Not Just the Photo, the Photographer of Today

[benjikan]

What I have come to realize is that the photographer must be adept in a much wider range of disciplines than was acceptable only a few years ago. He/She must be a photographer an intermediate art director, retouch artist and visionary. The importance of being a good communicator is also a vital part of the profession. Even if one has an agent the importance of this diversification can't be understated.

What are your impressions about where the photographer is today?

Ben

[Asad_Masede]

Originally Posted by benjikan

What I have come to realize is that the photographer must be adept in a much wider range of disciplines than was acceptable only a few years ago. He/She must be a photographer an intermediate art director, retouch artist and visionary. The importance of being a good communicator is also a vital part of the profession. Even if one has an agent the importance of this diversification can't be understated.

What are your impressions about where the photographer is today?

Ben

I agree with you, Ben. A photographer now is his/her own "lab assistant", s/he "develops" own images as well as finishes the final product. Not every pro out there has their own printer, but many do and that also turns them into their own "printing lab." In other words, being an entire studio on two legs isn't far from the definition of today's photographer.

A dedicated art director is still the way to go for large complicated projects for stock and advertising etc. And of course, not every photographer wants to be a make-up artist so those are still a separate entity most of the time.

One thing is for sure though, is that a certain degree of computer knowledge is absolutely essential for photography today, without which a photographer will do nothing but languish and spend money getting others to do simple computer tasks, and that can be expensive. (I know because I do this kind of work for some photographers)

Good computer knowledge and to a degree internet proficiency (maintaining and possibly even building own website) is no longer the sole domain of "nerds" and "geeks", it's become so vital.

In the film days, all a "photographer" really had to do was shoot, then he/she would hand over their film or slides to a lab person, get proofs and tell them which ones he/she wanted printed. Now the entire industry has re-shaped itself around digital and that has changed the landscape entirely.

Cheers,
-Asad

[little laker]

I have to agree with both of you.

People seem to think that once I leave the location my job is done, and they never believe that I'm in front of the computer hours at a time, and sometimes even days getting everything perfected for developing

[kenyee]

On a related note, do you think there is too much PP being done today?

E.g., take model/glamour shots...I think in 80-90% of the ones I've seen, the picture has had Photoshop's healing brush run on them.
Then there's the technique of making everything except your subject appear in B&W by "painting out" the color. And there's HDR which makes photos look surreal.

But yes, I think photographers spend at least half their time doing PP nowadays. It lets them do photos that are unique, but I also do appreciate the ones that say "this picture has no PP" and it looks really good :-) I suppose you could argue that in the film days, they did this by abusing negatives on the enlarger though ;-)

[matix]

Originally Posted by kenyee

On a related note, do you think there is too much PP being done today?

But yes, I think photographers spend at least half their time doing PP nowadays. It lets them do photos that are unique, but I also do appreciate the ones that say "this picture has no PP" and it looks really good :-) I suppose you could argue that in the film days, they did this by abusing negatives on the enlarger though ;-)

Oh yes, it was always done... I used a pro processing lab for colour, and did B & W myself, and knew all the tricks, cropping, dodging, burning in, filters, tinting, air brushing, nylon stocking filters, masks, paper types and pushing developers etc. All we have done with digital is change the terms to suit the times and equipment.

And for the past few years no one would have sent in a film to a processing lab without the lab tech digitizing the negative or at very least changing the brightness and contrast to enhance the shot.

I try not to modify too much, but love the lattitude it give to recover a less than favourable result.

Phil

[khardur]

Originally Posted by kenyee

I also do appreciate the ones that say "this picture has no PP" and it looks really good :-)

Amen to that! (deleted soapbox rant because I wanted to stay on topic - Dan)


But to get back to what Ben was saying, every so often I browse some of the job sites for "photographer" on the off chance might grab me - and the majority of jobs that aren't with a "school portrait" company or a mall 1 hr studio, are art director type positions, requiring much more knowledge of office workings/skills, desktop publishing/art program skills, etc etc..

(though the job I have I have been gaining quite a few other skills that should help me should the company ever go under)

[jaws]

I'm sure that 20 years ago the same comments would be heard that 'our profession has to be better, harder more complex than before' whilst I do agree with the general idea, i also think that with all professions their are some that are on the fringe and others that want to be involved and in control of all steps of their craft, all power to them.
I think its the people that are involved this way take their craft to new levels and set the standard for others to follow,
Now me, I am a rank amateur but in my paying profession continuing pro development is the same as caring about what you do.
My 2 cents worth (for what its worth)
Cheers,
John

[PDL]

Here is an interesting article on shooting digital
Why shoot digital?
In the middle the author shows that it costs around a whole lot of money - directly out of the photographers pocket - to go digital. It also implies that the photographer is "in charge" of the entire process. (Workflow)

The process starts with contacting the client, scheduling, shooting, post processing and printing. Now the photographer is expected to do it all and do it using their own local resources. As I recall - a brace of K10D's (with the associated limited lenses), batteries, SD cards, a good computer to work with (something much more significant than the typical local buy it from Wally World), software to work with (and know how to use it) and lots of redundant storage. You have to know quite a lot about computers and the supporting infrastructure to give your images a well stocked home. Then add in printers (how about 1,800 USD for a set of ink cartridges). Add in marketing, editing, driving and other types of overhead that must be attended too.

Then you have to add in inspiration, capability, competence and the ability to just get along with "customers" (and I mean to use that term in the pejorative).

Yes - the digital photographer does quite a lot more than now than in the past. You have to be a jack of all trades.

What I need is a good editor - someone that I respect - someone who will give me the swift kick in the pants on a regular basis.

PDL
PS: check out the ASMP site - lots of good information there (no I am not a member) especially about starting up a business, storing images, workflow, check sheets etc. ASMP: Digital Photography Resources is very good - start here.

[rhermans]

I have to agree with all the post above.
There is for me just one thing missing.

Does any of you mind the extra work. The possibility to get a shot the way you saw it (wanted it) when you took it.

For me it's a mixed feeling, I would still like to do the pp (enjoy it even) but sometime it just is to much.

[Mallee Boy]

Hi Ben,
Very much so. My wife's family are second generation photographers and her brother was only talking about this recently.
He was attempting to explain to my daughter who wants to go further with her photography that "photography" was (in his opinion) now made up of of three components, each equally dependant on the other.

The three parts he listed were the actual taking of the picture (and all that goes into that), the post processing and then the printing. Get anyone of them wrong and you have an un-saleable product.

Interestingly my wife observed that her mother used to spend hours re-touching photos and her Dad spent a large part of his life in the dark room, as well as behind the camera.

We have come along way....instead of the dark room, you now get to stare at a computer screen....

[stewart_photo]

Originally Posted by rhermans

I have to agree with all the post above. There is for me just one thing missing.

Does any of you mind the extra work. The possibility to get a shot the way you saw it (wanted it) when you took it. For me it's a mixed feeling, I would still like to do the pp (enjoy it even) but sometime it just is to much.

Enjoyment aside, PP has certainly impacted my income. Over the previous two years (since switching to digital), my income has declined by just under twenty percent. This was primarily due to the time spent sitting in front of a computer that was once spent seeking new work and new clients. Since I'm a photographer (paid for taking pictures, not sitting at a computer), I've recently made changes to reduce my time in front of the computer (outsourcing much of that work as I once did with film). I now have much more time to do the photography I'm actually paid to do.

As far as costs associated with digital are concerned (responding to PDL's message above), I'm constantly seeking and have found some ways to keep those down. For example, I build my own computers using the latest, fastest, technology (fastest motherboard, processor, graphics card, etc). As such, my computer remains viable, with only minor hardware adjustments, for up to four or five years (not just 18 months as the article he linked to suggests).

stewart

[PDL]

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

Enjoyment aside, PP has certainly impacted my income. Over the previous two years (since switching to digital), my income has declined by just under twenty percent. This was primarily due to the time spent sitting in front of a computer that was once spent seeking new work and new clients. Since I'm a photographer (paid for taking pictures, not sitting at a computer), I've recently made changes to reduce my time in front of the computer (outsourcing much of that work as I once did with film). I now have much more time to do the photography I'm actually paid to do.
snip
stewart

Ah -- that is what this thread is all about - having to become proficient in doing other things. I, on the other hand, am IT guy - I understand all too well what the changes to computing technology have done to the world. Photographers in this digital landscape now have to learn how to build, implement, maintain and tweak devices that do not take images. They have to become well versed in OS and program (tools) details to just keep their head above water.

Back in the old days - you could get a good enlarger (I have a Besler 23c III with a dicroic color head) a good lens (I have a El Nikor - can't remember the f/stop or focal length - other than it is a beautiful lens) consistent water temperature and a few days to kill. You could make beautiful prints - learn the techniques and practice your art for decades. The film we used got better, the cameras took over the mundane aspects of taking pictures (focus, exposure, winding) and some of us fell in love with 4x5 sheet film.

Now we have a small computer held in our hands, using technology that was an outgrowth of thin film memory (CCD's) to capture thousands of images in an afternoon. We expect to shoot in near darkness and get noiseless results with dynamic range that equals the human eye on these machines that have more computing power than the lunar lander. We use programs to "fidget" with the information from these machines (cameras) using other machines that do millions of floating point operations per second - while at the same time we are writing emails, playing games and b*tching on forums.

So now we are supposed to know "photography", "computers", "PP programs" (I would use photoshop here but there are really more choices out there), "sales", "marketing" and "what makes a good picture". Add into this the fact that nearly every customer will try to use the excuse that "my uncle Bob has a digital camera and he said he would do it (wedding, graduation, school pictures, portrait -- fill in the it) for free or lunch.

I ah --- got a little carried away here - but yes, the photographer of today is more that just a shooter - jack of all trades - whether you like it or not.

PDL

[stewart_photo]

Originally Posted by PDL

Ah -- that is what this thread is all about - having to become proficient in doing other things. I, on the other hand, am IT guy - I understand all too well what the changes to computing technology have done to the world. Photographers in this digital landscape now have to learn how to build, implement, maintain and tweak devices that do not take images. They have to become well versed in OS and program (tools) details to just keep their head above water. (snip)

As hinted in my previous message, it's not really a matter of learning in my case. I've already said I build my own computers. I will add that I've owned computers continuously for a good number of years and consider myself quite proficient when it comes to operating systems (Mac & Windows) and most popular applications (and more than a few esoteric ones). I taught myself image editing years ago, long before the major camera manufacturers started making digital cameras. I've also been involved in photography for many years.

Instead, it is simply a matter of time. I don't have the time to do it all and do it well. Something had to be sacrificed. Over the last couple of years, I've sacrifaced time spent with clients and potential customers to gain more time for image editing and so on. That impacted my bottom line much more than I expected. Since I like money more than image editing, that is now changing.

By the way, I keep talking about myself since I can't really speak about others.

(snip) but yes, the photographer of today is more that just a shooter - jack of all trades - whether you like it or not.

Perhaps. But I intend to find a much better balance between those trades. Computers are indeed nice and useful, but there is much more to the world than just that. Whoa, that's enough - I'm now beginning to sound like some type of philosopher.

stewart

[Rolly]

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

..........that's enough - I'm now beginning to sound like some type of philosopher.

And there's something not quite nice about being philosophical ?????????

[stewart_photo]

When it starts drifting away from the ultimate context of the discussion and unnecessarily states the bloody obvious, perhaps so.

stewart