[eddie1960]

i was asked to shoot some portraits of a dog that some friends rescued and wanted to give away. I really don't feel the love for dogs, at all, and this was one of the ugliest dogs i ever saw. when it wasnt peeing on the floor or snapping at me, he just lay there helpless looking, and so very ugly; so i spent some time in photoshop removing the red bloodshot eyes and some of the matted fur etc. I mean NOBODY was gonna want to go near it, let alone take this thing home.
I hope that poor little guy finally found someone to love him.
About 2 years later i was asked to shoot a family portrait for a friend. when he said he wants his dogs in the pic, i said, "no thanks".

Unless you spend a lot of time with them animals are tough. Sounds like before he had his photo done that poor little guy needed to be treated to a cleanup to make him more appealing )

[magkelly]

This is purely speculation on my part, but I wonder if the reason so many photogs seem to have unpleasant attitudes (at least in my limited experience) is because of all the people who essentially say, "wow, nice camera, no wonder your pics are so good!"...?

From what I've seen. It's more that they view every wanna be photographer with a good DSLR or high end cell phone as unwanted competition. These days selling pics off the cuff has gotten far more common. People are using and selling to microstock companies and press publications that once would have never bought pics from anyone not on their staff or at least contracted to them in some way are more and more buying shots from normal people who just happen to be in the right place at the right time. I know several photographers from two local newspapers here. They're ticked as heck about stuff like this. That their local newspapers will even consider taking shots from non-pros at all, let alone compensating anyone non pro for doing so. (Usually they won't or at least not much. You just get a photo credit and the "thrill" of seeing your photo in the papers or your video clip on the news.)

They're getting less and less work because it's easier now for the newspaper not to hire f/t journalistic photographers but to go out and purchase photos from whomever. They're basically on p/t contract status now after years of working for these two papers as f/t staff photographers. It's the same with the design team. Everything is going so automated that a secretary with a copy of Dreamweaver or Indesign can knock out a quick story either for print or online in very short order. Take a look at the news stories online. Look at the rampant mistakes in style, language, typos and so forth. It's not the pros writing all that copy. There are still some pros out there with bylines doing important editorials but for the daily news blurbs? They're getting slowly replaced by anyone handy and inexpensive in the news office who can type. What used to take all day to carefully lay out for print has gone to being far less work and they don't want to pay for pros to do that when they can get interns to do it for free or minimum wage. 90% of the time they don't even pay the interns. I actually turned down an internship with the local newspaper at one point because they expected me to just work f/t for nothing for a year with no hope of getting an actual job after.

Print news is facing some really hard times. People are cancelling paper delivery left and right, going more and more for online content. It's been hurting the bottom line of the industry pretty bad. Staff photographers for news publications are always fighting to keep their jobs and even big mags like Nat Geo are hiring less and less these days. Even the big names aren't getting as much print work. Joe McNally has this one blurb on his site blog where he talks pretty frankly about being laid off all the time after years of working for big mags like Nat Geo. How unsteady his income can be. He's apparently been doing more and more seminars and regular jobs to make up for that lack of print work. It's got to be galling I'll bet to go from doing a bunch of high end journalistic print gigs every year for the big mags to doing more normal stuff like corporate head shots just to make a living. I mean this guy is the epitome of the words "seasoned pro" and a fabulous photographer, IMHO, and they just lay him off all the time? That's nuts. They should be lining up for months ahead of time with a guy like that. I just don't get it at all, why he even has to struggle at this point in his career.

Reporters running around with a video cam guy? Very common now and the stills they can get from that they can and will use too. Heck even the paparazzi are shooting video and just grabbing stills now. It doesn't do away with still photography completely. If you're doing a full on news story on something or someone they usually still want a formal photo session to go with, but it sure doesn't help the daily news photographers that they can just grab one shot from a video, crop it a bit and use it just like that for print work. If I was being phased out in favor of that kind of thing, for inexperienced people with cell phones, DSLR's and so forth who just happen to be there at the right time? I'd be surly and defensive of my territory too probably.

This is why I didn't go into journalistic photography actually. Or decide to do weddings either. It doesn't really matter that a real pro will do it better most of the time to the people buying. All they care about now is getting cheap content as quickly as possible. The photo journalists I know can barely keep their jobs and the people shooting weddings for a living are getting more and more frustrated with people just deciding to use a far less seasoned person with a DSLR because they can do that and save money. My one teacher his normal business is like 3-6 weddings in a month plus lots of ad work, plus studio stuff. Or it used to be. He's pretty darned reasonable and fairly good I think but he'll be the first one to tell you that his least favorite words of late are "Oh, you know what? I can't go there and pay for the food, the venue et all. I'll just get a DSLR and hand it to my cousin, friend, whoever."

It's like the photographer is the one thing they think they should practically get for free and if you won't do it all for what amounts to student rates? They will be that stupid and they will allow some amateur to take the pics. They've got this mentality that you can fix anything in Photoshop these days so why bother paying 5K for a good wedding photographer and prints, book and all? Oh and goodness forbid you should actually want to retain some rights to your photos, not just give them the whole shoot on a disk to do whatever with. A good number will drop you the moment you even mention them having to actually buy their prints.

For the record the guy is no wimp. He's not into just letting people walk all over him, but that's what they want and not going there? Is hurting his business. He's about had enough with doing weddings at all. He still wants to control his own work, do his business in a professional manner, and it used to be he was attracting plenty of clients who had the savvy to know the difference and who would pay reasonable rates. But lately? It seems like 3/4 of the people who walk through the door are like that. I've run into it too. Even doing what I do. Clients they just want you to charge them for an hour or two of taking pics, hand them the whole thing on a disk and let them do their own editing. They want to own them all, have the right to use them however they want sans your input or approval. You're just a warm body clicking a shutter button as far as they are concerned. They might as well be getting passport pics at the local drug store for all they care about getting quality photography.

Photographing a wedding in my book is one of the few things you really don't want to screw up. That's arguably the biggest moment in your life as a couple except maybe for documenting childbirth. You'll probably never look as good as you do on that day again in your life and yet you want Uncle Bob to be the one behind the camera for that? Yeah, uhuh, good luck with that. I won't argue with people like these. I won't sit there and basically take minimum wage or less just to finally be a "pro" with a news organization. I'll get the ax the moment they need to downsize the budget anyway. They won't keep a guy like McNally permanently on staff? They certainly won't keep me. I don't really pay too much attention to the snarls coming from certain pros really. I do get it. I get exactly why they feel that way. It's got to be really hard to adjust and rethink your whole professional life and they're being forced to go there a lot just to survive....

[ve2vfd]

Hmmm I'm strictly amateur when it comes to photography so my first self imposed rule is that I never sell or allow commercial use of my photos (I've had several offers for fire scene photos).

I dabble in a few styles of photography... mostly nature/wildlife, fire scene journalism and candid youth activity photos (my Scout troop).

In nature/wildlife, anything goes. If it happens in front of my lens, I snap away.

At fire scenes, I have privileged access so I never sell or allow commercial use of my photos. I also will never release a photo where a victim is recognizable or where human misery, gore or death is visible.

The youth photos I take are only released to the families of the kids in my troop on our secure section on my gallery, they may do as they please with my photos but I request that any repost or sharing of pics (like on facebook) be done only with permission of everyone recognizable in a photo (and their parents of course).

I will not take any nude or partial nudity photos. I have nothing against those styles, some of those photos can be very nice and classy, but it's just not my thing.

Pat

[VisualDarkness]

Text

But that's not just in photography, it's pretty much in nearly all workplaces in the western world (at least Sweden). Cheap labour by not investing in your workers has been standard for years now and it is starting to really affect the quality in many fields. But it's not the amateurs or temporary workforce's fault, they are merely trying to get some appreciation themselves. I would never put blame on people doing my income bringing profession, well it's not photography, cheaper as I have to prove why I'm worth the more expensive salary and it's up to the companies to actually value their employees and invest in them. If you're too shortsighted you eventually end up walking into a wall. When enough companies hits the wall the culture will once again change.

[luftfluss]

heckuva post

I think a lot of this is emblematic of the "democratization of information"*. In many cases, craftsmanship goes out the proverbial door. Notice that Yahoo now has their "Yahoo Contributor Network"... essentially, free reporting by Jane & Joe Schmoes with (often) poor writing and research. Wikipedia, as good as it is, has killed the assiduously-researched encyclopedia. We no longer look for "good", we look for "good enough".

* a disturbing term, implying that we elect information as valid, rather than ensuring information is valid. Infopinion, my little portmanteau.