Paradigm shift need in Photography

I have to totally agree that digital photography has created a bandwagon effect in the professional business. Almost all of my friends who own a DSLR have either attempted to go pro, or have been approached by others asking for services.

I know at least two people who have owned a DSLR for only a few months, and they are now getting paid to shoot "their first wedding..." Probably have not taken more than 5-10 thousand images, max.

But this has to be one of the most depressed and pessimistic outlooks I have come across. Honestly, Michael, from one human being to another: cheer up? Relax? It's going to be okay. Or at least, it CAN be okay if you LET it be.

If you're not struggling with business and you're actually doing well, but simply want to rant about what you see going on around you, they by all means, get a blog, write it down, let it out! Just give it a rest on these public forums. Negativity isn't going to make things any better...

If however you're struggling with business and are panicking because you see newcomers ruining the market, then let's be honest- It's either time to pack up and get a 9-5, (If you're one of those film photographers who ONLY succeded because you knew how to operate a camera and get a proper exposure etc... I can't say cuz I've never seen your work!) ...or it's time to dive in, embrace the digital age, and RISE above the flood of mediocrity. There IS lots of room at the top, you just have to be smart enough to figure out how to get there. You and I both know that those "upper middle class" wedding photographers charging $10,000 (or more) are (mostly) hardly any better than us at actually taking a picture. So, make it happen!

And honestly, attending some of the recent seminars have indeed given me insight into HOW to make it happen, HOW to succeed.

Take care,
=Matt=

--



Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become even more formidable. Galen Rowell

Michael D Robinson said:

Its just like many teaches in english...failed at writing the great
american novel...so they teach, the blind leading the blind ! same
with the photography seminar people...all giveing the same advice.

Click to expand...

OK. So you know that. I know that. But why is this not communicated to the masses?

and if you want to learn, how can you possibly think a one day seminar can be as good as attending a course?

The medical profession is deemed rightly or wrongly to need regulation as are tax accountants etc

If all you are worried about is prestige, you're in the wrong business.

Fact - today and industry or profession matter no what it did previously.

You are your own man or woman. No group or industry will carry you and consumers buy the individual not the industry.

This attitude reeks of chips on the shoulder and encourages other to have a blaming attitude as well.

You are as respected as you deserve!

I have no problems with the issues you raise, and I notice some others share my view.

May the good ones who earn and warrant respect and status because of themselves individually stand and may the others sink.

If you are not familiar with game theory and the herd, this may be a chance to see how it actually fails.

--
Peter

Persuasive Marketing Systems -
inc Copywriting, Design & Photography

Rightly or wrongly the middle is shrinking.

If you were familiar with marketing you would realize that today you either must go up or down. That is the nature of the market today.

This having a middle income or status because of who you hang around with is gone. We are as good as our last job not our status.

I will not devote any further energy to this false argument you are pushing. If you are not happy - get out and do something else.

This is giving wrong business advice to others and wasting energy when you could be bettering yourself.

--
Peter

Persuasive Marketing Systems -
inc Copywriting, Design & Photography

Michael D Robinson said:

Well, said, cogent and honest....Yes, there are trillions of images
out there..I'm sorry but i get tired of newbies showing photo and
putting watermarks and etc. on something that is a cheap commodity,
thinking it is something special or heaven forbid...art ! Yes, we
probably all did something like than when starting out, but my god,
in a visual culture where no one reads anymore, can't they see what
passable images loook like ?

Click to expand...

I've long thought that TV weas the first step in debasing other types of imagery, whether watercolors or photography. It's neither sharp nor well composed an immense percentage of the time, and colors are all over the place, but it appears to be today's imagery standard.

Train 'em on TV and hand 'em a cell phone camera!

I don't think a major percentage of people can tell what a good image looks like. How would they know?

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Hundreds of mag covers worldwide? Gimme a break. Here's MDR's work:
http://alaskaimagedesign.com/

Not bad, but certainly not good enough to look down on others the way he does.

Look mate! They are just wedding photos. Most people have seen other peoples and base the value on what they look at. Most wedding photos I have seen are average or below. I wouldn't give you more than £150.

My sisters were so bad that the photographer did not even try to sell her prints. She gave her every shot she took.

Most people don't value wedding photos highly. The only people who do are photographers. I'm not sayin I wouldn't pay a decent rate for a top photographer but in the wedding business they are few and far between.

A lot of people would be happy with polaroids.

I think that his attitude is more about not being able to handle/adjust to his market any more......than about his shooting skills.

Sad part is.....he has a product.....and it isnt bad.

But such is the market place....it isnt a place you have to suffer or go under....you just have to change your stagety.

I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy, I owned my own Pre Purchase Home Inspection company in 3 states for over 14 years, and currently I am in IT, and growing a fine art landscape photography business on the side.

ALL of the businnesses I have been involved in require UPDATING and CONTINUING of my understanding of the field I am in, and an application of that constant influx of new knowledge.

Why would photography be ANY diffrent?

If you are not adapting, growing or changing....your static...and that is in ANY business.

Static isnt a happy place......and probably (I am going out on a limb here) why he is so unhappy.

Roman

mottjr said:

Hundreds of mag covers worldwide? Gimme a break. Here's MDR's work:
http://alaskaimagedesign.com/

Not bad, but certainly not good enough to look down on others the way
he does.

Click to expand...

--

'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.

Actually, who are we not to be?'

--Marianne Williamson

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Michael D Robinson said:

How many photographers are in the upper middle class income bracket ?
Only a very small minority. Doctors, lawyers, and other
professionals would not stand for this in their chosen or aspired to
profession and many that would make serious contenders and have the
potential to be highly skilled stay out of the photography profession
for this reason.

Click to expand...

You chose a low paying profession, for the majority in your profession. Now you want the government to step in and set a minimum wage. Ok, you got my vote.

I am not a professional photographer, but have a license to practice law, having been acquired after years of school and tuition. The state regulates the profession, polices attorneys, requires continuing legal education, insurance and certain practice standards that mandate the expenditure of money to comply.

Governmental regulation is permissible because of the degree of preparation and skill required as balanced against the public's need to be protected and to be assured of a certain level of competence.

Is this necessary for photography? Do you really want the government to add to the cost of doing business? A better question is whether the government could presume to do so, since it is hard to see why the government's oversight is needed to protect the public from bad pictures.

Admittedly, digital photography has changed the business landscape for professional photographers. People want pictures delivered at a low cost and often do not want to pay for better pictures.

The same is true of legal services, plumbing, construction and repair work, etc. People chose to hire those who charge less because they cannot afford it or simply do not want to pay that much and are either willing to take the chance that they will receive an acceptable product or just don't know how much quality is necessary.

There is no question that great photography requires skill, but it also demands a certain artistic sense that can never be taught or, for that matter, regulated.
--
Wayne Collier

It would appear you possibly read the book "7 Habits of Highly Effective People". Might I suggest re-reading it, focusing on comprehension and understanding. Then look into maybe reading “The Millionaire Next Door”. As input from an outsider judging solely by snippets on an internet forum, you’re not exhibiting thought processes or behavior likely to result in success at anything, including getting people to listen to your thesis on where the photography profession needs to go. It’s going to be a hard sale given that many if not most don’t see photography in the same way you appear to view it. Many might see the paradigm that needs changing as the thought process of photographers who seem to think they are entitled to something rather than having to earn their way through life in the same way that most of their customers have to. Despite what you appear to think, most of those upper middle class photography customers had to work hard and "Earn" the compensation they receive.

One of the realities of virtually every profession and business is competition. It’s easy to bemoan the impact of soccer moms with DSLR’s, but the simple fact is they often understand the needs of the “customer” better than the so called pro’s, and often the difference in quality isn’t anywhere near as significant as “Professional photographers” egos would try to have you believe. To most people I know, the biggest impact of photography on people’s lives is in capturing moments and memories, anything else is a luxury. To sell anything beyond basic moment captures, you need to be able to successfully understand the customers needs, and to be a salesman as well as a photographer. If you’re lacking the marketing or people skills you might try partnering up with someone who excels in these areas.

Hmm - an interesting tirade, Michael, though I confess to agreeing with those posters who point out the silliness of your rant.

But here's a question - the notion of "professional photographer" here seems rather limited. How about studio photographers that do commercial work? What about papparazzi? What about the portrait studios seen at the malls or department stores, run by kids who are following the (McDonalds-like) rules? Are these folks not professional photographers as well - do they not make their livings taking photographic images?

Funny how the definition implicitly discussed here is virtually all about wedding shooters; would that imply that only wedding photographers should have some sort of government-mandated license? Obviously a stupid idea - but it begs the question, where do you draw the line?

I agree with those who effectively stated that you can't mandate creativity, and raising barriers to entry is a fool's errand.

On the other hand, I do think a paradigm shift is in order, but not the one originally mentioned (ranted?) - rather, the notion that a wedding shooter should be allowed to hold the "negatives" hostage is long past due for elimination. If anything, consumers (i.e. - your customer base) are familiar with the idea of simply copying digital files, and more and more will shun the idea that if Aunt Grace wants another 8x10 next year that she should have to pay $20 or whatever for that.

No?

--
an open shutter is the devil's playground...

It's pretty simple really. There will always be someone willing to do the shoot for less. And there's not much you can do about it, people love bargains and (almost) always make decisions to help their own bank account. For those who have money and can afford better, you need to distinguish yourself from the others who charge less.

Cheers,
JB

soyabean said:

If anything, consumers (i.e. - your
customer base) are familiar with the idea of simply copying digital
files, and more and more will shun the idea that if Aunt Grace wants
another 8x10 next year that she should have to pay $20 or whatever
for that.

No?

Click to expand...

Interesting!

So what are the true costs of Aunt Grace's 8x10 order?

How much time will she spend opening the file, color correcting it, assigning a profile (or not) ordering the print (delivery of file), delivery of the print (either picking it up herself, or having it shipped, and the printing charge itself? What does that all total to considering the cost of her time? Shall we value her time at minimum wage? Or is she a professional with more value to her time?

I'll bet it comes close to $20. for the total (without adding a profit). Now, what if the print order has an err anywhere along the way? This will incur more time (cost), right?

V

Hey, dead wrong...Even though it is kind of crazy...and many think that labor is the highest realm that citizens of a given society can achiev, history proves you wrong. Its the fair art world my freind that stands at the top. That is why these professions you speak of charge me high prices and spend my hard earned money on art collections.

All valid points, Verve - except that Aunt Gracie (or, more specifically, her neice, the bride) isn't so concerned about that - she can go to a kiosk at Ritz (or even Picasa on l.ine, right?) and do what she wants.

Plus., she (the bride) knows she can get a poster, or a mug, or a Phathead-like wall covering (MPIX is starting to sell them next month) from that file as well, making the file all the more useful to her.

Again, in the old days, it was accepted fact that a)the negative was a unique artifact and b)it took a lot of skill and craft to produce an acceptable photo/portrait, so consumers simply took it for granted that the photog should be the one to deal with these things, and be paid for it. Today, thanks to digital ubiquitousness (is that a word?), pretty much every single potential client out there is aware of what can be done - with more functionality added all the time. So a few years ago, it was Uncle George with his Photoshop; today, it's the teenage kid on Picasa without even having to buy a software package. And again, the consumer (bride and family) is satisfied with what these technologies can produce.

So the photographer shooting a wedding had best be paid for his or her time up front; no more building a price structure based on the notion that the customer will come back for extra prints or books later.

Of course, there are those who can still sell albums and such, and there will always be a portion of potential clients who are willing to pay for the additional services and see some marginal benefit, but the trend is, and has been, pretty obvious for years.

And that doesn't include the notion that Aunt Grace doesn't even include the time she spends at the photo kiosk at Ritz as having any value - after all, otherwise she might be shopping or watching TV anyway.

--
an open shutter is the devil's playground...

Well, if you can persuade someone in the middle of a heart attack to buy a painting rather than a ride to the emergency room, you're a heck of a marketer.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

For someone that has a business using the word Persuasive I find you not very ! Are you a newbie at that business, sounds like it ! Hire a world shaker like me and only then will you see profits rise. Since the dawn of civilization one man has endevored to make the other man work for him for free. Elementary dear Watson !

soyabean said:

Of course, there are those who can still sell albums and such, and there will always be a portion of potential clients who are willing to pay for the additional services and see some marginal benefit, but the trend is, and has been, pretty obvious for years.

Click to expand...

That trend doesn't exist at the high end.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

I would agree....and it only is getting worse by the day...people impressed and captivated by a digital one and two sometimes need a strightjacket I think !