The Photography Hobbyist and the Digital Age

[joshua_mortel]

<p>Before, I could take photos of strangers with my film camera and the only way they'd be able to see it is if they were my close friend and I'd see them again. Now more than ever people pose for a photo taken with a DSLR and immediately want to see the photo on the mini-LCD. Not only that, they ask where it'll be posted and sometimes download it and use it for their profile pic or something. This doesn't bother me, but it just gets me thinking about what I'm doing with my photography.</p>

<p>I am really lousy at promoting myself and, at the same time --I don't want to sound snobby or elitist--, but I have no deep desire to share my work or have other people look at my photos (I am not trying to be noticed or discovered as a photographer). I post my photos on a social networking site but that is more like a favor to my subjects rather than trying to get a pat on the back or whatever. My album sizes are getting larger and larger and I keep thinking about deleting all the photos someday, but I feel like they need to be "up".</p>

<p>I sometimes consider buying a domain and making a photography website, but I don't know to what ends --I'm not really looking for a job or anything. I run into other photographers and they have business cards printed up and they post their portfolio --I've met some photographers covering events that are hustling really hard to get their name out there. People see my gear and EXPECT me to have a website, but I don't; it confuses people. When I don't share my photos I think I come off as a jerk; I feel obligated to start a website to share my photos...</p>

<p>Looking at other photographers' websites is a mixed bag. I've seen photos so lousy with the photographer's water-mark all over them, and --on the flip-side--, I've also seen some really excellent photography on p.net with no stamp of ownership at all.</p>

<p>TL;DR = How do you promote your photography, and why? Also, does the photographer have a responsibility to show the photo he took to the subject and, if so, do you take credit for the image and put your URL on the photo? Thanks!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>inb4 "OP isn't supposed to write 'tl;dr'."</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>huh? ICFOWATAM RUA:?</p>

<p>If you are "stealing people's souls", speaking figuratively, by photographing them, don't you think you owe them a little something? If you're reluctant to share those images with the original person, should you be photographing them at all?<br>

Legal rights aside, I think there are general ethical standards in civilized society that you have some obligations to the person whose image you have "taken."</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>does the photographer have a responsibility to show the photo he took to the subject</em></p>

<p>Its a harmless and normal custom in society, when painting or drawing a person in their presence, to show them the result. This is usually accomplished by simply, well, showing it to them. When film ruled, this wasn't so easy unless it were a Poloroid or something and those were customarily shown rightaway because it was easy and quick. All the digital age did in this regard is make most images easy to display quickly, if not on the spot, soon thereafter in an accessable format. If you like to make pictures of people in your presence, like the painter and drawer, but showing the person the results carries the burden of doing them "a favor", you will just have to live with it to some extent like everybody else does when they don't care for a particular custom of society. If I like going to birthday parties but don't like to give someone presents, then I can either put up with it and bring a gift or I can stay home. If you don't care to show people pictures you took of them you can either do it grudgingly or don't take their picture. Its your call. I probably wouldn't go with the option of going to the birthday party without the birthday present though.</p>

<p>As far as the other questions, does it really matter since they are subjects that you say you are not really interested in?</p>

[joshua_mortel]

<p>Jenkins - ;)</p>

<p>Weinberg - TL;DR just means "Too Long; Didn't Read" Let's say you covered an event.. took a photo of a couple. After the event is over you go through the photos and realize the photo of the couple wasn't all that great... do you post it? Artistically, maybe it is a weak photo that will hurt the set..... because you took the photo of them, are you obligated to share it?</p>

<p>Henneberger - I always give a present when I go to birthdays ;) No, I know what you're saying... I've heard both sides of the argument. There are people that would like to see and have their photo, but not share it with the entire world too. Is there something sacred in the photograph? It seems as though there is some intrinsic contract in the process. Is it right for a photographer to use someone's image to promote one's own business?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I almost never show anyone a photo I take of them. If it's something that I think might really interest them, I might show it to them. I also don't "chimp" and don't look that much at my own photos on the camera except to check exposure, tell if I have something there or to see the histogram to adjust exposure.</p>

<p>I also shoot quite a bit with credentials, so people don't ask to see very often.</p>

[anthea50]

<p >Joshua:</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em ><strong>People see my gear and EXPECT me to have a website, but I don't</strong>; it confuses people. When I don't share my photos I think I come off as a jerk; <strong>I feel obligated to start a website to share my photos...</strong></em></p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >So what is this?</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.soft-pixel.com/index.html">http://www.soft-pixel.com/index.html</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Looks like a ‘pro’ site to me with your name on it.

<p>That is not a social networking site BTW.</p>

 

<p > </p>

<p >As we say in Australia: “Please explain?”</p>

<p > </p>

</p>

[scot]

<p>I just give 'em my card. If they want to take the time to email me, I send 'em the image. That way, I don't have to worry about posting it on my website, which doesn't, in any case, exist. I don't offer to show them the image on the screen.<br>

Like the original poster Josh, I have no interest in sales. (After 20 years of hustling my writing, I've decided not to go through that with photography.)</p>

<p>scot</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>A few months ago I felt obligated to show images I was taking in the park with my DSLR to a man who came up to me asking who I was. I mean he just came out of the blue and said he saw me taking photos of his family.</p>

<p>I told him I wasn't shooting his family but was composing a scene that was off to the side of where his family was congregated. He didn't believe me and kept pressing for my name. I was going to prove it to him by letting him scroll through the LCD preview of all my shots I'ld taken, but then I felt this was getting way too weird and didn't want to give the guy any more options for continuing the inquisition.</p>

<p>I do think my being the only one in the park with a DSLR and long lens, a Sigma 70-300, had something to do with his line of questioning because there were others near by he didn't question with their P&S's just randomly pointing their camera in all directions taking pictures.</p>

<p>I told him if he wanted to know who I was to google my name and that my PN and ImagePro gallery would show up telling him everything he needed to know about me. He then asked for a business card and I told him I didn't have it on me being it was on a Sunday and he chuckled in disbelief and walked off.</p>

<p>I've never had this happen to me ever before using a film SLR and 50mm lens back in the mid '80's. So from this experience I do believe digital camera's, the internet and the news media's showing their affect on people's lives has changed people's behavior when they know their picture is being taken in public more so now than ever before.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Joshua, you don't need to be a pro or self-professed "serious" artist to present your photos in any way that pleases you. If you pursue photography for your own pleasure, you get to choose how you present your photos.</p>

<p>One advantage to being a true amateur is the freedom from constraints such as presenting only one genre of work, even if your interests are diverse. If I was a working pro pursuing clients, or seriously trying to get gallery representation, I'd feel obligated to more carefully select what I present online. Free of those constraints, my gallery is a hodge podge of whatever I feel like doing and showing.</p>

<p>I do a lot of casual photography of events, and gatherings of family and friends. I don't often display those online. Occasionally I'll slap a bunch of 'em up on my Flickr account to make it easier for folks to download and print those snapshots, if they care to do so. I'll also burn CDs and give 'em away. But I don't make any other real effort to share those photos. I used to spend a ton of money making extra prints from negatives for those types of things. I don't do that anymore.</p>

<p>Labeling photos, even small online JPEGs, with copyrights and websites or e-mail addresses is tricky. Some folks criticize this as pretentious (gawd, don't hipsters obsess over that word). I can't say I blame anyone for labeling their photos as they see fit. Even a tiny JPEG may be swiped to be reused for unauthorized promotional purposes as part of a banner, ad or other use online. The old paradigm of "it ain't big enough to make a decent print" really doesn't apply online. Look at how graphics associated with memes and macros go viral. Most of the time those photos and graphics are very low resolution. Some, like "longcat", aren't even in focus. But when an image catches the collective fancy it doesn't matter how tiny the image. So I can sympathize with photographers who want to retain some identity with their work.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Now more than ever people pose for a photo taken with a DSLR and immediately want to see the photo on the mini-

LCD.

 

Odd. I do a *lot* of impromptu street portraits of strangers and I don't remember anyone ever asking me to see what was snapped.

[Ray House]

<p>I'm with Anthea Scotte...please explain! Troll?</p>

[joshua_mortel]

<p>Thank you for everyone that replied to my post..</p>

<p>Scotte & House - I am not trolling! That website is a long story... maybe it is a story for another thread but --long story short-- my best friend and I tried to do wedding photography a while back. I guess that is only something one can attempt when one is extremely experienced or extremely naive. It was a partnership that ended badly because of our differences in style... and to make things even more dramatic he shoots with Canon and I shoot with Nikon. I was not meaning to troll with this post, but I was trying to get some feedback on everyone's different style of self-promotion and how each photographer goes about that. I did not mean to sound condescending either; in fact that is one of the main reasons I wanted to not do wedding photography --I realize that there is still a lot to learn, and I am still learning.</p>

<p>Steele - Thank you for your input. I agree with you --I feel that I do my best work when I am not being paid for my time, when I am free to pursue a creative shot that may take some time to get.</p>

<p>Lookingbill - I think that the more open I am with my photos, the more comfort it gives strangers when one is doing street photography. I think that is when the personality of the photographer really comes into play --to reassure the subject that the photo will be treated with the utmost respect. At the same time, I'm not sure if I am doing a disservice to my fellow photographers... it is making it so that subject expects to see the back of the camera, and also the finished product uploaded somewhere. As far as personal rights go... I think it is the photographer's right to be free to photograph anyone in a public space without permission if it is used for non-commercial purposes. I started this thread because I am really not sure what to do...</p>

<p>Jenkins - For me personally, I don't really care if an image I shot goes up everywhere or turns into a meme, I am more concerned with that person (thing) being... exploited (for lack of a better word) without the subject's permission. I sure wouldn't want a photo of myself getting captioned and spread throughout the internet.</p>

<p>Brad - Sometimes I photograph people that get excited and want to see the result. Otherwise they are insecure about how they look. I don't get it often, but it is kind of annoying to have to show a result, having the photo be fine, but having the subject(s) not like the photo.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>Is there something sacred in the photograph? It seems as though there is some intrinsic contract in the process. Is it right for a photographer to use someone's image to promote one's own business?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

People in a society have customs and common reactions to situations but are not always followed with strict uniformity. Its not difficult to understand in that context. As to non-business photograpghy, people generally want to see images made of them if its readily available but don't necessarily want them shown to everybody else. The sociological and psychological reasons behind this might be interesting but writing a whole thesis about might be better suited for a student in those fields. For us, it just is what it is.<br>

<em></em><br>

As to using one's likeness to promote business there are legal parameters defining that because people should not be wrongly associated with a business or shown to be endorsing business activities without consent. This arose out of customs and reactions within society as well.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>...I am more concerned with that person (thing) being... exploited (for lack of a better word) without the subject's permission. I sure wouldn't want a photo of myself getting captioned and spread throughout the internet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> A valid concern. But I'm afraid there is no easy solution. There is no image too small to be exploited. If it's large enough to be visible and recognizable, it's large enough to be exploited. Most web thumbnails are under 100x100 pixels in dimensions. Even smaller photos are routinely copied, modified or used with satirical captions added, and republished around the web. Happens every day, many times a day.</p>

<p>There is absolutely no way to predict which images will catch on and be recycled indefinitely and which will have a short shelf life and fade from public view. Photos of Eric Lynch ("Eric the Midget" from the Howard Stern show) appear almost daily around the web, as reaction images and in other satirical use. And who would have guessed that Boxxy photos and videos would still be getting attention after almost a year - an eternity in the memescape. These are real people, human beings, not merely cartoon characters, and some of the attention has been unfavorable and probably very uncomfortable for the subjects of this unanticipated attention.</p>

<p>It gets worse, much worse. For whatever reason, photos of victims of horrible accidents and crimes are recirculated for the amusement of a small but noisy audience who delight in gore and humiliating others. While that mentality is nothing new, the internet has facilitated the rapid, widespread distribution of these images.</p>

<p>The only solution is to decline to publish your images at all, in any size, on the web. Or to accept that fact that there will always be - and have always been - a few miscreants who will paint mustaches on the Mona Lisa. Only you can decide whether it's worth the small risk to display your work, or hide it from view.</p>

[ymmij]

<p>Why be a photographer if not wanting to openly share your work one way or the other? As our business IS capturing moments and/or memories. I have never received compensation for any of my work, but know from graphic design projects, that paid work inevitably differs from personal work.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>"...paid work inevitably differs from personal work."</p>

<p>I'd agree with you if you removed the word "inevitably" and replaced it with "often". There are many artists whose work is all personal, yet they still seek to sell it; often because the payment enables them to continue doing more personal work. </p>

[ymmij]

<p>Agreed, that's a good point.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>If I get asked, I'll zip thru them fast before I show them to them and just pic one I happen to like. But, I think in the past 8 years of shooting street, i only got approached three times by a stranger. Most of the requests come from the people I'm with should I shoot them.</p>

<p>I feel no obligation to post anything i don't really want to. I don't put writing on the "forum" based web posted images, but will caption them with copyright and my name. If I make prints, I sign them in the white borders though. On my personal website, no markings.....it's on my site....that's enough as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>i made my own business cards and hand them out to anyone even remotely interested.</p>

[ymmij]

<p>I need to get my new ones printed.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Okay, so is this a question that's really about how you're a pro photographer, and people want to chimp over your shoulder, right there? Is that it? [First paragraph, OP]</p>

<p>I will think about this over morning coffee and provide you with a solution. </p>

[joshua_mortel]

<p>Hi everyone --thank you for your insights.</p>

<p>I did not mean to get anyone hot under the collar about artistic license and who has rights over what images. And no, I am not trolling. I figured this was the casual photo conversation board so I just wanted to hear your thoughts about the Internet and everyone's own individual photography.</p>

<p>People that want to see the photo you just took --it doesn't happen much and it doesn't bother me a whole lot, but what does concern me is if some photos get uploaded somewhere and it ends up on a flyer or turns into a meme and I get sued. I guess that is kind of arrogant to stipulate that I am even capable of taking photos that are worthy of being ripped off, but it is something I think all of us photographers face. I also have an artist friend that had someone online --in a different country-- try to take credit for his work.</p>

<p>From everyone's comments it is becoming more and more clear to me that the only real medicine, I think, is to step out of the shroud of anonymity and accept the responsibilities of hosting photos and protecting the use of those photos the best one can. The days of a photographer getting under a black cloth to take a photo are over; this is the new age, for better and worse. I think for the longest time this has been a truth that I've been avoiding, simply so I might use it as a scapegoat later ("Hey, I'm not a professional...!")</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Okay, for the onsite chimping, I guess there would be two things you could do: 1. Short cards; it would limit how long that could go on; and 2. turn it into a feature. They want to see? Sure. Your chance to interact with them there; my guess is that if you feel confident, and have thought about one or two points to say at the time, you can maintain control of that situation, and have it come out positive.</p>

<p>For someone else using your stuff in some way you thought inappropriate; my guess is that if what you were making were not libelous to begin with, then it would be hard to effectively hold you responsible for what other people do after you. I'd suspect that it'd get down to specifics in that case. I think you would end up chasing shadows and nightmares worrying too much about that stuff. </p>

<p>Me and my greatness thank you for the ponderings over morning coffee. J.</p>