NYT - For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path

Yeah. I was reading this on my Ipod Touch last night. Which is telling of how digital changes things. I railed against this idea that "good enough" was really good enough for years. And then I finally realized that for most people, that was true. Digital killed the pro photographer. Those of us in the pro arena simply have to reinvent ourselves. Change or die.
 
Blame Leice ... they invented auto focus or so I've read ... and Nikon need a kick in the arse for that matrix metering system that is near idiot proof!

Digital has sure created some collateral damage in the world of paid photography ... mind you the fact that this woman in the article kicked off with a $99.00 camera and caught someone's attention through flickr indicates she must have some sort of eye. I'd be curious to see her pics?
 
Though never a full-time pro, for years I would have a wedding and/or portrait job most weeks. Now long retired I still get asked occasionally, but usually decline - there are just too many 'photographers' around, and some very good ones! - at these gigs. In a lot of ways I'm glad that I now shoot for fun to please myself and family, and that I'm not a youngster trying to make a living at our wonderful occupation. :)
Dave.
 
Just ask Google:)

www.flickr.com/people/pinksherbet/


Keith said:
Blame Leice ... they invented auto focus or so I've read ... and Nikon need a kick in the arse for that matrix metering system that is near idiot proof!

Digital has sure created some collateral damage in the world of paid photography ... mind you the fact that this woman in the article kicked off with a $99.00 camera and caught someone's attention through flickr indicates she must have some sort of eye. I'd be curious to see her pics?
Click to expand...
 
Ah, yes. The tyranny of the mob...

NYT:

“Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure,” Ms. Eismann said. “Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?”

But amateurs like Ms. Pruitt do not particularly care.

“I never followed any traditional photography rules only because I didn’t know of any — I never went to photography school, never took any classes,” she said. “People don’t know the rules, so they just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.”"
 
newspaperguy said:
Hmmm... impressive.

Methinks she doth protest too much.
Click to expand...

The text for the lead picture in the NYT article says, "D. Sharon Pruitt, taking photos of her daughter Hayley, is one of a growing number of amateur photographers who earn small fees for their work."

She is an amateur who has sold some pictures. She is not protesting. She's enjoying the extra income.
 
All I know is that Pink Sherbert is a good photographer, her pictures have a lot more soul than a lot of professional lifestyle-kids photographers. That she low balls is another matter.
 
Harry Lime said:
Ah, yes. The tyranny of the mob...

NY “People don’t know the rules, so they just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.”"
Click to expand...

I found myself ready to detest her and her pretentious initial. But she has a good eye, her photos are really human, with far more energy and vibe than many stock shots.

It's quite possible she's a better photographer than the guy who went to college. Hopefully she'll learn to hike her prices eventually.
 
Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I looked at her pics and they are competent for an amateur.

I'm just bothered by the dismissal of professional experience by 'gut decision'.
There is a movement in society these days that dismisses everything from hard science to professional experience as 'opinion'. It's a blurry line when it comes to the arts, but I wonder if people like this feel the same way about decisions or analysis their doctor makes...

The irony is that although she dismisses professionals, I'm willing to bet that since she has had success, she does think of herself as something of a professional... and no longer just a mom taking pictures of her kids.
 
Last edited:
Harry Lime said:
Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I looked at her pics and they are competent.

I'm just bothered by the dismissal of professional experience by 'gut decision'.
There is a movement in society these days that dismisses everything from hard science to professional experience as 'opinion'. It's a blurry line when it comes to the arts, but I wonder if people like this feel the same way about decisions or analysis their doctor makes...
Click to expand...

That's just a "theory". ;-)

I did have my eyes examined by a machine.


People seem to accept less than great photos for publication, though all the chimping in the world will not help if you missed the shot that cannot be retaken. However, the bar is certainly lowered for many photographs.

What I might call serious photography, working with determination with the goal of producing a good, perhaps great, image-- will remain the domain of a few, but as always, only a few could be financially successful within fine art photography.

The rest is a floating bar of success.

Tough times for the photojournalist who might cross over into the fine art realm within his assignment.

Regards, John
 
Harry, in the case of the professional (trained) photojournalists, any decline was accompanied by the complete breakdown of the traditional advertising/news model that newspapers and magazines had used. News departments across the world are shrinking, budgets plummeting, and staff numbers dropping drastically. That ship doesn't float anymore, you know this.

Agree with you 100% that experience means little these days, unfortunately and as the article implies, no one seems to give a crap anymore whether you are a trained photographer or not. The woman discussed in the article illustrates the point that SOME untrained photographers can bring a new "eye" to an art director. When she starts charging a liveable wage for her images, the art director will move to someone else.

Which brings us to the root of the problem - it's the art directors :D
 
excepted from wikipedia:

A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. ... The theory holds that within the ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers.

She found a market for her images. Good for her. She has no obligation to charge higher prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom