Cheating

[Bill Pierce]

I always feel it’s sort of cheating to post another website article to start thread rather than coming up with an idea myself. But this column is just too important.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-keep-hearing-about-demise-of-our.html

 

[nlubis]

Read it through. Thanks for the link.

 

[lynnb]

He's right. Thanks for the link, that was an excellent article. I sometimes wonder how Kirk Tuck manages to run a successful business and then put the time in to write his blog. He does us all a service.

 

[charjohncarter]

Yes, good read. It is also the classiest 'blog' (I'm not sure I know what the difference is between a blog and a website) for serious photography I've seen. I still think with or without technical advances, quality work will rise to the surface and be in demand.

 

[RBruceCR]

I always feel it’s sort of cheating to post another website article to start thread rather than coming up with an idea myself. But this column is just too important.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-keep-hearing-about-demise-of-our.html

Mr. Pierce, perhaps a better title would have been "Food for thought" but "Cheating" sure did win my attention!

I look forward to read more articles like these!

 

[MCTuomey]

great read, thx for the link!

 

[bonatto]

Thanks for sharing, Bill.

I'm certainly a few decades off from the generation of working photographers referenced in the article, but sympathetic to the difficulties encountered by professionals who saw their markets and clients simply erode away with the turn of a century.

I think the author is successful in identifying two core catalyzers:

-New technology
-Size of the "workforce" and subsequent output volume

If many of the previous generation's working photographers simply had a finer "grasp of the fine points in the owner's manuals", then it makes sense that once this technical learning curve was sharply reduced, it would no longer afford the working photographer an absolute advantage.

One thing that we can see in common between the generational gap is the frequency of outlier "masterclass" photographers. There were few back then, and there are few today.

There is still demand for the craft, much like there is still demand for fine watches even after the quartz revolution.

Following the same analogy, we can even argue that the demand for "fine-art" photography has increased along with the payout for this class.

It simply makes no sense to haul a family to a studio for a christmas greeting card sitting when your friend "Bob" the "Photographer" can bring over his tripod, D whatever, and maybe even a light bounce and get an acceptable substitute. Likewise for weddings etc.

Now if you want Avedon to shoot your portrait, well, you better call him up.

 

[charjohncarter]

It simply makes no sense to haul a family to a studio for a christmas greeting card sitting when your friend "Bob" the "Photographer" can bring over his tripod, D whatever, and maybe even a light bounce and get an acceptable substitute. Likewise for weddings etc.

Now if you want Avedon to shoot your portrait, well, you better call him up.

I really haven't been impressed with the digital camera revolution; to me, it is just an easier way to take a picture (not necessarily better). But what has, (and maybe it would have happened without the digital camera) is the explosion of lighting options and knowledge. I took this over the weekend and I would never have tried it without a digital camera, flash triggers, and easy purchased flash equipment. Also, I've been reading up on lighting, but am nowhere, yet, where I want to be.

 

[clayne]

People just simply do not value quality to the same level past generations did. The bias is ever more into ADHD driven instant consumption (visually in this case), shift, move to the next.

People desire attention more than ever these days. Knowing that the ability to crap a bunch of photos onto social networks that give them their quick little dopamine fix (as all the likes pile up) is more important than any technical or qualitative approach to photography these days.

Overall, yet another race to the bottom as usual.

 

[bonatto]

I really haven't been impressed with the digital camera revolution; to me, it is just an easier way to take a picture (not necessarily better). But what has, (and maybe it would have happened without the digital camera) is the explosion of lighting options and knowledge. I took this over the weekend and I would never have tried it without a digital camera, flash triggers, and easy purchased flash equipment. Also, I've been reading up on lighting, but am nowhere, yet, where I want to be.

Interesting point, portable lighting.

A couple of months ago I was helping haul some old photo gear, lab stuff, old cameras, left over from a tag sale, and in the middle of it there were two big trunks left over from AP, maybe 4' long each, quite heavy, with heavy electricals, thick cables, and HUGE flash bulbs. I was told you could die if you mishandled the gear.

Now you can get by with a remote trigger and a couple of high output flashguns. It is certainly a skill though.

 

[charjohncarter]

Interesting point, portable lighting.

A couple of months ago I was helping haul some old photo gear, lab stuff, old cameras, left over from a tag sale, and in the middle of it there were two big trunks left over from AP, maybe 4' long each, quite heavy, with heavy electricals, thick cables, and HUGE flash bulbs. I was told you could die if you mishandled the gear.

Now you can get by with a remote trigger and a couple of high output flashguns. It is certainly a skill though.

I believe, maybe I'm wrong, that because of the outdoor digital qualities of low dynamic range (I mean, why would they ever even come up with HDR if it wasn't disparately needed) similar to E-6 range has caused this lighting revolution (again more important but driven by digital shortcomings). It may have happened anyway, but it sure makes it easier to do outdoor digital with even pedestrian lighting equipment. Still to the OP's point or maybe the Blogger's point: new skills, new tech will in the end produce high quality with quality people using them. At least I hope.

 

[robert blu]

As a regular reader of VSL blog very oft I appreciate the fact to be just an amateur! I have close contacts with a few professional photographers some more successful than other even in this difficult economic climate (italy, europe). Who are the more successful? The ones more open, more ready to learn, to experiment, to deal with new technologies and transform them in marketing opportunities. Having said this here is a common sense that quality is less appreciate now and this is a sign of our times, I'm afraid.
robert

 

[sreed2006]

I am not a professional photographer, yet I rather enjoyed the linked article, with its finger on the pulse of the current situation for professional photographers - and for those of us who take pictures just for the enjoyment of ourselves and others.

My preference is high quality images, but then I have some education in the matter gained by many hours of study. I think education is the key.

As a related example, I frequently check the Photography classifieds on Craigslist. There are some listings where the exact model of an item is specified, as well as its condition. Those are posted by someone who knows and cares. Then, there are the listings like "Pink Camera! $45" All that person really knows about it is that is a camera and it is pink. They lack any sort of education at all on photography gear.

Without an education on what a good portrait, or wedding album, should look like, it is no wonder that sub-professional results are now commonly acceptable.