Photography Is Dead! ... Long Live Photography!

[jonoslack]

Be forewarned, here are some thoughts from someone younger (almost 40).

snip snip

Sorry for the unfiltered thoughts, but I must go to sleep now

Hi David
I've only snipped it because (even though I'm 61) I agree with every single word.

All the best

 

[jonoslack]

Interestingly, for the past few years, a majority of my wedding clients do NOT want their professional wedding photos put up on FaceBook or any social media. Even after I deliver their images, they rarely place more than a couple of them on their FaceBook page.

Their expectations of what I do is totally different from what social media is all about. They tend to separate one from the other, and see it as a more intimate and private experience which they do not want diluted by being mixed in with the mash of cell phone shots.

HI Marc
I quite agree - I also feel the same way about the final product . . . . but, assuming that your clients actually are on Facebook (of course, it's all irrelevant if they aren't), then there is a real buzz for everyone the day after the event tagging images looking at friends - it doesn't need to be mutually exclusive - a smugmug gallery two weeks later is fine (I use my website), but it's not the same thing, and it doesn't get anything like the same exposure.

It doesn't devalue the final product, which I agree, should always be tangible object (usually a book).


Of course, we all have our own ways of working - but I think that David is right here, even old fuddyduddies like Jorgen, Marc and myself need to embrace the new ways of working and take advantage of them . . . although it is fun being a grumpy old man

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Marc,
What you say in your post above is very important. While the instant gratification concept that appeared by the birth of digital photography, further strengthened by camera phones, seems very "democratic", it creates a clearer distinction, or divide if you want, between photography as art and photography as ad hoc documentation. I enjoy Jono's event photos as much as I enjoy yours, and both may last forever, but Jono may be the exception to the rule; most of those who try to create his kind of photography end up with something that is fun there and then, but won't have the same value in ten years or more.

Well (and thank you for the compliment) - I just feel that you can have your cake and eat it - i.e. have the instant gratification AND produce a tangible object which will last. I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive.

There's a real danger that those who appreciate and are willing to pay the price for quality photographs will be looked upon as "snobbish" and pretentious. In that case, I'm happy to be a snob.

So am I - although I think it has always been thus (that people who appreciate and are willing to pay the price for art are considered as snobbish and pretentious). I don't think that the proliferation of images in digital media has made this worse (actually, I suspect it's made it better).

The real pretenders are those who don't understand the difference between a great piece of equipment and a creative mind.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: I couldn't agree more - totally distinct subjects (the great piece of equipment subject is also valid, but it's nothing to do with art!). . . . . and this kind of forum is full of people who muddle up these two things)

When I divorced many years ago, a good friend asked me "Who will you watch photo albums with when you get old?", a question that became somewhat emotional for me. I don't need to worry anymore. Smartphones and Facebook have eliminated that problem for most people

I've been really lucky, my alternative to being young (like David), has been to be dragged into the world of facebook and smartphones - but it doesn't and shouldn't replace photo albums . . . but it can aid quality control. For instance I have a current personal/family project of producing an 'album' (probably on blurb) of each year since we stopped sticking 7x5 snaps into scrapbooks (about 1998). In the old days you'd choose most of each film, and bung them in . . now it's easy to select the best few from a year and print those - which makes for a much more satisfying viewing experience.

To be honest I think we all agree fundamentally that the barrage of images on the internet doesn't suddenly mean that a good image isn't a good image. or that a bad one isn't a bad one.

But I'm with David - the new opportunities offered by digital might be a threat to the old order, but they offer lots of new opportunities for those with talent and imagination (whether young or old).

all the best

 

[fotografz]

Well, I'm not against Social media at all ... and I most certainly agree that digital has been a great teaching aid ... Hell, being a more intuitive shooter, I had a terrible time with mathematically unforgiving strobe lighting until digital came along.

(BTW Jono, all my clients are at least more than half my age ... and all of them are very active on Facebook, etc. I repeat, they do NOT want their professional images placed there ... a function of wanting to see them first before anyone else ... which I totally agree with).

Brides may be forgiving about shiny foreheads and noses, and their Mom's chin that looks like a pack of hot-dogs when they are on Facebook ... but not from their Professional shots. I don't care who you are, that takes considered edit time, and frequently requires retouching ... more importantly I am hired because of my story telling approach, and that requires a sequence of images that are in finished form.

Frankly that's okay with me, I do not need immediate mass media exposure ... word-of-mouth is far more powerful with the clients I want to work for. The ONLY "like" I strive for is that of the client! Were I younger, developing my skills, and less established I'd be all over the Social media outlets and genuflect every time I was in the presence of a digital camera because it can teach so well

However, I target the more successful client, who at any age tends to have the means to pay for what I do. (I prefer to shoot less and get paid more). These are birds of a feather that flock together, and share selectively, not with everyone they ever met.

I'm not sure what dynamic is going on with these clients, but they tend to take an exclusive personal view of their paid wedding images ... they seem to segregate the whole experience from the day-to-day stuff that's so well represented by herds of Facebook snaps posted before I even have a chance to look at my images. The whole story is very important to them, not just part of it ... the very reason they hire me in the first place.

In reality, it sets up expectations and anticipation ... they expect and anticipate more across the board ... and I repeat want to see them before anyone else does... which is why I formally preset their images and whole story to them personally on a pair of 30" screens. Some very successful wedding shooters even present using digital projection onto wall sized screens.

It took me a while to learn that exclusivity pays better, a lot better, and Social media doesn't promote that at all.

My end game is to provide prints and an album to seal the sense of permanence ... I've found that family histories are disappearing at an exponential rate ... and learned from scanning and restoring family prints that no one kept the negs, with prints being the keeper record. I think digital files are more like negs in this regard ... which is why I make at least 2 or 3 large prints for every wedding client ... a revelation to them since people rarely print anything large anymore. Even if there is a divorce later on, the children want the pictures.

Individual prints for my clients tend to be family portraits or vanity portraits of the couple or Bride ... that the insightful individual candids I'm known for seemed to take a back seat used to be a bit depressing, but as time went on, my clients tended to see these individual shots as "priceless".

The album is the most important archival element and story telling tool ... a lesson I've learned myself now. This winter I plan on doing my own books starting with 10 years of vacation photos.

For those interested, here is one of my recent wedding albums ... one that features a bit more formal images than some I do, but it matched this couple's personality and desire for a more formal record of their day and families ... it still has a number of candid shots, but not as many as usual. They ordered 3 copies ... one for them, one each for their parents ... one was sent to Russia for the Groom's family.

Sam/Andrey's Album - fotografz

Here's a small sampling of the more candid work I tend to be hired for.

The Unconventional Eye - fotografz

- Marc

Oh, BTW ... Facebook is a great tool for wedding photographers because it can help you to get to know the client very swiftly. I friend them as soon as they sign with me, look at their galleries, and follow their posts for awhile.

 

[Swissblad]

Nice work on that wedding, Marc!

 

[jonoslack]

It took me a while to learn that exclusivity pays better, a lot better, and Social media doesn't promote that at all.

HI Marc
I'm not criticising your approach (even slightly), just saying that it isn't the only way of approaching things. If what you're doing works, then that's fantastic - and the book looks splendid too (but I prefer the candid shots in the 'unconventional eye').

Clearly if you can command big ticket prices then you can afford to do big ticket jobs, which of course also implies big margins. The perfect situation! I'm sure there are a lot of photographers who would give their eye teeth to be in your situation.

It isn't how everyone can work though.

Incidentally, what I do is completely irrelevant to this argument

all the best

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Music is also an art form that has changed dramatically with technology as well as social development. I listen to all of it if it's what I consider quality, be it Beethoven, Beatles, Eminem or Psy. Still, there is no way of getting past the fact that Beethoven needed considerably more knowledge as well as skill to do what he did than Eminem did for his stuff. While Beethoven and all the other classical composers were active, there were also composers of more humble character, creating songs that are mostly long forgotten. Eventually, the elitist art is what is remembered.

I think it's fair to say also that Rembrandt and van Gogh are more famous than HCB and Annie Leibovitz, even if they have been dead for a hundred years or more. There's nothing wrong with photography as art, but it's mostly less elaborate, more common and there's a lot of it floating around compared to good paintings. Maybe Ms. Leibovitz had to fight as hard as van Gogh to get to where she is today, and some of her photos have become icons of this age. The questions is: will they still remain icons of the next age, like van Gogh's paintings still are?

With zillions of digital photos being taken every day, it's even more difficult to be seen than when there was only film. Even those who show extraordinary skill will often be outshined by the next guy in a matter of seconds in the ever growing ocean of images. So in the future, our time may be remembered as a result of a million artists' work rather than a few stars. Maybe that's good. It's certainly a change. If I like it or not is probably not important too.

Many years ago, I met a PJ who told me that he mostly used a 35mm lens with his F5 and had it cropped at the desk to suit the needs of the newspaper. "Lack of skill", I thought, "what a lazy photographer". Last weekend, I took this photo with my camera phone with it's 28mm eqv. lens, without even looking at the LCD:

Not even the children's mother would call that a keeper. But my mobile phone has a 41MP camera and a sharp lens, so I cropped it:

Now, at least it's something resembling a portrait and it's still large enough for a decent print. In a few years, when mobile phones have 200MP sensors and software that automatically crops and straightens, even less skill will be needed and any 5 year old will be able to take proper portraits. Maybe that's good too. Still there will hopefully be some photographers who have enough skill to float sufficiently high above the rest to get their 20 second of fame.

What photographers said something like "If your photos are no good, you probably weren't close enough."? Yeah, right...

 

[alajuela]

What photographers said something like "If your photos are no good, you probably weren't close enough."? Yeah, right... [/QUOTE]

Robert Capa said that

In 1947, Capa co-founded Magnum Photos in Paris with David "Chim" Seymour, Henri Cartier-Bresson, George Rodger and William Vandivert. The organization was the first cooperative agency for worldwide freelance photographers

 

[Vivek]

In the end, he got too close!

 

[alajuela]

In the end, he got too close!

He most certainly did. I think a land mine.

 

[RVB]

Well, I'm not against Social media at all ... and I most certainly agree that digital has been a great teaching aid ... Hell, being a more intuitive shooter, I had a terrible time with mathematically unforgiving strobe lighting until digital came along.

(BTW Jono, all my clients are at least more than half my age ... and all of them are very active on Facebook, etc. I repeat, they do NOT want their professional images placed there ... a function of wanting to see them first before anyone else ... which I totally agree with).

Brides may be forgiving about shiny foreheads and noses, and their Mom's chin that looks like a pack of hot-dogs when they are on Facebook ... but not from their Professional shots. I don't care who you are, that takes considered edit time, and frequently requires retouching ... more importantly I am hired because of my story telling approach, and that requires a sequence of images that are in finished form.

Frankly that's okay with me, I do not need immediate mass media exposure ... word-of-mouth is far more powerful with the clients I want to work for. The ONLY "like" I strive for is that of the client! Were I younger, developing my skills, and less established I'd be all over the Social media outlets and genuflect every time I was in the presence of a digital camera because it can teach so well

However, I target the more successful client, who at any age tends to have the means to pay for what I do. (I prefer to shoot less and get paid more). These are birds of a feather that flock together, and share selectively, not with everyone they ever met.

I'm not sure what dynamic is going on with these clients, but they tend to take an exclusive personal view of their paid wedding images ... they seem to segregate the whole experience from the day-to-day stuff that's so well represented by herds of Facebook snaps posted before I even have a chance to look at my images. The whole story is very important to them, not just part of it ... the very reason they hire me in the first place.

In reality, it sets up expectations and anticipation ... they expect and anticipate more across the board ... and I repeat want to see them before anyone else does... which is why I formally preset their images and whole story to them personally on a pair of 30" screens. Some very successful wedding shooters even present using digital projection onto wall sized screens.

It took me a while to learn that exclusivity pays better, a lot better, and Social media doesn't promote that at all.

My end game is to provide prints and an album to seal the sense of permanence ... I've found that family histories are disappearing at an exponential rate ... and learned from scanning and restoring family prints that no one kept the negs, with prints being the keeper record. I think digital files are more like negs in this regard ... which is why I make at least 2 or 3 large prints for every wedding client ... a revelation to them since people rarely print anything large anymore. Even if there is a divorce later on, the children want the pictures.

Individual prints for my clients tend to be family portraits or vanity portraits of the couple or Bride ... that the insightful individual candids I'm known for seemed to take a back seat used to be a bit depressing, but as time went on, my clients tended to see these individual shots as "priceless".

The album is the most important archival element and story telling tool ... a lesson I've learned myself now. This winter I plan on doing my own books starting with 10 years of vacation photos.

For those interested, here is one of my recent wedding albums ... one that features a bit more formal images than some I do, but it matched this couple's personality and desire for a more formal record of their day and families ... it still has a number of candid shots, but not as many as usual. They ordered 3 copies ... one for them, one each for their parents ... one was sent to Russia for the Groom's family.

Sam/Andrey's Album - fotografz

Here's a small sampling of the more candid work I tend to be hired for.

The Unconventional Eye - fotografz

- Marc

Oh, BTW ... Facebook is a great tool for wedding photographers because it can help you to get to know the client very swiftly. I friend them as soon as they sign with me, look at their galleries, and follow their posts for awhile.

Beautiful work Marc ...:thumbup:

 

[fotografz]

HI Marc
I'm not criticising your approach (even slightly), just saying that it isn't the only way of approaching things. If what you're doing works, then that's fantastic - and the book looks splendid too (but I prefer the candid shots in the 'unconventional eye').

Clearly if you can command big ticket prices then you can afford to do big ticket jobs, which of course also implies big margins. The perfect situation! I'm sure there are a lot of photographers who would give their eye teeth to be in your situation.

It isn't how everyone can work though.

Incidentally, what I do is completely irrelevant to this argument

all the best

Totally agree.

My perspective is one way, and most certainly isn't the most common approach to wedding photography these days. I never intended on being a wedding photographer and in many ways never really became one full time despite doing 20 to 25 a year ... it is too boring to do exclusively as a living IMO. Not the shooting part, all the rest of it.

I never approached this type work in a democratic manner. I pick the photos the client gets, I pick what gets printed, and I select what goes into the album with minor image changes allowed. That has never changed in the almost 20 years I've been doing weddings. I do pay attention to the personalities and expectations of clients ... how I shoot an Art Director's wedding will be different from the young Brain Surgeon in the above linked album. I like doing both because it expands my repertoire of the human condition requiring some flexibility on my part ... which in turn keeps it interesting.

In reality, as I taper off doing this type of work, my aspiration is to do it your way ... which is exactly how I started all those years ago. A pair of Leica Ms and a bag of film, with only a few images requiring a DSLR (now days a MM and M9 or M240). It may be that it'll be an epic failure financially, but at this stage I couldn't care less, I just like shooting when ever I can because it keeps you young of mind

- Marc

 

[Shashin]

What photographers said something like "If your photos are no good, you probably weren't close enough."? Yeah, right...

Great idea until he stepped on a landmine...

 

[Shashin]

Photography is not dead. It is not going to adhere to anyone's idea of it. It will grow and change. I think the real question is what are you going to do with it?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Photography is not dead. It is not going to adhere to anyone's idea of it. It will grow and change. I think the real question is what are you going to do with it?

It's certainly growing in volume :ROTFL:

I saw the following question asked at a website this morning:
"Would I ever turn up to shoot a job with ONLY 8gb of memory cards these days?"

Food for thought if you ask me.

 

[alajuela]

It's certainly growing in volume :ROTFL:

I saw the following question asked at a website this morning:
"Would I ever turn up to shoot a job with ONLY 8gb of memory cards these days?"

Food for thought if you ask me.

Depends on the job, and equipment - I am still hungry

 

[Shashin]

It's certainly growing in volume :ROTFL:

I saw the following question asked at a website this morning:
"Would I ever turn up to shoot a job with ONLY 8gb of memory cards these days?"

Food for thought if you ask me.

But that idea has been around for as long as photography. This was leveled at 35mm film photographers that would just "spray and pray." And they only had 36 pictures. I am sure when the brownie came out, there was the same thing said. I guess the only "real" photography requires mercury poisoning.

But that does not mean ALL photographers use that method. I will certainly do a shoot with LESS than 8GB of memory. And that is with 40MP images.

 

[fotografz]

Photography is not dead. It is not going to adhere to anyone's idea of it. It will grow and change. I think the real question is what are you going to do with it?

I'd offer a counter to this opinion:

Photography hasn't changed since the very first image was produced.

The means to make one has, but that is irrelevant to what photography fundamentally is, and always has been ... a form of visual thinking. In that sense, it WILL adhere to anyone's idea of it because the tool needed is a dumb object that needs an eye and brain doing that thinking.

I'd also forward the notion that quantity is also irrelevant.

Many in Japan practice calligraphy, only a few are revered by the many as national treasures.

What seems to have been lost in the modern age is any kind of discrimination, guidance and recognition. For example, where are the Alfred Stieglitzs, Roy Strikers, Alexey Brodovitchs of past? Those giants in the shadows that championed what became revered icons of photography?

Without thought, without ideas, without some developed notion of intent whether intuitive or plotted out ... the photographer is as dumb as the camera in their hand.

- Marc

 

[jonoslack]

Totally agree.

My perspective is one way, and most certainly isn't the most common approach to wedding photography these days. I never intended on being a wedding photographer and in many ways never really became one full time despite doing 20 to 25 a year ... it is too boring to do exclusively as a living IMO. Not the shooting part, all the rest of it.

Oh, I quite agree - 20 a year would drive me crazy - as you say, not the shooting, but the rest.

It's actually relevant to Jorgen's 8gb argument - I use 16gb cards - but I've never even 1/4 filled them with Leica files - the more you take the more work you have to do!

I never approached this type work in a democratic manner. I pick the photos the client gets, I pick what gets printed, and I select what goes into the album with minor image changes allowed. That has never changed in the almost 20 years I've been doing weddings. I do pay attention to the personalities and expectations of clients ... how I shoot an Art Director's wedding will be different from the young Brain Surgeon in the above linked album. I like doing both because it expands my repertoire of the human condition requiring some flexibility on my part ... which in turn keeps it interesting.

Again - quite agree - no democracy around here either!

In reality, as I taper off doing this type of work, my aspiration is to do it your way ... which is exactly how I started all those years ago. A pair of Leica Ms and a bag of film, with only a few images requiring a DSLR (now days a MM and M9 or M240). It may be that it'll be an epic failure financially, but at this stage I couldn't care less, I just like shooting when ever I can because it keeps you young of mind

- Marc

Well, I know you could do it my way . . . but I don't think I could do it your way! I do agree, there isn't anything quite like shooting a wedding - you have to be so much on your toes - a combination of diplomacy, determination and doggedness - Exciting!

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

What seems to have been lost in the modern age is any kind of discrimination, guidance and recognition. For example, where are the Alfred Stieglitzs, Roy Strikers, Alexey Brodovitchs of past? Those giants in the shadows that championed what became revered icons of photography?

This is where I hope that you're wrong - and it's just that we can't see them yet - sometimes it's necessary to get a bit of distance.

Without thought, without ideas, without some developed notion of intent whether intuitive or plotted out ... the photographer is as dumb as the camera in their hand.

- Marc

Absolutely - dumber even - some cameras seem quite smart these days :facesmack:

all the best