# How the public - and industry - sees photographers



## The_Traveler (Jun 3, 2013)

First the CEO of Flickr says there are no professional photographers, then the Chicago Sun Times lays off its entire photography staff and gives reporters I-phone photography lessons. Has the world gone mad?

No clearly, what we, as photographers, failed to realize was how the rest of the world viewed what we do. 
Honestly, most people don't give a crap.
They, everyone else, can get decent pictures using intelligent cameras and make cheap prints virtually anywhere and the distinction between  OK and terrific is invisible to most people.

This was made even clearer to me this past weekend when I went to an 'art' fair in Frederick, MD. This was not a particularly high level fair but most of the booths showed arts and crafts a bit above the average. 

The photography on the other hand ranged from _burn-out-your-eyes_ horrible to OK (with one quite good exception.) There was an emphasis on tricks - large over done HDRs printed on canvas, pictures with the saturation turned up to 11, pictures where the camera was intentionally joggled during exposure - every conceivable and awful photo technique you can conceive of - and a couple of new ones added in.
These booths were getting a fair amount of traffic - and it seemed sales.

There is no escaping the fact that photography, like the movies and books and tv, is pandering to the tastes of the tasteless. I'm sort of happy I'm not a photographer who is trying for retail sales as an income and has to compete with that other 'stuff'.

(The was one photographer who was terrific and deserves a mention - Steven l. Miller (SLMphoto.com) showed lots of well seen and well done B&Ws. I hope he did well but this was clearly a bit of class submerged in a flood of crap.)


----------



## tirediron (Jun 3, 2013)

And are you now going to recommend a bridge off of which I should jump too?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 3, 2013)

I agree totally... (the rest of my post was deleted... as it would probably offend someone!)


----------



## Tony S (Jun 3, 2013)

Those that can't adapt and change with the times will disappear with the times. To be successful you need to stay ahead of the pack, find your niche and excel at it.

  Or just keep it as a hobby and have fun with it.


----------



## runnah (Jun 3, 2013)

Chalk it up to the same reason Budwieser is the number one beer in america. 

Some prefer a fine craft brewed stout and an aged prime cut steak and some like taco bell and a 30 pack of bud light.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 3, 2013)

It seems a bit arrogant of us (and I use the second person here quite deliberately) to declare that the masses are "wrong" here.


----------



## runnah (Jun 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It seems a bit arrogant of us (and I use the second person here quite deliberately) to declare that the masses are "wrong" here.



I can see that point of the issue but at the same time it's also most our duty to keep the "art" alive if you will. But on the flip side the "masses" do support our side of things. If nikon wasn't selling a boat load of entry level camera would they even be able to make new pro grade cameras?


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It seems a bit arrogant of us (and I use the second person here quite deliberately) to declare that the masses are "wrong" here.



There is no wrong or right.

There are only markets and market demands.

And markets are changing ... and always have been. The only chance is to adapt, if demand in your market segment changes ... or leave.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 3, 2013)

There's always tension between "zee arteests" and _hoi polloi. _Through this tension, and other stuff, art evolves. I think.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It seems a bit arrogant of us (and I use the second person here quite deliberately) to declare that the masses are "wrong" here.



SAT scores are lower than they have ever been... nothing "WRONG" there! Average Scores for SAT Tests Drop | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 25, 2012 | PBS

Drug and Alchohol abuse are going crazy... nothing "WRONG" there!  Prescriptions for alcohol addiction soar by 70% in the last decade | Mail Online

Violent crime increasing! Nothing "WRONG" there!  U.S. violent crime up for first time in years - CNN.com

Sure... let the "masses" rule... Grab a beer... watch a little reality TV.. everything will be just fine!  

( and yea.. I know... I selected just the links I needed to make my point... isn't that the standard accusation around here? lol!)


----------



## runnah (Jun 3, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > It seems a bit arrogant of us (and I use the second person here quite deliberately) to declare that the masses are "wrong" here.
> ...


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 3, 2013)

tirediron said:


> And are you now going to recommend a bridge off of which I should jump too?



Actually your iPhone should be able to provide that information.  :mrgreen:


----------



## tirediron (Jun 3, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > And are you now going to recommend a bridge off of which I should jump too?
> ...


Well.. I don't have an iPhone, so there! :greenpbl:


----------



## Designer (Jun 3, 2013)

I liked this movie so much that I bought a copy.  

Idiocracy - Rotten Tomatoes

The way of the world to come.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 3, 2013)

I don't see anything wrong with this, really.

You buy art today for two major reasons, IMO:
1) Thought provokingness / conversation piece / to look cool etc.
2) To go with your sofa.

Saturated, eye popping colors are more likely to go well with somebody's sofa, and "hip" filters and techniques like HDR are more likely to make you look trendy, or to make guests in your home go "oh weird, how do they do THAT?" since it looks so obviously and un-subtly different than their own snapshots.

If you want to sell photos as your main priority, then 90% of the time, you should be jumping on those sorts of motivations, not your own artistic vision. Unless you really are that 1 in a million brilliant artist whose vision will instantly shine through to make an even BETTER conversation piece.

And if that upsets you, well... just be glad that you are an artist today, at least, and not at almost any other time in history. *100+ years ago your patrons would have had MUCH more influence over your decisions than they do now.* As in, specifically telling you where to paint every little object in the scene, etc. And you might have disagreed with every bit of it.  Too bad, you would have done it if you wanted to get paid.  This is not a new trend in any way shape or form.


If you want to pursue your own artistic vision, even though you know it won't be popular, then go for it primarily as a hobby!  That's what I usually do.  But just don't be shocked if you try to sell it and nobody stops at your booth.


----------



## nmoody (Jun 3, 2013)

Designer said:


> I liked this movie so much that I bought a copy.
> 
> Idiocracy - Rotten Tomatoes
> 
> The way of the world to come.



Sad but true


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 3, 2013)

nmoody said:


> Sad but true



it was an amusing and somewhat thought provoking movie, and I enjoyed it.

But it isn't very "true" at all.  For example, how did those people survive for hundred or thousands of years or whatever it was if they couldn't even grow one single crop of food? The plants were supposedly just fine growing with soft drinks poured on them for 500 years, but then the 501st crop suddenly failed?  No, the first crop would have failed.

Once you get stupid enough, your stupidity DOES start to affect your reproductive fitness.  Those people would have all starved to death, and would therefore no longer have been out-producing the reasonably intelligent people.  

There's a limit. Which is why it's just a comedy movie, not a serious, panicked documentary film full of expert testimony.


----------



## 412 Burgh (Jun 3, 2013)

tirediron said:


> TCampbell said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



your iPad can!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 3, 2013)

OP, can't argue with anything you said. Just how the photo biz turned out. Pix phones / ink jet priners / digital cams fudged it all up (kinda) . On the other hand digital made it much easier for us to get great results and took a lot of the drudgery out of pix making.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 3, 2013)

tirediron said:


> And are you now going to recommend a bridge off of which I should jump too?




I feel like that sometimes!


----------



## Pallycow (Jun 3, 2013)

speaking of iPad

This asshat decided to step in the way at the graduation I was shooting at this weekend.  I even had the 100-400 lens on so I could be out of others' way and try to shoot around asshats like this.  Doesn't always work.


----------



## runnah (Jun 3, 2013)

Pallycow said:


> speaking of iPad
> 
> This asshat decided to step in the way at the graduation I was shooting at this weekend.  I even had the 100-400 lens on so I could be out of others' way and try to shoot around asshats like this.  Doesn't always work.



Seriously, who takes photos with an I pad?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 3, 2013)

runnah said:


> Seriously, who takes photos with an I pad?



Pro photographers


----------



## runnah (Jun 3, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Pro photographers



Bitches be tripping


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 3, 2013)

I think the public does not think much about photographers. 

What does industry think? I don't know. I never worked in the money end of it. 

Bottom line is a quote from what I wrote in my book where I was talking about street photography....

_'If I would get 1 keeper from a roll of 36 - I would be very happy. Sometimes, roll after roll were trash. But, as all of you who are photographers know so well, we keep on shooting through thick or thin. As photographers, we know no other way than to record our world as we see it.'
_
Being a real photographer can drive you crazy. What is a real photographer? Someone that eats, drinks lives and thinks about taking photographs by day and dreams about it at night. In short they are obsessed with freezing time. It does not matter if they are great or poor at it, the bottom line is _freezing time_ is in their blood. We don't care if we have an outlet for our photos, fame or recognition..._we just keep shooting no matter what._ 

In my own case I never thought about preservation until I lost all my work for the 1980's to 1990's in a flood. Then last Nov I was informed that my family will trash of all my photography when I die. So that was the only driving force to get some of it archived....40 years of shooting and I had never given it any thought until these things unfolded.

If you guys really want to get depressed with your photography efforts...try getting your work accepted to museums.





&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;


Here are a few shipments of my limited editon, hand printed books and 'junk mail' mini portfolios going to the UK, Canada, China and Germany. Close to $300 for USPS express, insured mail alone. No money for me, it is all donated. 











This is what I send out for junk mail. A dozen letter size archival pigment prints on Hahn ultrasmooth rag paper. Sleeve em, 2 CD's, nice shipping package, letterhead, packing bubblewrap, outer protection bag, package tape, $18 - $19 to ship to Russia or Germany...it all adds up. 











&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;

&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
But it is cheaper than sending out complete portfolios. Here is a 30 print 13 x 19 portfolio, Pina Zangaro 13 x 19 alum print box, 2 CD's ready to be packed and shipped. $195 just for the FED-X to China. 

Most of what I send out is all spec, No one ever replies to emails or letters. And even with sending prints on spec, you seldom hear anything. One museum sent back the prints and kept the alum box. The prints were not packed safely and they were all ruined. In this case the China museum responded to a sample $50 junk mail print shipment_.

...but we keep on shooting through thick or thin. 
&#12288;
&#12288;_


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 3, 2013)

^ Can you explain more about why you are trying to send portfolios on spec to Chinese museums?  That's very interesting, but I'm afraid the lack of any context is pretty confusing.

I've never worked with galleries or museums before.  Is that standard practice to just cold call with photos? Versus calling and talking, or online portfolios first, or something?


----------



## Greiver (Jun 3, 2013)

Pallycow said:


> speaking of iPad
> 
> This asshat decided to step in the way at the graduation I was shooting at this weekend.  I even had the 100-400 lens on so I could be out of others' way and try to shoot around asshats like this.  Doesn't always work.



I would have called them out on that. I mean really? You can afford a 700 dollar crap-tablet but not a P&S to use instead? Ugh.


----------



## runnah (Jun 3, 2013)

Greiver said:


> I would have called them out on that. I mean really? You can afford a 700 dollar crap-tablet but not a P&S to use instead? Ugh.



Well you have to been seen using your extra large iPhone.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It seems a bit arrogant of us (and I use the second person here quite deliberately) to declare that the masses are "wrong" here.



Well that would be the first person plural (us), and I didn't say that they were wrong. 
I think their taste is undeveloped, vulgar and horrible.

As much as I like Charlie, his links are giving the wrong impression. 



cgipson1 said:


> SAT scores are lower than they have ever been... nothing "WRONG" there! Average Scores for SAT Tests Drop | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 25, 2012 | PBS



Because SAT's are essentially culturally biased tests of knowledge and a wider spectrum of students are encouraged to take the tests, the average grade could be seen as getting lower. But that's an artifact of the sampling of the population.



cgipson1 said:


> Drug and Alchohol abuse are going crazy... nothing "WRONG" there! Prescriptions for alcohol addiction soar by 70% in the last decade | Mail Online



The increase is prescriptions to counter abuse could mean only that those abusing are seeking care more.
Here is a quote from the National Institute on Drug Abuse where more and better stats can be found.


> Illicit drug use continued at elevated rates in 2010, after rising in 2009 to its highest level since 2002, according to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Nearly 9 percent of Americans aged 12 and olderan estimated 22.6 million peoplereported using illicit drugs in the month prior to the survey.
> 
> 
> The survey, released in September 2011, showed that marijuana use was the major driver of the higher rates over the past 2 years; past-month marijuana use rose from about 6.1 percent in 2008 to 6.9 percentrepresenting about 17.4 million peoplein 2010.
> ...





cgipson1 said:


> Violent crime increasing! Nothing "WRONG" there! U.S. violent crime up for first time in years - CNN.com



Again, misleading link.
According to the FBI



> Overview
> In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.
> 
> 
> ...



All that being said, my point is that the ubiquity of smarter cameras and lower technical and economic barriers to being involved in producing 'art' means that the quality pyramid is getting large at the bottom and more people with less talent, desire and scruples are chasing the art dollar.


----------



## Pallycow (Jun 3, 2013)

One of the "paid" photogs for the event was around, he and I crossed paths several times as we both seemed to want to use the "good" spots.  lol.  naturally I let him get his in first as he was hired to do so, and many times he stepped aside so I could get in...which was cool of him.  Was not an arrogant prick like many usually are at these gigs, as we talked gear and stuff between speeches.... 

During the iPad shoot, she got in his way too as we were side by side taking turns as they came down the exit aisle...and I said to him rather loudly "boy...that iPad chit up in the way sure makes it hard to do your job doesn't it ?"  to which he replied...loudly...."yeah..it sure does...iPads are always in my way while I'm trying to capture the kids I'm PAID to capture"  lol

There really is no point confronting such people.  They think they have just as much of a "right" as we do...and to a point they are right.  It is more of a common courtesy thing really.  To which, you cannot educate the general public on randomly.  So you just have to learn to work around them, then make fun of them on the net later.


----------



## IByte (Jun 3, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I agree totally... (the rest of my post was deleted... as it would probably offend someone!)



Noooooooo, boooo to censorship!!


----------



## IByte (Jun 3, 2013)

Lol ****ty artwork is the new abstract; like Geek Squad is the new high level of computer technicians.


----------



## sleist (Jun 3, 2013)

If you shoot to please everyone, you will always fail.
If you shoot to please yourself, you will always be rewarded.


----------



## flow (Jun 3, 2013)

Ugh, the tablet cameras. Take the kids to the aquarium or zoo, and there are people all over the place with that screen up in front of them. A few times we've been there same time as some school's field trip, and then it's a forest of them. I'm pretty sure, if I bought an iPad, I sure wouldn't trust a 10-year-old to borrow it for a (marginally supervised) day at the zoo!


----------



## SquarePeg (Jun 3, 2013)

flow said:


> Ugh, the tablet cameras. Take the kids to the aquarium or zoo, and there are people all over the place with that screen up in front of them. A few times we've been there same time as some school's field trip, and then it's a forest of them. I'm pretty sure, if I bought an iPad, I sure wouldn't trust a 10-year-old to borrow it for a (marginally supervised) day at the zoo!



Took my daughter's Girl Scout troop to a horse farm the other day and one of the girls (10 years old) had her mom's t3i.  She kept putting it down and had to be reminded several times to take it as we moved from one area to the next.


----------



## Greiver (Jun 3, 2013)

SquarePeg said:


> flow said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh, the tablet cameras. Take the kids to the aquarium or zoo, and there are people all over the place with that screen up in front of them. A few times we've been there same time as some school's field trip, and then it's a forest of them. I'm pretty sure, if I bought an iPad, I sure wouldn't trust a 10-year-old to borrow it for a (marginally supervised) day at the zoo!
> ...


This is why I wouldn't let anyone regardless of age use my DSLR.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 3, 2013)

sleist said:


> If you shoot to please everyone, you will always fail.
> If you shoot to please yourself, you will always be rewarded.



I shoot to please my clients.


----------



## bratkinson (Jun 4, 2013)

Seeing the I-pad 'special' shooter, it confirms what I learned about 40 years ago when I started taking pictures of trains in earnest...having consideration for 'the other guy' is a disappearing 'art'. Even amongst 'trained' rail photographers, there's ALWAYS some jerk that will step in front of the guy set up on a tripod when the train comes. These days, too many people are only concerned with what they want to do/satisfying themselves and everyone else can go someplace else.

Unfortunately, we who do practice 'courtesy' are a dying breed. The days of cell phone and ipad photography just adds to the 'jerk' class of photographer at an ever increasing pace. We have no choice but to deal with it.

Although, maybe we could tell some of the jerks that the big white lens and camera: "is a 44 magnum...the most powerful handgun in the world..."


----------



## weepete (Jun 4, 2013)

Or another way to look at it is that even today, with a saturated market isn't it great that people are still buying prints?

Sure, there's no accounting for taste however when it's so easy to rip off images from the web surley its a good thing that a fair amount of custom can be had from these types of wee fairs. It can also mean that more people are getting into photography and while that may mean there is more rubbish about it can also mean that general standards can increase in quality too.

Don't forget that we are seeing the biggest change in photography since the compact camera was invented. Who knows where that will lead us....


----------



## runnah (Jun 4, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > If you shoot to please everyone, you will always fail.
> ...



I shoot to thrill.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 4, 2013)

Adapt or die.

If people are pandering to the tasteless, it's because the tasteless are signing the checks.

"Tricks"? Overcooked HDR?

If that's what people want to pay for, I don't see why it's surprising that there would be examples of those for people to buy. It's called "smart business", in that it offers customers what customers actually want to buy. Not offering it is a bad business decision. A person might believe it maintains a certain level of integrity as an artist, but then it should be no mystery to that person why the term "starving artist" exists...


----------



## runnah (Jun 4, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> If people are pandering to the tasteless, it's because the tasteless are signing the checks.



Remember wood paneling for cars? I think that should put the nail in the coffin that people in this country have horrible taste.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

The fact is that tastes evolve.

"straight" photography is no more real looking than "overcooked HDR" by any objective standard. It's simply because we've been trained to accept it as "real" that was accept it as real looking and, by definition, any photograph that does not look pretty much like that is "unreal".

I am as well trained as anyone, and I quite dislike HDR. I don't much like color photography, for that matter. I do recognize that my taste is neither a universal objective standard, nor is it shared by the majority.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 4, 2013)

How the public see photographers.  Well based on how myself and other photographers have been treated at so many events, we are all thrown into the same boat.  We are the guys that were responsible for Princess Diana`s death, we are all just a bunch of animals that have to be penned up at venues to keep us under control, this kind of thing has been going on for decades.  Now with all the non-real camera devices out there the situation is getting worse for us, not only do we have to deal with the misguided control the photographers at all cost types, we have to deal with all the cell phones that get in our way that aren`t being controlled.

There have always been photographers that have pushed the limits in order to find different positions to work with, and if they step way out of line it affects everyone. I know lots of arrogant photographers that don`t care who they piss off to get a picture, and it`s these type that keep the photographers are animals myth alive.

The general public doesn`t care anymore what the pictures look like in the newspapers, and for the most part there is more garbage being published everyday, and it will only get worse.  Everything has come down to speed, I talk to my friends and  they tell me it`s a show up shoot for five minutes and leave with something, they are losing faith in the quality of what gets used.  So many times have they spent time really working an assignment producing a great image and then it gets cropped into a head shot, they give up. The public doesn`t care.

There are exceptions to everything, art style hang on the wall stuff will always be popular.  Finding a niche and excelling at it, does not always work.  I found my niche years ago, shooting sports at a very high level, and I am very good at it, because I work hard at it.  These days digital has made it easier for people to produce a few good sports images, ones that are acceptable, and people buy into it.  This person is great at shooting sports, I saw this one shot, and it was great, but what about the rest, people only see one.  I shoot 800 pictures and they can all be used, but that matters to only a few people, my clients.  Problem is that people are getting hired based on 1 photo and not on 800.

I read a quote that stated.  If you aren`t out there bumping into people all the time you will simply vanish.  It is the truth about so many things in life.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 4, 2013)

Maybe, the issue isn't taking photographs.  Maybe "Light Engineer" is a little pretentious, but really, isn't that part of what sets good photographers apart from the wannabees?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 4, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Maybe, the issue isn't taking photographs.  Maybe "Light Engineer" is a little pretentious, but really, isn't that part of what sets good photographers apart from the wannabees?



The trouble is, that with millions of wanna-bee's each snapping away like crazy... they eventually get a lucky good shot. And based on that one good LUCKY shot (that they could not reproduce if they tried), they get acclaim. That lowers the mark for photography in general, since it is longer just good photographers being published, but the one-hit wonders also (especially when they give away their work for a little fame)! Consistency and quality is taking a backseat to the sheer numbers of photographers willing to work for nothing, with the resultant drop in quality (and the occasional LUCKY shot). I think that is part of what Imagemaker46 is talking about above.

Remember the old saying about a "with a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters.. one will eventually reproduce Shakespeare?" We have a million monkeys with low end cameras... and "Corporate America" sees value in that... that they can get on the cheap or for free!


----------



## IByte (Jun 4, 2013)

runnah said:


> I shoot to thrill.



I shoot because I'm rebel with a cause lol.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

These damned fauxtographers with their easy-to-use dry plates are RUINING PHOTOGRAPHY_.  pace _&#8203;Robinson.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

This has been going on for at least 130 years. Technology has been aggressively changing the landscape for pretty much that entire time, albeit with some more level areas. In the days when most advancement was in emulsions, it didn't impact the profession of photography all that much, but it was still changing at a hell of a pace. Over the last 20-30 years technology has been more about getting more photography into the hands of more people in the form of ubiquitous digital technology, and advanced editing software (not just photoshop, iPhoto and picasa bring some pretty awesome tech down to a really really easy to use level, for instance).

Nobody CARES that your buggy whips are  beautifully hand-crafted from the finest woods and imported leathers. Yes, they're lovely buggy whips, and it was REALLY HARD to learn how to make them, and they're still REALLY HARD to make and they are genuinely an beautiful artisanal product. Only trouble is, nobody wants buggy whips any more. Well, a few people do, so there's room for a few buggy whip makers out there. But, a whole lot less.

It sucks if you're an out of work buggy whip maker, you have my sympathy. I can't make the world stop spinning, though. Go find a new line of work.

If you love buggy whips, go make 'em. Nobody's going to stop you. In fact, we have endless wonderful tools for making ever more awesome buggy whips. Knock your socks off.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 4, 2013)

Personally I think photography has made more drastic changes in the past 8-10 years, than at any other time in history.  Obviously changes have been made in the past, but over a longer period of time.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 4, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Personally I think photography has made more drastic changes in the past 8-10 years, than at any other time in history.  Obviously changes have been made in the past, but over a longer period of time.



Absolutely. The digital advances that resulted into the digital camera are a perfect, perhaps even the best, example of disruptive innovation - advances that so change the technology as to remake an entire industry.
The change from plates to film still maintained a huge technical obstacle and constricted the market development. Once cameras got smarter and film disappeared, the huge potential markets forced the cheapening of the technology and the broadening of the market base.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

The changes made recently have been much more impactful to working photographers, for sure. This has been trending upwards over maybe 20-30 years, and it's really starting to get *ugly* now.

We could argue about the true pace of change over say, 1930 through 1980, when it was all pretty much emulsion work, but I certainly agree that in many ways and perhaps all, it was a lot flatter than either now or in the last half of the nineteenth century.

Most interesting to me, but somewhat tangential to the discussion, is the way we think about pictures. 30 years ago, photography was prints, Even 10 years ago the print was kind of the primary. People had digital images on CDs and things, but viewing them was a bit awkward. Except for, ahem, private materials, you wanted prints for the "main stuff" you wanted to look at. Over the last ten years, the print has really dropped to second-class status.

This, in turn, has caused a HUGE change in the way people view and use images. Pictures are, weirdly enough, much more ephemeral. We stick them in some sharing service, or some archiving service, which shows us the most recent ones. The most recent 10, 20, or 100 are 99.9% of what we're looking at. We take 5000 photos a year, and preserve every single one of them lovingly in some online service for all eternity -- and all anyone ever looks at are the ones from this week.

What does THIS mean to professional photographers? I dunno, completely. It does mean that people selling photography services are swimming upstream -- you're trying to sell for real money objects that are increasingly viewed as temporary and ephemeral. My thinking on this point is that professionals need to be looking ahead to providing more of an experience, and less of "a bunch of superbly crafted pictures". The photo-booth is an _experience._ The trash the dress event is an _experience._ People will still pay good money for unique experiences.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Once cameras got smarter and film disappeared, the huge potential markets forced the cheapening of the technology and the broadening of the market base.



I argue (see ^^^ above) that social media and timeline-based picture sharing services are actually a critical factor here, rather more than the digital camera itself. After all, digital cameras have been around, even affordable, for 15 years or so? Something like that.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 4, 2013)

It was growth of the entire digital concept that allowed cameras to ride that wave.
Once started, totally inevitable.
I remember seeing a Kodak digital camera demonstrated when I was at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed in 1988-9.  This is mentioned on wikipedia.  The pathologists and photographers used Kodak slide film by the truckloads for both photomicrographs and regular photography on forensic missions. The digital was dismissed because of the trivial resolution.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 4, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Once cameras got smarter and film disappeared, the huge potential markets forced the cheapening of the technology and the broadening of the market base.
> ...



Good digital cameras that the average person could afford have been around for less than 10 years. I paid 10k for my first Canon EOS 1D back in 2001, that wasn't affordable for me, but it was necessary.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 4, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> It was growth of the entire digital concept that allowed cameras to ride that wave.
> Once started, totally inevitable.
> I remember seeing a Kodak digital camera demonstrated when I was at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed in 1988-9. This is mentioned on wikipedia. The pathologists and photographers used Kodak slide film by the truckloads for both photomicrographs and regular photography on forensic missions. The digital was dismissed because of the trivial resolution.



My first experience with a digital camera was at the 1992 Winter Olympics, Kodak had this god awful huge front pack with a screen hooked up by a bunch of cables to the camera.  I still have the original digital print, and thought at the time, this thing isn't going any where.  I was wrong.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 4, 2013)

Pallycow said:


> speaking of iPad
> 
> This asshat decided to step in the way at the graduation I was shooting at this weekend.  I even had the 100-400 lens on so I could be out of others' way and try to shoot around asshats like this.  Doesn't always work.




LOL, what a Padhole!

Don't be a Padhole.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 4, 2013)

tirediron said:


> And are you now going to recommend a bridge off of which I should jump too?


Let me google that for you


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 4, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> > speaking of iPad
> ...



We used to carry empty film canisters to throw  at other photographers that did this.  One of the big things that I learned at an early age, before you move, look behind and see if anyone is there. Seems these days, courtesy is lost on the idiots.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 4, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Most interesting to me, but somewhat tangential to the discussion, is the way we think about pictures. 30 years ago, photography was prints, Even 10 years ago the print was kind of the primary. People had digital images on CDs and things, but viewing them was a bit awkward. Except for, ahem, private materials, you wanted prints for the "main stuff" you wanted to look at. Over the last ten years, the print has really dropped to second-class status.
> 
> This, in turn, has caused a HUGE change in the way people view and use images. Pictures are, weirdly enough, much more ephemeral. We stick them in some sharing service, or some archiving service, which shows us the most recent ones. The most recent 10, 20, or 100 are 99.9% of what we're looking at. We take 5000 photos a year, and preserve every single one of them lovingly in some online service for all eternity -- and all anyone ever looks at are the ones from this week.
> 
> What does THIS mean to professional photographers? I dunno, completely. It does mean that people selling photography services are swimming upstream -- you're trying to sell for real money objects that are increasingly viewed as temporary and ephemeral. My thinking on this point is that professionals need to be looking ahead to providing more of an experience, and less of "a bunch of superbly crafted pictures". The photo-booth is an _experience._ The trash the dress event is an _experience._ People will still pay good money for unique experiences.



Eh?  I looked at prints once a year or three.  I browse nostalgically through my digital photography keepers folders once a year or three.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Eh?  I looked at prints once a year or three.  I browse nostalgically through my digital photography keepers folders once a year or three.



You are atypical. Most people do not have "digital photograph keepers folders". Most people DID have a shoebox or similar collection of disorganized prints. The point is that the typical person's shoebox has been replaced with flickr/instagram/facebook, and the latter has properties that are quite different from a shoebox.

On a more general note, why the hell do people tend to respond to statements like 'The general populace X' with 'but I don't X, therefore you are wrong'?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 4, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Eh?  I looked at prints once a year or three.  I browse nostalgically through my digital photography keepers folders once a year or three.
> ...



I am still not buying it.  

Even if you do use flickr for storage instead of a folder + flickr, so what?  Semantics.  Nothing's stopping you from going back and flipping through your old flickr albums, any more than a shoebox.  In either case, you have to specifically say to yourself "oh hey, I'm gonna go look at old photographs" and then do it.  Most often motivated by looking for a particular photo, or a girlfriend wanting to see pictures from your younger days, or something like that.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 4, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Eh?  I looked at prints once a year or three.  I browse nostalgically through my digital photography keepers folders once a year or three.
> ...



I do have shots on the wall ... small selections. I see them every day.

I have an online gallery for specially selected images ... I look through them once in a while.

I have my LR-database ... I go through parts of it from time to time ... chronologically .... looking even at the poor shots for nostalgic reasons 

I look at most of my slides from time to time ... but usually at the electronic scans!

But I also look at my black and white negatives from time to time (unscanned)

So I basically look at things in retrospective a lot ... almost no time for new photography


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

The point is that people don't, and they used to. The secondary point is that the current mechanisms favor new over old, while the shoebox does not. The tertiary point is that the shoebox and film limited the scope of the problem, a shoebox COULD hold all the prints, and this is no longer true. This in turn informs the first point - a few hundred prints can be flipped through, a few thousand is, well, an order of magnitude harder to.

You are welcome to not buy it, however, I don't mind a bit.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 4, 2013)

amolitor said:


> *The point is that people don't, and they used to.*



Sources?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 4, 2013)

> a few hundred prints can be flipped through, a few thousand is, well, an order of magnitude harder to.


This is irrelevant to the question of "do people look at old photos?"

Because fine, so with 10x as many images, perhaps people only have the time look at 1/10th of their old images... still would be just as many as before, though.  

Why would this be changing the nature of photography at all for me to occasionally flip through 300 prints (when I COULD have flipped through 3,000) versus flipping through 300 prints (when all I have is 300 prints)?


Also, I organize things in themed folders, just like people on flickr would organize in themed albums.  You would intelligently pick out albums or folders based on what you're looking for or which things meant the most to you.  Do I ever go nostalgically look at my old photos I took for work publications? No.  So it doesn't matter if there are 30,000 of them or not, I just don't open that folder (/album).  Instead I go straight to the topics that mean the most to me, which were usually relationships, and the shots are fairly limited in number (when you're with your family, you want to actually hang out / play with them, not stand in the corner snapping photos all day and not interacting, so you won't probably have ten million of them per event/day).

Trip photos do usually have a higher volume, but I can still single out that trip via a folder or album, without having to slog through other stuff I don't care about.  Maybe I don't look at all the photos from the trip since there are a lot of them, but I still get the nostalgia fix, and it still serves much the same purpose as a shoebox.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > a few hundred prints can be flipped through, a few thousand is, well, an order of magnitude harder to.
> 
> 
> This is irrelevant to the question of "do people look at old photos?"
> ...



Um. How many times can I repeat that the major photo sharing/archiving sites strongly favor the recent over the older? Would you like me to repeat it several dozen more times, or should I just stop now? I'm gonna stop now. If you have any further questions on this point, I suggest you go re-read the remarks I have already made. The answer is quite likely to be fond among them.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 4, 2013)

I guess old paintings, old sculpture, etc.. are doomed to follow the same path as photography then! All those Picasso's and Rembrandt's just became worthless..   lol! Art is Art, right?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 4, 2013)

I heard you the first time.  But I never heard any explanation of:

1) Why that is different than a shoebox.  The only way they "favor the new" is that the old ones scroll off the bottom.  This is identical to a shoebox, where the old photos get hidden by the new print envelopes you jammed in front. In either case, if you want to see new things, you have to make a trivial conscious effort to scroll/flip further back... So what?

2) Why that stops ANYBODY from looking for old photos?  Are you assuming people are so braindead that they can't handle the concept of scrolling down to find the album they want?

I get what you're saying.  I don't get how it is relevant or different.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 4, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I guess old paintings, old sculpture, etc.. are doomed to follow the same path as photography then! All those Picasso's and Rembrandt's just became worthless..   lol! Art is Art, right?



No, those are safe, because they're in a physical box together, called a museum.

It only becomes worthless if you organize them the same way, but on a monitor instead of a physical box.

Try to keep up.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 4, 2013)

I decided to design a system for displaying photos that meets your  desired requirements of not being organized by time (or any other dimension).   Basically, what you do is you take all your photos, and set them each  to a transparency value proportional to how many photos you have.  Then  you display all of them at once on top of each other, in order to make sure not to bias the viewer with newer  photos, and in order to prevent them from having to perform the onerous (and frankly Un-American) task of scrolling down a page.  Here is my portfolio displayed in this way:



This is gonna catch on, I think.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> I decided to design a system for displaying photos that meets your  desired requirements of not being organized by time (or any other dimension).   Basically, what you do is you take all your photos, and set them each  to a transparency value proportional to how many photos you have.  Then  you display all of them at once on top of each other, in order to make sure not to bias the viewer with newer  photos, and in order to prevent them from having to perform the onerous (and frankly Un-American) task of scrolling down a page.  Here is my portfolio displayed in this way:
> 
> View attachment 46820
> This is gonna catch on, I think.



Keep in minds.. that some people are Mouse Challenged! It is not fun to make fun of them!   :hail:


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 5, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> We used to carry empty film canisters to throw  at other photographers that did this.  One of the big things that I learned at an early age, before you move, look behind and see if anyone is there. Seems these days, courtesy is lost on the idiots.



And you want to complain about how the public views photographers?

I often agree with you on most things, but your "solution" above is both childish and stupid. Someone standing in your way could quickly become the least of your problems if you hit the wrong person...


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 5, 2013)

This conversation reminds me of the whole music on the internet, stealing music, how the internet is going to change the landscape of music, 10 years ago when we discussed this I was the type who said I will always buy cd's that I like having them in my hands. 10 years later I have all 300 cd's that i own stored on a SD card plugged into my car stereo and yet I find myself plugging my phone into the stereo instead and listening to pandora. it's probalby been 4 to 5 years since I last bought a cd.  

Digital and how we share photos has changed dramatically and we are in a huge shift with photography, where it will lead who knows. good or bad it's going to change with us or without us.  It's somewhat hard to argue that what we do is what the general public does because are love of photography makes us a lot diffrent then the average person.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 5, 2013)

When it comes to photography in the art circles, photography is the 'step child' of art. And within photography circles...the street / documentary tog is the step child of photography. 

Sure, people admire street work, but it is of the 'ugly genre' of photography and they wont pay for it. We can see how an honest pix by Bresson may only bring in $20,000. 

Yet have Cindy Sherman go to a thrift store, buy some used clothes, put on some exaggerated make up, make a funny face, take a self portrait and have the background p'shopped in and it goes for $4,000,000.

I just heard from one museum (a well respected, smaller size museum in NE) I sent them a 30 print $2500 portfolio on spec. ($2500 is in production costs, I am counting zero for art value.) The lady curator of photography sent me a nasty letter. To sum it up, "Pick it up...send us a check to ship your photos back...or we will destroy them."


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 5, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Pallycow said:
> ...



Just got to do what you gotta do. Bresson said he held his cam way up over his head 'unframed' to get this shot...

http://www.artvalue.com/photos/auct...00-cardinal-pacelli-later-pope-pi-1735251.jpg


----------



## Derrel (Jun 5, 2013)

Here's a blog that deals with the current in-flux situation of the photography market. This specific post deals with the "new realities" on both the photographer side, the buyer/licensor side, and the viewer side. As he writes at the start of the post:

"_We are on the footsteps of a new photography landscape that is or will be affecting everyone who intends to draw substantial revenue operating a camera. While we can see and feel the changes, how to adapt is not evident. Mostly because we are trying to apply or adapt old models to new rules and it just doesn&#8217;t fit._"

reThinking photography | Thoughts of a Bohemian


----------



## amolitor (Jun 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Here's a blog that deals with the current in-flux situation of the photography market. This specific post deals with the "new realities" on both the photographer side, the buyer/licensor side, and the viewer side. As he writes at the start of the post:
> 
> "_We are on the footsteps of a new photography landscape that is or will be affecting everyone who intends to draw substantial revenue operating a camera. While we can see and feel the changes, how to adapt is not evident. Mostly because we are trying to apply or adapt old models to new rules and it just doesn&#8217;t fit._"
> 
> reThinking photography | Thoughts of a Bohemian



Great article, Derrel. I think it's only a piece of the puzzle, they seem to be thinking mostly about stock and editorial imagery, but still they've got hold of the essentials.

For Art I think not much has changed. The Art world is all over the problem of sifting Way Too Much down to a very high end trickle, a medium high end stream, and lower end flows of various sizes. They're used to simply tossing aside tons of excellent work based on more or less random criteria.

Journalism? I dunno, I think that's pretty much cooked at this point. There's cell phones and surveillance cameras everywhere now, the images you need are free, why would you pay a guy?

Event photography is where it's interesting to me, and to many TPFers. If I were a wedding guy I'd be learning tintypes or ambrotypes, and building "experience" packages around photo sessions that produce these unique objects. Wine, cheese, a limo, dress up and shoot some ambrotypes, then you guys head out to the bachelor(ette) parties while I go muck around with chemicals. Your ambrotype is available at the wedding, in a bespoke wooden box.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Here's a blog that deals with the current in-flux situation of the photography market. This specific post deals with the "new realities" on both the photographer side, the buyer/licensor side, and the viewer side. As he writes at the start of the post:
> 
> "_We are on the footsteps of a new photography landscape that is or will be affecting everyone who intends to draw substantial revenue operating a camera. While we can see and feel the changes, how to adapt is not evident. Mostly because we are trying to apply or adapt old models to new rules and it just doesn&#8217;t fit._"
> 
> reThinking photography | Thoughts of a Bohemian



Thanks for the link!


----------



## amolitor (Jun 5, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> The future of museums and their photography print collection may be quite a bit different from the current state of being if they wish to keep collecting. A common complaint I hear from many curators is space limitations and conservation costs.
> 
> I have to wonder how the over loaded museums will house the generations of work that photographers have yet to produce. There is no room at the inn for any of them it seems. Something will have to give
> 
> I now propose in my gift proposals that a museum take hi res TIFF files in place of prints if this prints are a deal breaker fue to these issues. Some photographers may not be as eager to give out high resolution files. But the museums can _put it out there _and it may become a new trend and S.O.P. with museums that would like to expand their collections, but have no room for new works.



You seem to have some very peculiar ideas about how museums work, and what their function is.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > The future of museums and their photography print collection may be quite a bit different from the current state of being if they wish to keep collecting. A common complaint I hear from many curators is space limitations and conservation costs.
> ...




Well, what is the answer if I am wrong?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 5, 2013)

I think he is suggesting that the purpose of a museum is not to collect and archive every photograph taken or sent to them ever.

The purpose is to expose the public to high quality and unique works of art.

Thus, storage and conservation doesn't have to be that much of a massive issue.  Photographs are pretty easy to store compared to lots of things museums display (fragile pottery, etc.), and they would only have reason to store ones that are special enough to consider actually displaying at some point.

Digital proliferatioin increases the volume of works that are all largely of the same type, but it doesn't necessarily increase the rate of innovation, or therefore the rate of groundbreaking or novel photographs being produced that a museum might be most interested in.



Or even if it does increase the rate of innovation, you also have to consider: What were those same people doing before? If, for instance, people who used to be creative with pottery or pastels switched to digital photography when it got cheap, then more photographs yes, but fewer pots and pastels.  Which could potentially actually EASE the burden on museums, since again, photos are easier to store than most other things.


----------



## ApKPhoto (Jun 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Here's a blog that deals with the current in-flux situation of the photography market. This specific post deals with the "new realities" on both the photographer side, the buyer/licensor side, and the viewer side. As he writes at the start of the post:
> 
> "_We are on the footsteps of a new photography landscape that is or will be affecting everyone who intends to draw substantial revenue operating a camera. While we can see and feel the changes, how to adapt is not evident. Mostly because we are trying to apply or adapt old models to new rules and it just doesn&#8217;t fit._"
> 
> reThinking photography | Thoughts of a Bohemian



Excellent food for thought...sadly it confirms my suspicion that making any income as a photographer is becoming more and more difficult in the digital era.  Not due to the proliferation of cameras and hobbyists, but rather due to the shift in client/consumer experiences, and how those expectations are changing the value of most visual arts.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a blog that deals with the current in-flux situation of the photography market. This specific post deals with the "new realities" on both the photographer side, the buyer/licensor side, and the viewer side. As he writes at the start of the post:
> ...



Quite a few wedding photographers over here have gone back to film, Best Buy don't sell a film camera wedding package with 5 minutes training package


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 5, 2013)

Now, when it comes to getting work accepted into museums...it is very, very hard. At least when it comes to getting into the better known museums. (And I'm not talking about Gugg or MOMA, I mean medium size museums.) Sometimes it can take 1-1/2 years to get approval.

You not only have to be favored by the Curator, but the Deputy Director and Director has to like your work as well as the Board. 

In my early days of museum work I learned a hard lesson. My work was accepted by the Curator and presented to the Board by the Director. I felt sure they would accept it. So much that I listed it on my bio as in their permanent collection. Then after the Board met in 5 months I got the news the Board voted against accepting the gift. I had to rush and remove it from my bio. Luckily the mishap did not go any further.

Here is a rundown of what a photography Curator does...I've red faced the main problem below. 


_The Curator of Photographs will have overall responsibility for the stewardship and development of the Museum&#8217;s extensive holdings of photographs.· The Curator of Photographs will be responsible for but not limited to performing the following job functions:_
_
- Provides overall direction to the department and its activities including the mission, goals, and strategies of the Art Museum._
_
- Demonstrates curatorial responsibility for all art objects within the aegis of the curatorial department, and works in cooperation with other curators where departmental responsibilities for art objects overlap, for example with contemporary art or where an artist is ascribed dual nationalities.
_
_- Cares for, researches, documents, exhibits, preserves (in consultation with the Conservation Department), and publishes works of art in the permanent collection, including those in storage or display._
_
- Responsible for the generation of temporary exhibitions, whether from concept or by assignment, organized by the Museum or by another institution.· Exhibitions involve organizing, researching, writing, supervising and/or coordinating details such as lectures, catalogues, brochures, labels, installation, photography, gallery tours, publicity, fund raising, presentations on· the exhibition topic, selection and negotiation of loans, hosting lenders and artists, and preparation of and adherence to budgets.· Museum procedures have to be followed, and all activities have to be coordinated with all relevant existing divisions such as: Museum Services, Development, Marketing/Public Service, and Learning and Interpretation._
_
- Lectures and writes on works of art in the Museum&#8217;s permanent collection(s) for scholarly meetings and/or publications, or general and particularized programs within the Museum, for books, newspapers, and general publications, all within the limits of curatorial specialties and based on or related to the permanent collections of the Museum.· Where necessary, all writing (e.g., grant writing, newspaper writing, brochure texts) must be coordinated with the proper division, such as Learning and Interpretation, Development, or Marketing/Public Service._
_
- Seeks and recommends new acquisitions of gifts or purchases within the curatorial specialties or the permanent collections, including scholarly research and background material to justify consideration of a given art object or objects and prepares acquisition worksheets.· _
_
Gifts and purchases are recommended by the curator to the Deputy Director, Curatorial Affairs who recommends them to the Director and ultimately the Collections and Acquisitions Committee of the Board.· No works of art may be purchased or accepted as gifts without the Director&#8217;s and the Board&#8217;s approval._
_
- Furnishes consultation and advice on art matters to other museums, public and private collectors, at no time suggesting financial appraisals._
_
- Installs and labels works of art in the permanent collections in concert with the divisions of Learning and Interpretation and Museum Services._
_
- Responsible for division, maintaining and adhering to all relative budgets, including those related to permanent installations, temporary exhibitions, the department and special projects.· Where applicable, supervises departmental staff, including volunteers._
_
- Responsible for docent training, public lectures, gallery talks, and press education for selected projects in coordination with the divisions of Development, Learning and Interpretation, and Marketing/Public Service._
_
- Supports the fund-raising and public relations efforts of the Museum, in coordination with the divisions of Development and Marketing/Public Services._
_
- Serves as liaison between the Museum and departmental visiting committees and other groups with special interest in or support of the department.· Represents museum at social and civic events._
_
- Serves on various committees or panels, and attends meetings demanded by the position._
_
- Acts as courier in U.S. and abroad in coordination with the division of Museum Services.· Attends conferences and lectures, and visits museums and dealers in U.S. and abroad._
_
- Performs other miscellaneous duties as assigned by the Chief Curator. _
_
Requirements: M.A. in Art History (Ph.D. preferred) with a minimum of five years relevant experience in the field._
_
Skills necessary: A proven ability to work successfully with others to achieve institutional objectives.· Must possess a broad familiarity with photographs; a demonstrated knowledge of museum practices; excellent written and oral communication skills; good working knowledge of database, word processing, and other relevant computer programs; and a commitment to both scholarship and working with diverse public constituencies; ability to present information effectively and respond to questions from museum staff, donors, members of the museum, and the general public.· _
_The Curator of Photographs must be able to create and manage program budgets.

End
_

Can you imaging doing all the work to acquire works of art, getting the Deputy Director, then the Director on board, work on it for over a year, then having the Board of Directors vote it down. And I'm not talking purchases either, I am talking free gifts. 

Now of course museums have to be fussy. But if the art was not good to start with it could never get as far as a Board vote. None of the people I've mentioned along the chain of command are artists or photographers. (At least one's whose work would ever get into a museum.) But if artists ran the museums they would really be in deep $$ trouble!

It is much, much easier getting work accepted into the special collections of rare book libraries. But the catch is libraries usually wont accept loose prints, but they will accept bound prints. Museums usually wont accept bound prints, but they will accept loose prints. (If your lucky.)

With rare book libraries you only have to get approval from the Director or the head special collections librarian. And I am not talking about any library, I am talking about the most prestigious libraries in the world.

But, if you thinking of contacting Oxford Bodleian or the British Library to send your Blurb book to their special collections....forget it. I am talking about very special, limited edition, hand printed, hand bound books on rag paper that I produce that would sell for $5000 a copy. (The Hahn duo rag paper alone is $160 per book.)

Those are the type of contemporary photo books they will accept into the special collection. And the books must have content they want as well. In my case, a $5000 book did not matter, as my content was not liked by some Directors that refused the gift.

Still I was successful about 14 times out of 60 with my rare book library solicitations and getting my limited edition book placed. (Three of the rare book libraries even accepted loose print portfolios in addition to my book. So always ask, you never know. I am reducing the size of the portfolio I offer to 11 x 14 from 13 x 19 for any future solicitations. It is getting too expensive shipping large size prints overseas.)

Once you have a footing with the rare book libraries you may have a chance with getting the curators attention at a connected museum. Such as Victoria and Albert in the UK, Getty's GRI, Rhode Island School of Design, they all have an art museum and connection to their art library.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 5, 2013)

ApKPhoto said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a blog that deals with the current in-flux situation of the photography market. This specific post deals with the "new realities" on both the photographer side, the buyer/licensor side, and the viewer side. As he writes at the start of the post:
> ...



If I had to make a living at it...it would ruin photography for me.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 5, 2013)

Museums, in general, are constantly fighting off free gifts, often from people who have given them millions of dollars. Unsolicited portfolios will invariably be tossed, and properly. Museums are, mostly, not in the business of finding new artists.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Museums, in general, are constantly fighting off free gifts, often from people who have given them millions of dollars. Unsolicited portfolios will invariably be tossed, and properly. Museums are, mostly, not in the business of finding new artists.



That is true Amolitor. 

But when millions are involved, the donor is usually sharp enough to get their demands put into the 'deed of gift' up front before they hand over cash. The special collections library of the Gugg wanted a copy of my hand printed book. But they refused to put any terms on the donation. 

What was my terms? You keep it in the special collection. 

What was their terms? We can do or dispose of it as we please. 

I've had a few donation offers like that for my book and  I refuse. I would take a chance on giving out prints with no terms, but not my hand printed book. That thing is hell to print up. I'm very fussy where it goes.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 5, 2013)

Why would you produce a book specifically for the purpose of having it filed away on a shelf in some special collections library somewhere?  I'm not sure I understand.  A museum, sure, maybe they will display it if they like it enough to accept it in the first place.  But a library? Nobody would go to check out the book, because how would they even know it existed if it was sent to the library immediately after production and is a one of a kind copy?

I'm probably just misunderstanding something, but this whole vein of conversation is very confusing.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Museums, in general, are constantly fighting off free gifts, often from people who have given them millions of dollars. Unsolicited portfolios will invariably be tossed, and properly. Museums are, mostly, not in the business of finding new artists.
> ...



On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

All of your responses are based on experiences you had personally, and they seem at the least rather unlikely and at the most just BS. 
Why not post some links to your work, your experience, your reviews so that we can understand just how much weight to attach to what seems like a constant stream of self-referential, self-aggrandizing poop?


----------



## runnah (Jun 6, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog



My secret has been revealed! I am actually a well trained Siberian husky.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
> ...



not so well trained


----------



## runnah (Jun 6, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> not so well trained



Hey I only got into the trash once this week! It wasn't my fault tho, my handlers had ribs so what's a dog to do?!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 6, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Why would you produce a book specifically for the purpose of having it filed away on a shelf in some special collections library somewhere? I'm not sure I understand. A museum, sure, maybe they will display it if they like it enough to accept it in the first place. But a library? Nobody would go to check out the book, because how would they even know it existed if it was sent to the library immediately after production and is a one of a kind copy?
> 
> I'm probably just misunderstanding something, but this whole vein of conversation is very confusing.



What is confusing? 

Amolitor commented on museums and I posted about areas of museums I have a little knowledge in. The thread is about how photographers are viewed. I am replying to how museums and rare book libraries view photographers in relation to my dealings with them.

I find it a great honor to have my original photographs housed in such prestigious institutions. 

Why would you not want your original photographs archived in such storied and fantastic repositories as this? 

http://mag.bent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/oxford-01.jpg

It is even worse than you think with 'getting lost' in the library. 

You can't just go look at my book, you will have to fill out special requests to see it and then the rare book librarian has to go find it. I gave the libraries jpeg's of all my photos. At least one library will put all of the images online. I also gave then a PDF and flip book version if they wnat to make it more mainstream.

When you have a photo in a museum it is not on display 99.9999% of the time...if ever. Works on paper are stored away and seldom put out or looked at. Most of the photos are not able to be viewed online either.

It is true my book may be lost in the special collections. New arrivals are announced online and recent acquisitions get their 15 minutes of fame and then who knows when it will be looked at again. Researchers, faculty and scholars make use of the special collections. 

My book is a very odd subject matter as well. My book deals in part with Hollywood (not the glitz, but the opposite end of the spectrum) and that is a popular subject, esp overseas. So that is something in favor of my book. And my book is historical as the main body of photos was shot in the 70's. 

The rare book libraries books are not filed away as many libraries store books on shelves. Most of the libraries make hand made acid free boxes for the books and store their special collections under lock and key.

Do you see any members on this forum doing preservation work like I am doing in this area? 

Does anyone else post on the subjects I do? 

Same thing with the type of photos I produce. I seem to be on a different wave length than the rest of you. Sure, I'd like if someone would help me out with all this, but I have no one to turn to for guidance on the forums. I just learn as I go...screwups and all. 

I've been on maybe 15 photo forums. No one I have ever seen on the forums produce photos like mine. Sure some photogs are a lot better techs than me. But subject matter no and presentation style very, very few. 

I guess the question is this. Why any of you would you not want to have your work in libraries like this? That is confusing???

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/3210113563_0bf6afc1d7.jpg

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000LF1fL4VAQ7A/s/900/900/london-2087.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1136/1023775360_d37c35a292.jpg


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> My book is a very odd subject matter as well. My book deals in part with Hollywood (not the glitz, but the opposite end of the spectrum) and that is a popular subject, esp overseas. So that is something in favor of my book. And my book is historical as the main body of photos was shot in the 70's.
> 
> Do you see any members on this forum doing preservation work like I am doing in this area?
> 
> Does anyone else post on the subjects I do?



Actually, I can't compare your work to anyone else's because you talk about it in the abstract and we've never seen anything real.

To quote myself:



The_Traveler said:


> All of your responses are based on experiences you had personally, and they seem at the least rather unlikely and at the most just BS.
> Why not post some links to your work, your experience, your reviews so that we can understand just how much weight to attach to what seems like a constant stream of self-referential, self-aggrandizing poop?



Come on, stop the hand waving.
If you are going to claim that your experience has some weight, prove your experience.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 6, 2013)

I think there's an excellent reason he doesn't post his work. You can find his tumblrs without much effort.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jun 6, 2013)

apparently my keys are on the same level as works of are in a  museum. havn't seen them for days. nobody seems to know where they are and will probably never be seen again.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think there's an excellent reason he doesn't post his work. You can find his tumblrs without much effort.



I don't know tumblr - or how to find specific images there - and, tbh, it is not of too much interest to me to learn.


----------



## lndsybckr (Jun 6, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> Seeing the I-pad 'special' shooter, it confirms what I learned about 40 years ago when I started taking pictures of trains in earnest...having consideration for 'the other guy' is a disappearing 'art'. Even amongst 'trained' rail photographers, there's ALWAYS some jerk that will step in front of the guy set up on a tripod when the train comes. These days, too many people are only concerned with what they want to do/satisfying themselves and everyone else can go someplace else.
> 
> Unfortunately, we who do practice 'courtesy' are a dying breed. The days of cell phone and ipad photography just adds to the 'jerk' class of photographer at an ever increasing pace. We have no choice but to deal with it.
> 
> Although, maybe we could tell some of the jerks that the big white lens and camera: "is a 44 magnum...the most powerful handgun in the world..."



Just getting my feet wet in this forum and photography as a whole, and let me tell you.. You guys are really intimidating and I find it hard to believe I will post any of my shots here for critique. I used to take pictures with my cell phone all the time, and I think they turned out pretty good for what I was working with. And I wasn't a jerk while taking pictures, either.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2013)

lndsybckr said:


> Just getting my feet wet in this forum and photography as a whole, and let me tell you.. You guys are really intimidating and I find it hard to believe I will post any of my shots here for critique. I used to take pictures with my cell phone all the time, and I think they turned out pretty good for what I was working with. And I wasn't a jerk while taking pictures, either.



I think you will find that as long as you represent yourself as what you really are, then you will get a kind and useful response.
It is when people stomp around all full of themselves that they take some crap.

Photography is tough and I predict that you will eventually look back at the pictures you took before and realize how bad they are in comparison with what you will be able to do.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 6, 2013)

lndsybckr said:


> bratkinson said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing the I-pad 'special' shooter, it confirms what I learned about 40 years ago when I started taking pictures of trains in earnest...having consideration for 'the other guy' is a disappearing 'art'. Even amongst 'trained' rail photographers, there's ALWAYS some jerk that will step in front of the guy set up on a tripod when the train comes. These days, too many people are only concerned with what they want to do/satisfying themselves and everyone else can go someplace else.
> ...



If you want to learn and improve instead of feeling intimidated be realistic, honest and open to criticism and post!  If you take responsibility for your learning and use the forum as a tool you will get SO much out of it.  If you attach personal feelings to the posts you receive, specifically the "negative" ones that pick apart your work and point you in a different direction you will cut yourself off at the knees, it is NOT personal.  If you post and learn and post again applying what you have learned people will be more than willing to help, the key is your input and processing of the feedback you receive.  We all started somewhere, it's up to you how far you take yourself and Lew is absolutely correct, what looks good to you today will look much different to you a year from now.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
> ...



****su (Shih Tzu)


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 6, 2013)

Regarding museums and libraries:

Obviously it is an honor to have your work in them no matter what, but it seems like less of an honor if the idea was the artist's, and if it's not actually on display or able to be checked out, etc.  But more importantly, it just seems backward. Libraries are for archiving and museums are for displaying what are agreed to be meaningful advances in an art or conxpicuous examples of important trends or movements in the history of an art, so that patrons can be exposed to a good representative layout of whatever field the museum specializes in.

Neither of them seem like places to be recognizing brand new work, because brand new work won't really be established yet by the community as part of a trend, nor is it really being archived in the traditional sense if the only copies are themselves in archives and have only EVER been in archives. It's not really preserving a snapshot of the world.  It's preserving a snapshot of the preservation itself, which is odd.



If you have a book, it seems it would make much more sense to *get it published in the main popular press.*  Or if you are treating it more as a one-off work of art that largely holds value in its form not just its informational content (like a bronze sculpture or something), then alternatively,* sell it at auctions or in galleries.*

Then the libraries would *seek it out *if it was published and people enjoyed it such that it became popular, without even having to ask them.  And museums would be much more likely to pick up the prints too if they had a pedigree of having sold for large amounts of money at auction or if they caused a media stir or if some art historians published something interesting about them / they challenged theory, etc.

So:
1) If the work has actually been out there in the world and seen and reacted to positively by people, it is much more likely to get into libraries or museums with much less effort,
2) Being CHOSEN to be archived of the archivist's own volition seems like it would be _vastly _more of a honor to me anyway. As opposed to successfully convincing somebody to make room in one of their drawers for a free copy of something. And also, 
3) If somebody chooses to want your work, then they are going to put it on display much more of the time, and/or make it available to people more easily.


----------



## sleist (Jun 6, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> Lew is absolutely correct, what looks good to you today will look much different to you a year from now.



Eventually you'll think everything you shoot looks like crap.  This is because it does.
Then you'll either put down the camera and take up golf or something, or you'll push through the barrier and get good.

Eventually you'll think everything you shoot looks like crap again.  This is because it does (because the bar is higher).
Then you'll either put down the camera and take up golf or something, or you'll push through the barrier and get better.

Eventually you'll think everything you shoot looks like crap again.  This is because it does (because the bar is higher).
Then you'll either put down the camera and take up golf or something, or you'll push through the barrier and get better.

Eventually you'll think everything you shoot looks like crap again.  This is because it does (because the bar is higher).
Then you'll either put down the camera and take up golf or something, or you'll push through the barrier and get better.

...

**  There are those that buy more expensive cameras instead of taking up golf.  These people rarely get better, but they have really nice gear.  They take awesome cat pictures and endlessly test their lenses.


----------



## lndsybckr (Jun 6, 2013)

Thanks for the responses. I get that the critique is about the work, not the person. I even tend to get upset when someone criticizes a meal that I prepared, without realizing the critique is about the recipe and not the chef. What I'm talking about are the uber-photographer jerks who think that just because you're an amateur, it means you don't have the right to try. The same kind of person who stomps around, full of themselves can also be a very accomplished photographer. 

 I don't plan on becoming a professional at all. In fact, I agree that the market for photography is completely oversaturated and professional photographers are struggling because of it. I just want to try and develop a skill which will provide me with joy and challenge, as well as maybe something to hang on my wall.  Lew has made some great remarks and I appreciate the advice. Hopefully I can get over the bruised emotions and learn from you guys.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Jun 6, 2013)

Lndsybckr I think you are mistaking why good photographers attack around here, 95/100 times it is because of how the OP presents themselves or reacts to what they perceive as a personal attack when receiving negative feedback, 4/100 are spillovers from other threads and these attacks normally happen between the two C&Cers and rarely is directed at the OP, the other 1/100 time is random and unpredictable.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 6, 2013)

Before this thread veers any further off course (it might just be a matter of time before a moderator or two comes along with a big padlock), here's the Colbert Report's take on it. Saw this via FILTER Photo Festival (Chicago). 

Photojournalists vs. iPhones - The Colbert Report - 2013-05-06 - Video Clip | Comedy Central 

It is disheartening to see photography being so devalued. I wonder how people would react to a day of no photos - spending a day reading written text only all day. I think photographers need to be thinking about where they're putting their photos; reading terms & conditions and agreeing only to terms that compensate photographers for their time and talent; and protecting their work in photography as best they can.

- And I think it's OK if sports photographers throw film canisters at each other, they're all penned up together anyway (I'm kidding, I'm kidding!). I try to check my surroundings, not stand in front of people when using my camera, and always had enough sense to stay out of the way of the TV crew dragging cables around our arena. Wonder if the Sun-Times journalists/phone-sports-photographers will learn how to do that by the next Blackhawks game Saturday night?


----------

