Companies slowly abondoning photographers?

[Roger Hicks]

I wonder what happened about the time where all of those curves peaked ??

Go to the link and click on 'about these graphs' and you'll learn... very little more. You might care to listen to the BBC 4 radio program (available on the Internet) "More or Less", which does cruel things to wobbly statistics.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Last I heard a great number of distinguished patrons of the photographic arts were vying to spend many $$$ on photos taken by a chimpanzee.

I frequent galleries. I also know that a LOT of those same photos are online and originated in a digital, pre-print form, and will likely revert to an online presence after gallery showing. The gallery print is nothing more or less than expression of the same content which can be displayed multiple ways.

I, personally, fall into the category of wanting a photograph to be sized more like a photograph and not printed huge to compete with Turner at the Tate. The majority of the photographic experience was to flip through multiple prints, not step into the photograph. Somehow as TV's have gotten larger, gallery photos feel a need to do the same. Who is leading who here?

I also liked the chimpanzee photos. And I've worked as a grip on a Jeff Wall photo shoot (many, many years ago when he was just starting).

And your point is? That a photograph is only content, perhaps? So there's no point in seeing paintings in galleries either, because we can see them on line? Are you totally unaware that some pictures work best big, and some work best small? And that by the time they are homogenized on the screen, you'll never know? Do texture and image tone mean nothing to you? How about the ambiance of the gallery? Or the difference between seeing pictures in company, and sitting in front of a solitary screen?

Chimpanzees? Jeff Wall? What has this to do with galleries?

Have you ever heard of Healey's First Law of Holes? It is this: "When you are in a hole, stop digging."

Cheers,

R.

 

[cody.wms]

Again, thanks. I am genuinely interested in why people use Flickr, so I am grateful for your response.

Cheers,

R.

For another datapoint, I use it to keep in photgraphic touch with real-life friends, follow others whose work I admire, and use it as another way to back up my stuff. If I somehow lost all my other back-ups (in three different physical locations) then I'd still have a JPG of my work.

I've used it to scout locations before, too. Sometimes I have a couple days during a work trip to shoot, so knowing whether a location is any good beforehand is great. Or even choosing between several locations when going to all would be time prohibitive.

Recently, someone I follow on there shared some work from Hong Kong, and I found it really really informative, since there were several perspectives and shots taken in places that I walked through, but didn't think to shoot that way.

And like others, I use it as a depository for other sites. I upload direct to Flickr and Facebook though Aperture, though less to FB lately. From Flickr I can share it on other message boards using the provided BBCode, and also share from Flickr to Tumblr when I want to expand on a particular photo.

I wonder what happened about the time where all of those curves peaked ??

It was during the December holiday season. Not surprising, since people are on vacation/break, and with many people celebrating Christmas or Hanukkah at this time. But not long ago, the D90 was the #1 camera, with the iPhone #2. I doubt we'll ever see a "real" camera as the #1 ever again. Of course, this is partially because cameras in phones got so much better right around the time of the iPhone 4, which meant that people had a good camera right in their hands, and didn't have to go through the burden of getting their P&S out.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For another datapoint, I use it to keep in photgraphic touch with real-life friends, follow others whose work I admire, and use it as another way to back up my stuff. If I somehow lost all my other back-ups (in three different physical locations) then I'd still have a JPG of my work.

I've used it to scout locations before, too. Sometimes I have a couple days during a work trip to shoot, so knowing whether a location is any good beforehand is great. Or even choosing between several locations when going to all would be time prohibitive.

Recently, someone I follow on there shared some work from Hong Kong, and I found it really really informative, since there were several perspectives and shots taken in places that I walked through, but didn't think to shoot that way.

And like others, I use it as a depository for other sites. I upload direct to Flickr and Facebook though Aperture, though less to FB lately. From Flickr I can share it on other message boards using the provided BBCode, and also share from Flickr to Tumblr when I want to expand on a particular photo. . . . .

Once again, thanks.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Speaking of camera stores, I'm afraid they're on their last phase before being assimilated into large electronic and computer chains with online outlets... The long tradition of visiting your local camera dealer is at an end.

We're lucky here in the Bay Area... we still have Looking Glass Photo in Berkeley (and they're moving to a BIGGER store this summer!); Calumet, Gassars, and Fireside in San Francisco; Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto, and probably a few others that I'm not thinking of at the moment. I primarily use Looking Glass (truly a great store that continues to stay current, dishing out great digital & film gear, as well as classes and darkroom space). Every time I go there, whether its mid-week or weekend, its crowded with customers. So I'm not worried.... yet. 😱

 

[Aristophanes]

And your point is? That a photograph is only content, perhaps? So there's no point in seeing paintings in galleries either, because we can see them on line? Are you totally unaware that some pictures work best big, and some work best small? And that by the time they are homogenized on the screen, you'll never know? Do texture and image tone mean nothing to you? How about the ambiance of the gallery? Or the difference between seeing pictures in company, and sitting in front of a solitary screen?

Chimpanzees? Jeff Wall? What has this to do with galleries?

Have you ever heard of Healey's First Law of Holes? It is this: "When you are in a hole, stop digging."

Spoken like a guy who sells shovels.

Some pictures work best big...for a very, very, very elite few.

The vast majority of this printed work is not visible to the vast majority of viewers. Big discrepancy.

When those contend (online no less) that the online experience is less experiential because the technical merits are not there, and then tout going to galleries where the same patrons also vie their $$$'s on chimp photos, yes, there's snobbishness there. "homogenized"? BY whose standards. You are now the arbitrator of what is and is not homogenized in the artistic experience. Thanks you for viewing for all of us and grading OUR viewing experiences.

Some people care about the print big in a gallery technical merits. Most do not. For YOU it is better, for many it is irrelevant. Slagging Flickr because it is not up YOUR elite standards is...

...like falling down a logic hole. That's where your generic ranking of the medium leads. But you can be the kind of guy who needs a hard hat when digging a grave, by all means.

 

[Aristophanes]

The answer to the thread:

Schewe and others,

Thanks for your info, it's genuinely helpful.

the thing is, we are one of those small production houses.. we have about 20 design standard licenses, 3 production premium licences, maybe 15 acrobat pro and a few individual PS, and AI and maybe 10 or 15 PSe licences. (we have no master suite)

we're currently using CS5. we wanted to move to 6, but we were kinds srewed by the 5.5 bull saying we were 2 releases behind.. but we can get over that..
as a company, we've been using some of the adobe suite since release 2.5

in general, we've upgraded every 2 releases. we certainly see the advantage of upgrades, but we have to balance costs.

so.. the last time we upgraded from CS 3 to CS5, I think it cost us about €15k (it may have been €18k I can't remember) -so annualized, it's maybe 5-6k.. a very manageable amount of money.

the thing is, almost none of us use just 1 program, a lot of us use PS, AI and ID on a daily basis. design standard was the ideal package for the majority of us, and we expanded where needed.

I certainly understand the benefit of the full master suite - I'd love to have it.. but.. not everyone in our team need it.. you can buy the individual licences but, it's not really viable to do it for 3 individual licenses per user.

quickly doing the math - even just for 25 CC licences (which isn't enough for us) - €61 per user per month, that's 61*12*25 - that comes to €18k per year!

now to make things worse, instead of getting a discount for buying 25 licenses, they introduce "teams"... so instead of paying €61 per month, it's €86!!! so that's 86*12*25 - that's almost €26,000 per year!!!
I like centrally managed licenses, I don't need 100gb of online storage.

so that goes from an annualized cost of €6k per year to €26k per year..

I know they have an introductory offer - I don't care about that.. that's only 1 year in what I hope is a long company future.

and we're growing.. increasing our number of users.. but at this price... well.. we will be looking long and hard at alternatives..

so I'd argue, Adobe hasn't got the first clue about the SME Pro market..

genuinely, I'm not sure what to do.. I called adobe sales and spoke to them at length, and while the lady I spoke to was very able to answer my questions, I got no real advice.

thanks for listening and I look forward to seeing how this pans out.. and I'll continue to read this post, watch eps of the Grid, read the adobe blogs and press releases.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78151.60

 

[Murchu]

Thanks to all those who have explained more about Flickr. It's still true that as Damien pointed out, I can't see any advantage in it for me; but at least I now have a better idea of exactly why not.

Cheers,

R.

Yes, my apologies I didn't do a better job, I just don't use sites like Flickr too much, but image hosting is a necessity for posting online sometimes, so sites like Flickr are handy.

I do find online presentation is a great way to share my images with people I know, and can simply give them a url to go to, if they ever want to see my images. I know many others like just to put their images out there for the world to see, so that is an attraction for some too.

Places like Flickr have community/ social appeal too, just like RFF, but I never really used it for that. All in all, I imagine if you have image hosting sorted already, and don't see the appeal of the social aspects, places like Flickr will not hold much appeal.

I didn't really have time to post the above earlier, but for anyone new to photography, or seeking out photographic equals or peers, places like Flickr with groups of likeminded others into photography, can be good places to go to for all those reasons.

 

[rpsawin]

Or to go to real bricks-and-mortar galleries.

Cheers,

R.

Such a radical notion...🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Spoken like a guy who sells shovels.

Some pictures work best big...for a very, very, very elite few.

The vast majority of this printed work is not visible to the vast majority of viewers. Big discrepancy.

When those contend (online no less) that the online experience is less experiential because the technical merits are not there, and then tout going to galleries where the same patrons also vie their $$$'s on chimp photos, yes, there's snobbishness there. "homogenized"? BY whose standards. You are now the arbitrator of what is and is not homogenized in the artistic experience. Thanks you for viewing for all of us and grading OUR viewing experiences.

Some people care about the print big in a gallery technical merits. Most do not. For YOU it is better, for many it is irrelevant. Slagging Flickr because it is not up YOUR elite standards is...

...like falling down a logic hole. That's where your generic ranking of the medium leads. But you can be the kind of guy who needs a hard hat when digging a grave, by all means.

Highlight: No, dear boy, I said STOP digging. For your own sake, I have no desire to see you with a shovel in your hand in this particular dispute: a shovel that I have sold you, or one that anyone else has sold you.

If you can't see that putting all pictures on the same-sized screen homogenizes them to a greater or lesser degree, then there must be very little that you are able to understand.

You might also consider therapy for your chimpanzee fixation.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, my apologies I didn't do a better job, I just don't use sites like Flickr too much, but image hosting is a necessity for posting online sometimes, so sites like Flickr are handy.

I do find online presentation is a great way to share my images with people I know, and can simply give them a url to go to, if they ever want to see my images. I know many others like just to put their images out there for the world to see, so that is an attraction for some too.

Places like Flickr have community/ social appeal too, just like RFF, but I never really used it for that. All in all, I imagine if you have image hosting sorted already, and don't see the appeal of the social aspects, places like Flickr will not hold much appeal.

I didn't really have time to post the above earlier, but for anyone new to photography, or seeking out photographic equals or peers, places like Flickr with groups of likeminded others into photography, can be good places to go to for all those reasons.

Thanks for the enlargement of the reasons. You're probably right, and it's probably age-related. In some areas, it's very easy to see how little things change: I really don't believe that falling in love changes much, for example. In other areas, it's almost impossible to imagine myself at (say) 30 years younger in today's world, because the world of my childhood, youth and young adulthood was what built my personality, character and knowledge. Well, that and of course heredity.

One thing I do realize as I get older, though, can be summed up in a simple phrase: I could be wrong. It is surprising how long it takes some people (I do not exclude myself) even to begin to realize this simple truth. I'm still working on it, but I think I'm getting better at accepting it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[btgc]

When you say (sic):"flickr shows camera used to take picture"- what, a snap shot of a camera?

Maybe I don't get it..

flickr shows model name, not a picture of camera.

Well, I can be wrong, most probably I am. I mean - one thing people know one used $100 P&S and another - desirable "photographer's camera".
But I'm not judging - there are interesting photos made with real cameras, as well as snapshots. Just an observation.

 

[Roger Hicks]

RIP “Professional Photographers”

"…there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers, when there’s everything is professional photographers. Certainly there is varying levels of skills, but we didn’t want to have a Flickr Pro anymore, we wanted everyone to have professional quality photos, space, and sharing.” – Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Event, May 2013

What is this BS, and What the H*** is a "flickr pro"

From PP / Cheri Frost · May 21, 2013

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/21/rip-professional-photographers/

Well, they'd never sell much if they divided it into "competent photographers" and "the rest".

Though on second thoughts, a $100 premium to be entered as a "first class photographer" would probably swell their coffers greatly, and would allow the rest of us to ignore the "first class photographers" section. Can anyone quote chapter and verse on that lovely research which showed that the stupider people are, the less likely they are to realize that they can't actually do complex, demanding work?

And, as an aside (off to bed shortly) why do we all quote prices in US dollars? Is it because most people know what this (relatively weak) currency is worth against their own currencies, but very few Americans know what any other currency is worth in dollars? For 'relatively weak', when my wife and I were first married (1982) you could buy £1 sterling for about $1.05, and shortly after the euro was introduced it cost maybe $0.95. The figures today are about $1.52 for £1 and $1.28 for a euro.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aeturnum]

If you really believe both those statements, you are right -- for you. An awful lot of people would however disagree with you. EDIT: Do you think that galleries and the Rencontres are kept alive only by people you would describe as 'snobs'. Or might there be something you are missing?

Cheers,

R.

I like seeing prints of photos and I like going to see photography exhibits. There is real value in being able to control the physical context in which one encounters art of all kinds, not just photographs. If anyone doubts this, go sit in front of the Rothko at SF Moma. Then walk up close to see the paint. However, if you doubt the value of digital, go look at the amazing high resolution scans of the dead sea scrolls, or the extremely detailed photos of the Sistine Chapel's roof. We can all be missing something - it's not surprising that people who love digital galleries find physical ones over-hyped and vista-versa.

As a lover of the digital gallery, I disagree about the constraints you suggest. You can force a photo to be small (add a border) and you can allow a photo to be as large as you like. There is nothing that says you must view online photos alone, but you do have that options (as opposed to prints in galleries). The contraints are different, but that does not mean worse.

I also find the idea of keeping a digital photos in a digital context compelling, in much the same way that it's compelling to see the paint strokes on a canvas.

 

[BlackXList]

I used to upload everything to Flickr, and have a "pro" account there.

For anybody actually wondering (and not just rhetorically) Flickr "Pro" just means that the user has a paid for an account without the "show the last 200 photos only" limit that the free accounts have.
Is that an improper use of the term "pro"? Yes, but frankly I'm not about to lose any sleep over that.

I eventually came to a point where my paid for "pro" account would require renewing, and I didn't really feel like it, so I let it lapse, and since 200 photos would be a slow month for me it made less sense to keep on using the limited free account, and I just stopped uploading to Flickr.

I doubt the new account will make me begin uploading again, but I still find Flickr very useful.

I only saw one person mention the "Groups" feature on Flickr, and whilst there's a whole bunch of effectively derided critique groups on there, and I'm sure lots of "look at my cat picture" groups too, there are also groups for particular cameras, techniques, and other variables, and they can be a really good source of user information.

To me, that's Flickr's biggest strength, whilst it might not be pushed to the forefront in the user experience on the site, there's an awful lot of information on there.

In terms of things being tagged by camera etc, that can also be very handy when you're curious about a piece of equipment, film emulsion etc, because with a quick search there's a lot of user examples, so you can see for yourself the kind of results that people are getting. (of course there are as many bad examples as good, but personally I think that's valuable).

 

[Aristophanes]

Highlight: No, dear boy, I said STOP digging. For your own sake, I have no desire to see you with a shovel in your hand in this particular dispute: a shovel that I have sold you, or one that anyone else has sold you.

If you can't see that putting all pictures on the same-sized screen homogenizes them to a greater or lesser degree, then there must be very little that you are able to understand.

You might also consider therapy for your chimpanzee fixation.

Judging from the curmedgeonite tone of your posts, methinks you're the one with a foot in the grave..... errr....hole. Judging by the way someone had to "explain" Flickr to you, it's kind of hard to hand out shovels when you are in over your head. Need someone to explain Tumblr next?

Many a gallery show...and I mean a very large number...is equally homogenous.

Heads up. The reason why Adobe and company are changing their pricing is precisely because the photo world is moving away from homogenized print products. They are not "abandoning" photographers, but dividing them into revenue camps. Since print display is rapidly fading, especially commercial journalism and ad print, Adobe is categorizing them in one revenue stream: go big and pay up or we don't want you. They no longer want the prosumer dallying in "pro" tools. They want agency money. Adobe's Photoshop is morphing into their version of enterprise software.

These are the new"pros", these constant subscription clients at that level. But since most of the world shoots for online almost exclusively, Adobe cannot compete against the $1.99 app and the $3,000 Nikon D800e prosumer "amateurs". Adobe and the software companies need revenues from where the market has gone. Galleries? Photomechanical print? What are those? Where's the money? No one's looking at those anymore so for all their tonal and technical qualities, they are simply following the money.

The print world has moved into a shrinking subset of the whole photo market with much less revenue generated. Magazine ad sales are off 60% from 5 years ago and still rapidly declining. The "pro" photographer is competing against the (often very talented) amateur with $$$ and both now rely on the supposedly homogenized web exposure and eBooks or other online platforms.

Anyone can now buy into being a pro. They no longer need gallery prints to get that label (if chimps can get in). Flickr and Adobe have caught on and are adjusting accordingly. They are simply doing away with, or upgrading the tickets for, what it takes to call oneself a "pro" (or Nikon with the D600 vs D800).

 

[Al Patterson]

I believe we historically have significantly overemphasized our market importance.

Kodak has not been a film company for several decades. Neither has Fujifilm. Nor is Fuji a camera company. Those are are insignificant parts of diversified companies. BTW, neither Nikon or Canon are "camera companies"

Photoshop has never been a keystone product for Adobe. Nor was it designed for photographers. We have adapted part of the usefulness of a product intended for the graphic arts industry.

Flickr is adapting to the fact that many more photos are taken with smartphones than cameras.

It would be great if we were as important as we believed we are. But reality says otherwise.

Now there goes someone making sense around here for once...

Exactly!

 

[Al Patterson]

A definable segment of photographers are leaving photography. Those who used to carry a Canon ELPH (or the equivalent from other marques) now are happy with their smart phones.

Professionals may seem high profile, but actually are a rather small percentage of overall camera sales.

With respect to Adobe (photoshop) and Flickr, those technologies were never marketed directly to and for professional photographers. PS was directed to graphic artists, as Adobe knew that Canon & Nikon offered proprietary software for their specific cameras. The colorspace Adobe RGB is indicative of the repro-art intention.

As long as there has been Flickr, serious pros always have preferred their own web sites for direct marketing and exposure. Can anyone say "flash"?

Changing from a digicam to a smartphone isn't leaving photography. The camera in the iPhone takes better photos than my Coolpix 885 ever did.

You need to realise that many people find smartphones good enough for their use.

But I guess anyone not using a camera you personally approve of can't possibly be a photographer...

 

[KM-25]

The topic of this discussion is in my opinion, a symptom of a *much* larger problem....

I know I can be verbose and profoundly insistent that I am seeing things coming that perhaps others can not....and I know how that may come across.

I also know that when large sweeping changes to society happen not over generations or decades like we have been accustomed to but over the course of a few years, we are far more likely to miss key evidence that not all that will come of it will lay as solid a footing for the good prospects as we initially were lead to believe.

In other words, if you as an amateur photographer are OK with the risk of having your photographic property stolen because you don't earn a living with it, what you don't realize is that this will very likely have an effect on *your* ability to earn a living, regardless of what you do to derive income. We are far more connected, too much so actually, for this to not occur....you think you are safe so "Share" away..but you are not...nothing in this life is ever free, there is a price you will pay for it all.

I call this crisis borne of the internet "Social Climate Change". And like the ecological variety, there is evidence we can readily see, on the surface, but a lot of it we can not see because we are forever trying to mitigate any adverse effect in our life by using an approach of engaging in *Minimum Treatment*....what is the least we can get away with in terms of action to solve the problem instead of actually going past the present problem to see what the bigger picture could serve up.

The way things are going is not sustainable, there will be more crashes like the so called "Great Recession" because we view things in the short term. Short term business models, short term solutions for short term gains leading to a greater potential for long term damage.
So now we have more crashes on the way, only this time, they are not only going to be just financial or ecological crashes based on those climate changes, but social ones leading to "Social Great Depression"...

The internet...a big party of Free in which some of those in attendance are starting to feel the effects of a hangover...

A great interview of author Jaron Lanier in Salon that I stumbled across today that echoes a lot of what I have been witnessing:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/jaro..._middle_class/

I use the internet only because I feel I *have* to in some ways...but for the most part I don't like it....so do we really have to? I bet we don't and I am very much willing to bet that if we did not and instead engaged in far more tactile behavior, including how we share our photos and why, we will be much better off.

 

[noisycheese]

Let's call it what it is: Theft

Let's call it what it is: Theft

The topic of this discussion is in my opinion, a symptom of a *much* larger problem....

I know I can be verbose and profoundly insistent that I am seeing things coming that perhaps others can not....and I know how that may come across.

I also know that when large sweeping changes to society happen not over generations or decades like we have been accustomed to but over the course of a few years, we are far more likely to miss key evidence that not all that will come of it will lay as solid a footing for the good prospects as we initially were lead to believe.

In other words, if you as an amateur photographer are OK with the risk of having your photographic property stolen because you don't earn a living with it, what you don't realize is that this will very likely have an effect on *your* ability to earn a living, regardless of what you do to derive income. We are far more connected, too much so actually, for this to not occur....you think you are safe so "Share" away..but you are not...nothing in this life is ever free, there is a price you will pay for it all.

I call this crisis borne of the internet "Social Climate Change". And like the ecological variety, there is evidence we can readily see, on the surface, but a lot of it we can not see because we are forever trying to mitigate any adverse effect in our life by using an approach of engaging in *Minimum Treatment*....what is the least we can get away with in terms of action to solve the problem instead of actually going past the present problem to see what the bigger picture could serve up.

The way things are going is not sustainable, there will be more crashes like the so called "Great Recession" because we view things in the short term. Short term business models, short term solutions for short term gains leading to a greater potential for long term damage.
So now we have more crashes on the way, only this time, they are not only going to be just financial or ecological crashes based on those climate changes, but social ones leading to "Social Great Depression"...

The internet...a big party of Free in which some of those in attendance are starting to feel the effects of a hangover...

A great interview of author Jaron Lanier in Salon that I stumbled across today that echoes a lot of what I have been witnessing:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/jaro..._middle_class/

I use the internet only because I feel I *have* to in some ways...but for the most part I don't like it....so do we really have to? I bet we don't and I am very much willing to bet that if we did not and instead engaged in far more tactile behavior, including how we share our photos and why, we will be much better off.

all the above points are the symptoms of a greater problem that is endemic to our (supposed) modern culture - that being the fact that the vast majority of people simply cannot, do not or will not think things through to their logical conclusion. This is the way that those who run things want it. It benefits the elite few - whether in politics, business or banking - at the expense and peril of the masses of everyday working people who are not billionaires or powerful government functionaries.

There is something inherently obnoxious, offensive, unethical and immoral about a billion dollar social media entity unilaterally deciding that it has the right to take over the images and the rights of photographers - be they hobbyists or working professionals - and exploit their intellectual property for the benefit of the social media entity with no prior permission from the photographer, no credit to the photographer and no financial compensation paid to the creator of the images.

In spite of the provisos and user agreements in which such activity is couched, it is nothing other than theft being perpetuated by a handful of super rich executives at the expense of the "little people."

Only a fool would volunteer to be exploited and abused by such an arrogant and obnoxious arrangement.


JMHO and yes, I know - I sound like a bitter, old coot. I've been called worse and survived. 😀

Sometimes the truth is bitter medicine.