Pro Photography today - NY Times grim facts...

I am done computing for the day, so I have a parting question I would like to ask:

Clear your head, read only the original question and article again and none of the replies and ask your self how does this information feel?

Are you sad / not sad that a lot of photographers are losing opportunities?

Because to truly do great work, you have to put in time behind the camera, out in the world. Like any great craft, the more time you spend on it, the better it can become, because it is you speaking your visual language fluently.

While some photographers work to become rich, I work to buy back my time and spend every hour I can living life fully. In financial terms, I live modestly. It's less stressful and I experience more meaningful connections in my life and in my work.

So those who have the guts to live will live it. And those who don't might not understand how to some people, it is more than just a career, it is an expression of your own life-force that just happens to be the medium of photography...

But that question, after you read that article, how does it make you feel?
--

'Technology has given us a lot, but it has not given us more than 24 hours in one day, so photographs do not happen while reading dpreview.'

In everything that you've written. One of the very few who "gets it."

--
Greg

incorrect thread posting

I have to say I'm confused by your rhetoric. At first you seemed to be chastising those who pretend to professional status without proper training or skill, but now you seem to be preaching for a more soulful dedication to the spiritual side of photography.

Personally I never interpreted the article in the NYT to be other than a summary of conditions in the photography market today: Growing supply & shrinking demand. Period. Does this make me sad? Not at all. I've always felt (this is highly subjective, of course) that if I had to make photographs to earn my living it would take all the fun out of photography.

In essence I think what you've been driving at is that today one has to be a sort of independent agent to survive & adapt as a money-making photographer. I'll only add that I think this does & will apply going forward to most ways of earning a living. It's the economic paradigm shift we're all experiencing.

Dan Nikon said:

Clear your head, read only the original question and article again and none of the replies and ask your self how does this information feel?

Are you sad / not sad that a lot of photographers are losing opportunities?

Click to expand...

I don't think I care one way or the other. In 1974 when I was 17 I was in love with photography, as I still am, and gave some thought about becoming a professional photographer. By the time I turned 18 though I decided against it. I decided I would make my living doing something else and that I would keep photography as a wonderful pursuit with no need to make any money from it. I can't tell you how thankful I am that I was so smart when I was that age. I have done some amazing things since then and have had a wonderful run creating computer software -- which I also discovered I enjoyed a whole lot. I still do and love the photography and combine it with another love: travel, close to the ground travel with a backpack. Photos here:

http://www.bakubo.com

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

If an event attended by 10,000 includes 1,000 with P&S cameras and 2,000 will cellphone cameras, does a "pro" lumbering about with a heavy rig stand any chance of getting the most outstanding shot or collect enough money to match minimum wage. One doubts.

Pro photography will remain viable (for a few) in the niches where it works best to have only one HQ device or team at work: yearbook photos, graduations, weddings, corporate events. CEOs definitely do NOT want candid "surprise" shots, no matter how striking, in the annual reports or ads.

The idea that photography is a valid profession based on some purely artistic merit misses the point. First, you gotta make enought money to stay off welfare. The occasional event photographer who gets chump change for the task, but in fact reliies mainly on another income is in fact all the opportunity there is for most who might aspire to the trade. Those that do life soley by the shutter face a tough prospect. For a while, CRT and EMR operators where the only "imaging professionals" to regularly "make it rich," but now even they face over-capacity and diminishing returns.

You seem to have a limited view of how professional photographers earn money. There are great niches you are totally missing, not surpisingly.

But I am starting to get the picture here now, by what I can see, amateur photographers either dislike or fully hate pros who get to do what the amateur can only dream of doing.

So they come up with all this bull cr@p like it would not be fun anymore if it were work or "Those that do life soley by the shutter face a tough prospect."

It's really simple guys, you become a chart buster, do really brilliant work in a hard to match niche and you keep looking forward, not by asking your clients what is next but by showing them what is next.

A lot of photographers have seen numbers drop, some a lot, some just a bit, mostly due to the economy and they are not uncomfortable, starving or out of business. And I am not talking about the hack filled trades of weddings and events either.

I know it is hard for many of you to hear, but this article does not mean Jim Richardson is no longer going to be shooting for National Geographic or that Jeff Ascough is no longer going to be shooting weddings.

Just because YOU did not make the cut does not mean the rest of us won't, so get over it.

Cy Cheze said:

If an event attended by 10,000 includes 1,000 with P&S cameras and 2,000 will cellphone cameras, does a "pro" lumbering about with a heavy rig stand any chance of getting the most outstanding shot or collect enough money to match minimum wage. One doubts.

Pro photography will remain viable (for a few) in the niches where it works best to have only one HQ device or team at work: yearbook photos, graduations, weddings, corporate events. CEOs definitely do NOT want candid "surprise" shots, no matter how striking, in the annual reports or ads.

The idea that photography is a valid profession based on some purely artistic merit misses the point. First, you gotta make enought money to stay off welfare. The occasional event photographer who gets chump change for the task, but in fact reliies mainly on another income is in fact all the opportunity there is for most who might aspire to the trade. Those that do life soley by the shutter face a tough prospect. For a while, CRT and EMR operators where the only "imaging professionals" to regularly "make it rich," but now even they face over-capacity and diminishing returns.

Click to expand...

--

'Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something
acutely disconcerting about it.'

Don't think to hard about things Dan Nikon says... he shows up spewing rhetoric instead of images, full of sage advice with little practical value, and name dropping of people he never seems to have worked with. And if you don't agree with him, he'll harass you till you will.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but he shows up on threads like this and fills them with nonsense instead of useful analysis and its become tiresome.

FTR, I'm not a professional. I like taking pictures and hope to become better at it. I'm not jonesing to become a professional either.

That said, for me the most important thing a professional does is deliver the shot. Not "a" shot..."the" shot. Yes, there are a lot of nice cameras available to someone like me or the guy next door. Yes, we can take "a" nice photo of a sunset or flowers or "an" image for a news story if we happen to cross its path. And sometimes, a photo doesn't even have to be artistic...look at the Zapruder film. For you younger readers, and more (?) dramatically, the Rodney King video. It documented what needed to be documented and artistry was beside the point.

All pros were once amateurs, like the guy taking these pictures (found this in another thread):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1260946/The-stunning-pictures-sleeping-insects-covered-early-morning-dew.html

Wow! I mean, WOW! If this guy can make some money and further his art, more power to him!

But the more someone needs "the" shot, the more he needs a pro. For instance my nephew was working for a company that needed some photos of its factory, equipment, etc. He isn't very handy with a camera...his strength is in photoshop. So the company gave a PS type camera to someone and had him document how this machine had broken, proving it wasn't their fault.

My nephew's conclusion: "I can't bring up detail that isn't there. Give me blown highlights and black shadows...I can't fix that," etc.

If they had already dismantled the machine so they could resume production, that shot was gone forever. Maybe they lost the opportunity to have the manufacturer honor a warranty and it cost them money. Getty has no shot of that broken machine on file somewhere that will help the company. Penny wise but dollar foolish on the company's part, it turned out.

Another example: if a couple wants a specific shot at their wedding---say, the moment they kissed and sealed the deal---a professional has to deliver that shot. A professional IMO doesn't play bait-and-switch, doesn't restage the photo if that wasn't agreed upon in advance, etc. A professional delivers the shot, no excuses (short of an earthquake).

Another example: critical work, where something like color rendition is paramount. I recently bought a pair of shoes on line. When they arrived, the color didn't look the same and back they went. I wouldn't want to be the company that has to accept a zillion refunds because their product was inadvertently misrepresented by amateurish photo work.

I can understand why media would love the idea of buying images from amateurs. If I traveled to India and shot a bunch of pictures, then could sell many of them and make a little money, I might be happy...they wouldn't have to pay a pro's airfare to go there, or pay for his equipment, or give him his per diem, or put food on his own table back home. I'm sure they'd love that.

There will be pitfalls and misdirection, I'm sure. Will an image get users in trouble (remember the flak Time took for the darkened shot of OJ?) if it turns out to have been extensively photoshopped? Will amateurs start demanding more money if someone gives away the image of the century for $20? Will bidding get more fierce between Getty and its competitors?

Pros will have to deliver value to compete; competition is a good thing for the consumer.

TsunamiFury said:

Don't think to hard about things Dan Nikon says... he shows up spewing rhetoric instead of images, full of sage advice with little practical value, and name dropping of people he never seems to have worked with. And if you don't agree with him, he'll harass you till you will.

Click to expand...

He has a strange need to turn threads into 'Dan' threads, often bitterly lamenting how much better photographers and their equipment used to be while at the same time trying to show how amazingly well he's doing, how amazingly happy he is, and all the while spewing an apparently limitless stream of contempt towards most photographers. You'd think that someone so happy and successful would prefer to make better use of his time. I don't know who he really is, but his experience with lots of high end film and digital equipmen and his great preference for film cameras makes one wonder . . . I can say one thing with certainty - I've never seen Dan appear at the same time and in the same location as Ken Rockwell.

and one day there may not be any need for photographers at all,images will be created by computer software,computers will recreate Steve McQueen in a new Hollywood blockbuster and Charlie Chaplin will appear in new Broadway play thanks to holographic tricks,it's all coming,keep browsing through your Best Buy weekly fadvertisment paper, it will be there sooner than you think
--
Berghof G.C.

Billx08 said:

I don't know who he really is, but his experience with lots of high end film and digital equipmen and his great preference for film cameras makes one wonder . . . I can say one thing with certainty - I've never seen Dan appear at the same time and in the same location as Ken Rockwell.

Click to expand...

Ooooo, that's good!

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Henry Richardson said:

Billx08 said:

I don't know who he really is, but his experience with lots of high end film and digital equipmen and his great preference for film cameras makes one wonder . . . I can say one thing with certainty - I've never seen Dan appear at the same time and in the same location as Ken Rockwell.

Click to expand...

Ooooo, that's good!

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is good, keep thinking I am Ken Rockwell, LOL!!

foot said:

“The important thing that a photojournalist does is they know how to tell the story — they know they’re not there to skew, interpret or bias,” said Katrin Eismann, chairwoman of the Masters in Digital Photography program at the School of Visual Arts in New York. “A photographer can go to a rally or demonstration, and they can make it look as though 10 people showed up, or 1,000 people showed up, and that’s a big difference. I’m not sure I’m going to trust an amateur to understand how important that visual communication is.”

Click to expand...

That's funny. I think from the demise of print media it is clear that the public has spoken loud and clear - we do not trust big corporate media. It is the corporate media that has been manipulating people for years presenting news with a deliberate bias and premeditated agenda. Ms. Eismann says an amateur may not know how important presentation of the event is. I think that's an improvement from deliberate lying.

Guess who's going to win?

Dan Nikon said:

Henry Richardson said:

Billx08 said:

I don't know who he really is, but his experience with lots of high end film and digital equipmen and his great preference for film cameras makes one wonder . . . I can say one thing with certainty - I've never seen Dan appear at the same time and in the same location as Ken Rockwell.

Click to expand...

Ooooo, that's good!

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is good, keep thinking I am Ken Rockwell, LOL!!

Click to expand...

I meant that it was a good joke. I have no idea and could not care less whether you are KR.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Me too, I did not imply you were to care..

Henry Richardson said:

I meant that it was a good joke. I have no idea and could not care less whether you are KR.

Click to expand...

Bill, Chris Tompkins, relax eh? If you do enough of a search you can find out who I am, not that it matters. I no longer post images on sites because I am tired of using "Tineye" to nail copyright crooks, so are a lot of pros.

If you were to meet me in person, take a workshop, hire me, get a cup of coffee w/ me, you would find I am one of the easiest people to be around and work with. I just get tired of the bull that is spread on these forums, like Mr. Tomkins saying things like "Photographs have become common enough to no longer be worth anything alone", Who the heck died and made you a photo appraiser? You QUIT trying to earn a living in photography Chris, not anyone's fault but your own that others don't find enough value in your work to always pay for it.

And Bill, if you had contact info, I would give you mine in confidence, so you can see what I am about, but you don't, so why beat on it?

I give out advice on here, but it has to be vague for a reason, photography is my only source of income, I can't go into details. But some of them are common sense too, be at the top of your game, pickup a freaking iPad for god's sake and BE the person who is going to consume content, don't just sit around waiting for the phone to ring when it is YOU that is the person who will be your own photo buyer.

If ad agencies, book publishers, magazines and newspapers are in decline and yet you still have killer, award winning content, YOU be the publisher, YOU be what is next, don't wait for it to happen.

Be the guy who thought of velcro, the vibrating cell phone, be THAT guy. Chris, I took the time out to tell you that I thought your Yosemite series was kind of flat, lacking a hook and that it relied too much on the multi-media aspect rather than the power of the content it self. I did not have to do that, thought it might help.

It's TOUGH as heck out there if you are trying to break in, I don't envy it at all. But please don't applaud the premise of this article if you DO envy who have made it happen and DID break in to the big time, that is just a cr@p way to look at it.

A lot of you will never admit it, but when you were kids, YOU TOO marveled at the photos in National Geographic because they took you to another place, allowed you to study it and as much as you may never admit it, it had influence on you as a photo enthusiast or pro.

So to read some of the "I could care less" comments is just baffling to me. There are very talented and deserving people out there that are losing their jobs, so since you did not make the grade, it is OK to poo-poo the people you will never admit you looked up to?

That's just wrong and karma has a way of coming back to you.

Billx08 said:

TsunamiFury said:

Don't think to hard about things Dan Nikon says... he shows up spewing rhetoric instead of images, full of sage advice with little practical value, and name dropping of people he never seems to have worked with. And if you don't agree with him, he'll harass you till you will.

Click to expand...

He has a strange need to turn threads into 'Dan' threads, often bitterly lamenting how much better photographers and their equipment used to be while at the same time trying to show how amazingly well he's doing, how amazingly happy he is, and all the while spewing an apparently limitless stream of contempt towards most photographers. You'd think that someone so happy and successful would prefer to make better use of his time. I don't know who he really is, but his experience with lots of high end film and digital equipmen and his great preference for film cameras makes one wonder . . . I can say one thing with certainty - I've never seen Dan appear at the same time and in the same location as Ken Rockwell.

Click to expand...

--

'Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something
acutely disconcerting about it.'

Ah Dan, my work might not be the best out there, I'll be the first to admit that, but I've actually worked with some of the names you seem to drop here and there as if you are associated with them. None of them seem to have this magical attitude about photography that you have and their budgets aren't rising -- they are falling, like a brick. My work consulting and training for National Geographic, The New York Times, and Time Magazine is real, meanwhile your advice seems to have no relationship to what I see at those publications. It sounds like the rantings of man that still believes its 1960 or 50 or whatever and the heyday of photojournalism.

So quit giving us the great photographer myths and get real, the economics of photography are changing on such a fundamental level that it will leave all but the most well MARKETED (not talented) photographers behind.

Yes its about making a quality product, but I wouldn't give a young kid a camera and tell him that shooting amazing photos will get him paid. I might as well give him a pen and tell him poetry is a skill in high demand right now. You can call me ignorant but I an predicting the professional photographers for the most part will not continue to exist, it will merely become an expected communication skill along the lines of forming a sentence or being able to cut a basic video.

Well now we are just fortune telling, so we will both just have to see what it looks like 10-20 years from now.

I don't have a magical attitude about it, I just know that what I am doing is working right at the moment and it is infectious among my clients. I don't expect my income to keep going up by the way, I am aiming for sustainability.

And I know editorial is dead in the water right now too, but it is trying to reinvent it self. I also meet with pubs on a "Where do we go to next" basis and have ordered an iPad to help them suss it out. If the day comes that we can no longer look at well portrayed in depth reporting, documentary or long term projects and just a great story with photos and video, I will personally quit photography, sell my gear, move to New Zealand and farm.

Maybe you are right Chris, maybe I am F_ ked too, but I have no choice but to keep going and as long as I can pay my bills, eat, sleep, that is what I am going to do...the people who buy my work know this, they don't think the tone of this article is a good thing in any shape or form.

TsunamiFury said:

Ah Dan, my work might not be the best out there, I'll be the first to admit that, but I've actually worked with some of the names you seem to drop here and there as if you are associated with them. None of them seem to have this magical attitude about photography that you have and their budgets aren't rising -- they are falling, like a brick. My work consulting and training for National Geographic, The New York Times, and Time Magazine is real, meanwhile your advice seems to have no relationship to what I see at those publications. It sounds like the rantings of man that still believes its 1960 or 50 or whatever and the heyday of photojournalism.

So quit giving us the great photographer myths and get real, the economics of photography are changing on such a fundamental level that it will leave all but the most well MARKETED (not talented) photographers behind.

Yes its about making a quality product, but I wouldn't give a young kid a camera and tell him that shooting amazing photos will get him paid. I might as well give him a pen and tell him poetry is a skill in high demand right now. You can call me ignorant but I an predicting the professional photographers for the most part will not continue to exist, it will merely become an expected communication skill along the lines of forming a sentence or being able to cut a basic video.

Click to expand...

--

'Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something
acutely disconcerting about it.'

Dan Nikon said:

A lot of you will never admit it, but when you were kids, YOU TOO marveled at the photos in National Geographic because they took you to another place, allowed you to study it and as much as you may never admit it, it had influence on you as a photo enthusiast or pro.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was me! National Geographic, Life Magazine, etc. really got me interested in photography. As I said elsewhere though I only briefly thought about doing it as a career when I was 17 years old. For those who do it to make a living then all the best to them. Never looked back. Photography is wonderful as a hobby for me and it has been for 40 years. I am a bit surprised that anyone assumes that everyone who chooses photography as a hobby is doing it only because they can't hack making a living at it. Sure, there are some that probably do fit into that category, but there are many, probably a large majority, that don't. It might surprise you, but there are many wonderful, rewarding vocations that make money, sometimes a lot more money, than photography.

I do my photography because I love doing it. Yeah, I am rarely satisfied with my results and try to improve but since it is a hobby I don't get too worked up about it. Still, I am human and want to get better!

Dan Nikon said:

So to read some of the "I could care less" comments is just baffling to me. There are very talented and deserving people out there that are losing their jobs, so since you did not make the grade, it is OK to poo-poo the people you will never admit you looked up to?

Click to expand...

I figure it is up to the people who are depending on photography to make a living to be concerned about this. I hope they do well. I am not sure why anyone would think that other people who are not doing it to make money should be so concerned though. And, if I or anyone else expresses "concern" I am not sure that puts a single nickel in their pocket. I read somewhere that Starbucks has seen decreased sales since McDonald's starting selling premium coffee. This is going to shock some people, I suppose, but I don't care. I'll let people who own stock in Starbucks be concerned about it. It is just one more thing that I don't get worked up about.

Glad you are doing well at it. Good luck with all your future endeavors!

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com