Damaso
Photojournalist
As a working photographer I really worry about the next generation of documentary photojournalists who don't have the ecosystem to support themselves while they master their craft do to the tightening market. Crowd sourcing is fine for where there are crowds but the kind of work I do and that photographers like Salgado or W. Eugene Smith did can't be found by tourists on Flickr. You need the dedication to go where others won't and I fear many of these important stories will go untold...
swoop
Well-known
I see it coming. A lot of the photojournalist want ads out there are asking for video experience. Or some writing capability as well.
I can write. But I've never been asked to. Never even bothered doing more than a caption and providing additional info to the reporter. So I have no writing clips. Bt at least I have a ton of image clips, so that helps my resume. It isn't pretty but it shows I have field experience and that I can guarantee results. I'm thinking of picking up a 5d MkII sometime next year just to build experience with video. I figure If I have to do it why not make the video camera a spare still camera.
I don't think video will be the future though. It still comes down to time. Who wants to sit there and watch a 5 minute piece. You can't print videos. Images will always have a place.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
It's not cyclical. That's just wishful thinking. Specialization in news gathering is a thing of the past. We talked about this a lot among ourselves at the last TPA (Texas Press Association) meeting.
It's simple economics. Everyone at our newspapers carry cameras of some kind. P&S, dSLR's, whatever. From accountants to distribution people. If you come upon something newsworthy, you take the photo. A reporter can follow up and get the information. Just get the photo.
Hopes springs eternal, though. Folks here still believe that the South is going to rise again!
It's simple economics. Everyone at our newspapers carry cameras of some kind. P&S, dSLR's, whatever. From accountants to distribution people. If you come upon something newsworthy, you take the photo. A reporter can follow up and get the information. Just get the photo.
Hopes springs eternal, though. Folks here still believe that the South is going to rise again!
martin s
Well-known
Video doesn't replace a picture but rather the whole article. Five minutes in favor of a few images - probably not, but instead of reading an article, I'm sure many prefer the video.
martin
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I believe no one ever did. All that ever mattered is the result.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
She is a metaphor for a larger issue. No one is singling her out personally.
I think if anyone is being blamed, it's the bean counters who are willing to flush quality (and an entire industry) down the toilet in order to save a few pennies.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Oh but there is.
Once people smell money they will up their prices. Stock agencies will only be able to save some cash when they strike deals with people that can actually photograph on the traditional way, because they can provide a volume and you only have to negotiate once to secure a lot of shots. Negotiating with small volume photographers will prove uneconomical.
Best bet is to have a large volume of quality shots available, have all people depicted sign contracts ( no legal hassle)
pluton
Well-known
Remember when commercial photographers were asked to simulate the look of technically and aesthetically-challenged amateur photography? Well, now they don't have to hire a pro to get their market-researched, lowest-common-denominator junk. The Just Plain Folks can now grind it out .
wgerrard
Veteran
As an all-thumbs amateur, I want to endorse Franko's comment. The use of "amateur" images by commercial media is driven by economic forces. Better to fire a photographer and give a reporter the camera than fire the reporter and keep the photographer. Meanwhile, most of the points raised by pros in this thread intended to highlight the value of traditional photography are factors appreciated and understood primarily by professional photographers, not the people who look at those photos. This is true of any profession or craft.
Almost all photos viewed by almost all people are digital images placed online somewhere. That trend is not going to reverse itself. And, as with all things digital, we expect the hardware to be as automated as possible. When I shoot digital, I don't mess around with focus, aperture, etc. I put it on full auto and have fun. That's what I bought it for. People I show photos to can't tell the difference between a photo I hand-crafted and a photo I snapped with a digital on automatic. If I show them a pic that used depth of field, for example, sometimes they'll say "Nice", and other times they'll ask "Why is the background out of focus?"
Being a pro means selling stuff. That means someone selling snaps from a cellphone is just as much a pro as someone selling big paper prints in a studio. No one is keeping score, so it isn't prudent for either one to devalue the other.
Almost all photos viewed by almost all people are digital images placed online somewhere. That trend is not going to reverse itself. And, as with all things digital, we expect the hardware to be as automated as possible. When I shoot digital, I don't mess around with focus, aperture, etc. I put it on full auto and have fun. That's what I bought it for. People I show photos to can't tell the difference between a photo I hand-crafted and a photo I snapped with a digital on automatic. If I show them a pic that used depth of field, for example, sometimes they'll say "Nice", and other times they'll ask "Why is the background out of focus?"
Being a pro means selling stuff. That means someone selling snaps from a cellphone is just as much a pro as someone selling big paper prints in a studio. No one is keeping score, so it isn't prudent for either one to devalue the other.
emraphoto
Veteran
It's not cyclical. That's just wishful thinking. Specialization in news gathering is a thing of the past. We talked about this a lot among ourselves at the last TPA (Texas Press Association) meeting.
It's simple economics. Everyone at our newspapers carry cameras of some kind. P&S, dSLR's, whatever. From accountants to distribution people. If you come upon something newsworthy, you take the photo. A reporter can follow up and get the information. Just get the photo.
Hopes springs eternal, though. Folks here still believe that the South is going to rise again!
i think what this outlines is the shift in "photojournalism" and folks relatively myopic understanding of it. the small, medium and even large circ papers are indeed in a serious state and the only photographers with their heads in the "staff pool" world are most likely holding on for the pension. the very idea of not maintaining ownership/copyright/whatever and exercising your rights accordingly flies in the face of what pays my mortgage almost every month. for the record "specialization" was one of the best decisions i made in the past 3 years. this isn't to point a finger and say "you're wrong". it is merely highlighting how diverse things can be.
amateriat
We're all light!
The interesting thing for me is that most, if not all, of the "toe-dipping" folks making a few bucks on the side via photography, have another source of income–their own or a significant other's–paying the bills. I don't knock that per se (hell, I've done it), but I don't gloat over the inability of a trained pro to cut a living anymore in the same field. (That has a way of coming back to bite you.) The world has long been overwhelmed with images, but now the means of distribution point up just how littered with images we are, and taking more of them at a rate that can only be described as exponential. And, when something is perceived by most people as "easily done" (regardless of whether the perception is right or wrong), that thing is almost always devalued. And, as has already been mentioned, photography is merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg. (Let's talk medicine: tried looking for a new GP lately?)
- Barrett
- Barrett
wgerrard
Veteran
It's the gloating the really annoys me, as well. We see it not just in photography but in almost every profession that's been affected by digital technology. For example, the demise of, or cutbacks, at a major daily newspaper typically attracts a lot of gloating and glee in certain parts of the blogosphere. It's as if they see themselves as, by definition, superior beings engaged in a contest with lesser creatures. I can understand advocating technology and new ways of doing business with that technology, but I can't understand gloating when real people lose real jobs.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Prior to noticing how my microstock income was being constantly dilluted and shipping off all my Nikon digital gear to the rendering factory, I also noticed how my stupid iPhone 3Gs made images about as good as my D700 when they were only used on the web.
What better excuse to come back to a Leica and 35/1.4? Now, I will be a carefree amateur with no pretensions to glory. I wish the damned Leica would arrive. I'm bored with the iPhone!
What better excuse to come back to a Leica and 35/1.4? Now, I will be a carefree amateur with no pretensions to glory. I wish the damned Leica would arrive. I'm bored with the iPhone!
jfretless
Established
Nobody wants to pay for images, period.
Pros who think the problem lies with amateurs who undercut with low prices or "give" their work away are a little misguided. Sure, that's a small part of the problem, but more it's the fact that people don't put any value on images anymore. The "good enough" camera phone image is king.
My children attend a high parent participation school, which means, I'm on the campus a lot with my camera. Also, field trips and events are a major part of the school. Over the past four years, I have documented the journey of about 100 kids through this school. I recently made available about 10,000 of my images online (private galleries). Because of various factors (legal and moral), I choose to only charge a "service" fee for parents to print or download images from the site. Mainly to pay for the cost of the site. Very MODEST to say the least. 50 cents for a 4x6 and 25 cents for a 1MP download with personal license. Not to mention that I only get half of the profit. Parents can buy other items, larger prints, etc.
After a couple of weeks;
17,000 images views.
80 4x6 prints sold. No digital downloads.
A TON of Thank Yous and hugs from Moms. ...and a couple of inquiries about portrait sessions and events, but no deposits received.
I figure that only 3% of people are willing to pay ANY amount for image of their child. They rest don't get it and probably never will.
I suspect/hoping that as time passes, the value of these images will increase. As the images get older, I will be raising the price of them.
John.
Pros who think the problem lies with amateurs who undercut with low prices or "give" their work away are a little misguided. Sure, that's a small part of the problem, but more it's the fact that people don't put any value on images anymore. The "good enough" camera phone image is king.
My children attend a high parent participation school, which means, I'm on the campus a lot with my camera. Also, field trips and events are a major part of the school. Over the past four years, I have documented the journey of about 100 kids through this school. I recently made available about 10,000 of my images online (private galleries). Because of various factors (legal and moral), I choose to only charge a "service" fee for parents to print or download images from the site. Mainly to pay for the cost of the site. Very MODEST to say the least. 50 cents for a 4x6 and 25 cents for a 1MP download with personal license. Not to mention that I only get half of the profit. Parents can buy other items, larger prints, etc.
After a couple of weeks;
17,000 images views.
80 4x6 prints sold. No digital downloads.
A TON of Thank Yous and hugs from Moms. ...and a couple of inquiries about portrait sessions and events, but no deposits received.
I figure that only 3% of people are willing to pay ANY amount for image of their child. They rest don't get it and probably never will.
I suspect/hoping that as time passes, the value of these images will increase. As the images get older, I will be raising the price of them.
John.