

 

The point was to shoot them right in the first place. Which actually fulfills all the criteria

you outlined. The concerned artist improves their work. The financially motivated have to

do less work afterwards (time is money), and those catering to long hours for minimum

wage, might be able to move up a notch.

 

"Dumbing down" is in reference to poor basic camera skills or none at all ... which result in

images that shouldn't have been taken in the first place, let alone warrant hours in PS to

repair.

 

Without SOME standards, even the most basic ones, this is hardly a profession. Instead it

becomes something that commands little respect for the experience, craft and art required

to provide a professional product.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

So what criteria would that be based on, if a photographer is as at home with film as with digital, could shoot a wedding equally with either (albeit with a bigger budget for film use) would that define him as a 'non PS bound' photographer?

 

If a photographer is doing, or able to do 95% of his post-process work in the RAW converter, and only minor touching up in PS, is that not the equivelent to shooting film and having the lab colour and density correct his prints?

 

There needs to be a distinction made between using PS to 'make' the image and using PS to get your pictures to look as if they were shot on a good pro portrait film using superior colour management and contrast/exposure control. Or for that matter trying to expand and cope with the limited DR that digital gives you.

 

If the former is true then it doesn't say much at all for the photographer, if the latter then it is no different to shooting film except you might be able to save a picture when ETTL ****'s up an important shot.

 

When taking a shot using flash of a subject who is pretty near to you and you overexpose. With film it means that on the print the background will be dark. On digital, assuming you haven't blown the highlights, it also means that your background will be dark. So far no difference. With PS a simple shadow/highlights taking 5 seconds will help to fix the situation, with film a costly hand print taking a couple of days will also fix the situation. The fact that it is so easy to correct in PS means that the photographer does not particularly worry about overexposing his flash, he looks at the histogram, sees that the highlights are intact and moves on.

 

STOP! That photographer is guilty of what I believe Marc is talking about.

 

So why should it bother you Marc? I used to shoot film and I shoot the same way with digital (except more ;-)) You are as busy as me and I'm sure as unwilling to leave Bridge to go to PS for extra work. I shoot a wedding, update the files in ACR and then action to Jpeg. For proofs I doubt you do much different. So change the comparison from 'digital to darkroom', to 'ACR to darkroom' and the differences become a lot lot less. If you're shooting with a ACR mindset it shouldn't be that much different to film, hell if I know that I have 200 proofs to work through as I have another job tomorrow, plus I know that I'm working with a limited DR sensor I'm a damn sight more careful exposure wise than I ever was with film.

 

Does what I'm saying make sense?

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Reminds me of a friend who is in university learning photography. She accepted to shoot a wedding. I got a phone call asking me to see if I could photoshop her images back to life. Shooting in a dark hall at 1/90 f8, overexposing the flash and worst of all using a 12-24mm lens close up on people (groan!).....

 

Bad photography, and for all my hours of work in photoshop the clients sent the prints straight back, I don't think any satisfactory solution was ever reached. This is nothing to do with digital, it was just bad photography by a student who had a 20D, trusted it to do all the work, did not have a clue about how to use the damn thing.......and then thought it could be fixed in photoshop......

 

I think that this is the kind of thing you are talking about, but I don't see how it should affect you.

[stacy]

Ben- I don't think Marc is talking about you- or talking about digital- he's talking about people who don't know or really care what they're doing and do a half ass job- (with exposure, composition- etc) thinking- oh well- I'll fix it later in PS. I've seen a book of proofs were everything was very manipulated because it had to be. That is not the same as removing acne. Your photos are nice- you know what your doing- you're paying attention and you care what you show your client. I'm sure you see it here all the time- blow out- bad compostions-camera shake...etc- disguised with a hefty dose of blur and glow. There are also some great photographers on this forum who I admire. I know- we all have bad shots from time to time. But there are people who are selling their work that are really bad photographers and making wedding photography a less respectable form of photography to the general public. Anyway- I don't mean to speak for Marc (sorry Marc) but that is what I'm taking away from this thread.

[fotografz]

Makes all the sense in the world Ben. Get it right in the first place. However, I started this

thread and continue to try and avoid digital verses film, lab verses PS (for basic

processing), money verse art.

 

What I am pointing to is "dumb" shooting, ... as in not knowing what they are doing with a

camera. Relying on automation while not knowing what it is automatically doing.

Automation is based on averages ... which works most of the time, but fails far to many

times ( your ETTL example Ben). Then when automation fails, resorting to PS not as a

processing tool, but a miracle worker ... unfortunately in the hands of those with a less

than talented eye ... or they wouldn't be in the fix they're in to begin with.

 

I'm also talking about basic aesthetics. Simple design and composition principles that

escape so many newly Pro photographers.

 

All this has nothing to do with the cost of gear BTW (again). Which seems to escape some

folks like Anne...

 

.. only, of course, with equipment worth 80% less than yours...

 

So, Anne, here's one shot with a Lens Baby, which is worth 200% less than your lens ; -)<div></div>

[lofgreenimages]

Wow this is a great thread. First off let me say that I am not a full time pro wedding photographer. I have shot a wedding and some other events for fiends but I have been in the creative biz 16 years. I shoot film and digital.

<P>

As far as I am concerned time is money. I don't like to waist my time when I can pay someone much less than it would cost me to do post processing. This issue is not the digital vs. film debate. If you can get the shot in camera it saves you money, period.

<P>

As far as the craft goes I think that the better you are the better your rep is and the better your "brand" is. As a pro your brand is as important as your photos. What I have seen in the past decade or more is the comodiziation (sp?) of creative services. Weather it is photography, graphic design, Industrial design or any other creative profession. Web designers today are competing with companies in India that charge a fraction of what the guys in the states are charging. How do the U.S. (or other developed nations) designers compete with this price issue? VALUE! Do you want to be a "big box" volume type photographer or a "Nordstrom" value type photographer. It doesn't matter if you use film of digital it's the value you bring to your clients and a good photographer brings value no matter the medium.

<P>

Here is something else I have been noticing with friends and family. They all have a computer and they all have digital cameras. They see my 35mm camera and ask if I am shooting digital. I say "no, I have some black and white film in here that I develop and print in my dark room". There response is "Wow, that is so cool, I wish I could do that". It seems to me that the more familiar people become with digital imaging the less they hold a value in it. Wear as traditional film has some sort of talent or mystique to it. Just MHO.

[fotografz]

Jeeze, that shot is flat as a pancake uploaded here. I think I just discovered why ... let's see

if this fixes it ...<div></div>