Change

It seems the new paradigm for professional photographer is to be a perpetual amateur photographer. Everyone has been magically transformed into the dilettante artiste category.
 
Around the world? Interesting people? Important events? Bah, humbug! Work should be difficult, stressful and unrewarding, all for a pittance. Ha, ha, of course. Only kidding.

Really, though, photographers can take the admittedly small comfort from the fact that digital and the internet has transformed the artist's relation to the wider community. Photographers share the devaluation of their work with writers and musicians everywhere. Where will it all end? I haven't a clue. Do you?
 
About eight years ago an editor explained to me about "good enough". With so many people being raised on the internet, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. and being bombarded with snapshots from all their "friends" and others, the appreciation for good quality photography (see LIFE, LOOK, TIME, etc) has diminished to the point where images the editors can get for free are "good enough" for what the readers/viewers expect. So why pay for good quality work, when free is "good enough".

Thanks for sharing the article Bill.

Best,
-Tim
 
Many professions has changed. No elevator operators and not so many parking attendants, blacksmiths and chimney cleaners.

I could find more interesting stories on facebook than in any magazine. Or on the old fashion radio.
They don't send to, they talk, taking interviews via Skype.
It is changed. It is Mosul eye time.

I have zero interest in Life photos, good photographer doesn't mean intresting picture, often.
And even more often good picture comes from direct witness. Or should I say true picture...
 
Change

Yeah, there was a time when a Eddie Adams or Eugene Smith or any number of working professionals could produce jaw-dropping pictures that would be published at Time-Life or elsewhere. I don't see such pictures anymore.

Change hasn't favored product quality in press photography. And it seems only a minority, and a small one at that, cares.
 
One of the items I found interesting is the increased demand for video. I've always shot stills and I cannot, for some reason, get my head around shooting video, or at least shooting video that is worth watching. That has to be a difficult transition for many photographers.
 
Yeah, there was a time when a Eddie Adams or Eugene Smith or any number of working professionals could produce jaw-dropping pictures that would be published at Time-Life or elsewhere. I don't see such pictures anymore.

Change hasn't favored product quality in press photography. And it seems only a minority, and a small one at that, cares.

Gene ended strong with Minimata. Ed, working years later, saw some of the decline when important events were replaced with coverage of celebrities.
 
Yeah, because loving and making art is such BS right?

I never said that loving and making art is BS in my comment.

Being a dilettante can be a badge of honour if one does not expect to make a living from it.

If one needs money to pay the bills then they might have to find something else in employment to fill the need, unless of course they come from a well to do family like HCB or Ms Arbus, then failure or success in photography will matter little to fill up their bank account with fiat currency.

Human beings are very adaptable.
 
Nice cover photo...

The cover of the report* features 'Earth Kiln' by Li Huaifeng, 2018 World Press Photo Contest winner.

*The State of News Photography 2018: Photojournalists' attitudes toward work practices, technology and life in the digital age, authored by Adrian Hadland & Camilla Barnett and published by the World Press Photo Foundation.
 
Back
Top Bottom