What’s Your Preference?

zona5101 · #1 (**permalink**) 05-19-2011, 12:29 PM

When you need a level set, here's the remedy...
Open Letter to a Local Photographer

Jim Bryant · #2 (**permalink**) 05-19-2011, 02:10 PM

Good damn read.he took the words right outta my mouth!

veritasimagery · #3 (**permalink**) 05-19-2011, 03:20 PM

I think this can be said for all forms of art that become "business."

In order to be "successful", in the worldly definition (i.e. money, fame, money), with your art you have to cater to the whim of the "popular." Because the populace is fickle, what sells great now, may not sell at all next week. And if we rely on our art to sustain us financially, it is very hard not to continually adjust to that next fad.

When we start out we are all about the pictures, and we see the business of photography as a way to do what we love for a living. We are blind to the reality that in order to run a business the art can, and sometimes must, take a backseat.

I think it is not so much the fault of the photographer for the downfall of the art, but the fickleness of the client base. Everyone here that shoots for a living knows that in the end, it's the client who determines our direction. We can say "No, I shoot what I want and will not be dictated." To that I ask, really? If you are a "professional" photographer don't you look at every shot and ask if it will sell? Don't you make sure that your wedding shoots will produce something that the client wants to buy? The same goes for portrait or commercial photographers. Every one of us who relies on our photography to earn a living at some point thought "will this sell?" and adjusted our shooting accordingly. I've heard it here on the forums when a pro is telling someone who is just starting out "Your shots are amateurish, filled with bad posing and poor lighting. You have no right to expect people to pay for that." See you, the pro, are telling that beginner that it's all about bending to the will of the client. You are telling them that what matters is less the about art (subjective) and more about a "sellable" product (objective).

We are all guilty in this. It's time to step back and remember that photography is personal, sometimes subjective, sometimes objective, sometimes art and sometimes business. Some of us will bend like a reed to the whims of the populace in order to sell, and some of us will hold firm to who we are as a photographer in order to preserve the art. But in the long run, we are all still photographers.

Kevin

Niresangwa · #4 (**permalink**) 05-19-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

I've heard it here on the forums when a pro is telling someone who is just starting out "Your shots are amateurish, filled with bad posing and poor lighting. You have no right to expect people to pay for that." See you, the pro, are telling that beginner that it's all about bending to the will of the client.

There was a whole slew of things I disagreed with in your post, but this one is wildly inaccurate in the context of your overall theme.

They're not telling you to bend to the will of the client, they're telling you to bend to their own personal view and expectations.

This is why so many new comers end up producing the same old crap that has been churned out for decades.

veritasimagery · #5 (**permalink**) 05-19-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

There was a whole slew of things I disagreed with in your post, but this one is wildly inaccurate in the context of your overall theme.

They're not telling you to bend to the will of the client, they're telling you to bend to their own personal view and expectations.

This is why so many new comers end up producing the same old crap that has been churned out for decades.

Okay. Semantically you are correct. But the idea is the same. It is the removal of the subjective, and personal, aspect of the art of photography.

I've read the pros tell up-and-comers that they have no right to charge until they reach a certain "level" of photography. But if someone is willing to pay for their work, then isn't that all that matters? If the purpose is to sell photos, then they have a reached a level that they can sell them. If they want to sell them for more, or to different clients, they may have to change. But then again, maybe not.

If photography is art, then there is no "better" picture. Like any form of art. I just watched a documentary on a famous painter whose work looked like something a middle-schooler could do. And yet the art critiques loved it. I've seen sculptures that looked like crap, but were worth thousands of dollars.

That was what I was getting at. At one point we have pros that are trying to dictate to amateurs that they just aren't "good enough", whether it's based on personal preferences or what the market calls for right now. And then there are the "artists" that hate the ones that have "lowered" the art of photography through selling out to what the market wants right now.

My point was that every one of us should step back and remember that this thing we love, photography has room for every style; the artists, the business men, the "pro" and the amateur. None of us take "better" or "worse" pictures, we just take "different" pictures. We take pictures with different equipment and different styles. And if someone wants to charge for their pictures, and someone else is willing to pay for them, then shouldn't we applaud that photographer? Not tell them they need to "change" to take the pictures we think they should take based on what we think qualifies to be payed for.

We don't have the right to tell anyone "You don't have the right to charge people with the skills you have." We don't have the right to tell someone that they must change in order to please anyone but themselves. But if they ask...

Niresangwa · #6 (**permalink**) 05-19-2011, 07:14 PM

Enjoying the debate, but I still feel like you're missing the point.

The pro 'critics', at least as far as I've seen, never argue the lack of style or creativity, they do however frequently critique matters of technical and business acumen. A lack of those two factors generally will retard the growth of your business.

Maybe that goes back to what I said about a self-perpetuating absence of creativity amongst the general pool of noobs... theyre basically trying to recreate what others before them do, because hey, if those guys make money doing it this way, the noob sees it as their avenue to success. Not true.

There's a clear difference between creativity and technical ability, and an even bigger one between business paradigm and creativity.

The other factor is, just because someone is willing to pay for something, doesnt mean a self respecting phographer should sell it. Lets be honest, clients are in the same position as noobs... they only see whats out there to be seen. They also usually know nothing about photography...

...if you show them a technically weak shot, vs a strong shot with great off camera lighting and great processing, they can discern the difference immediately. The point being that the pool of skill is diluted by encouraging sub-par work to enter the market place.

It not only does a disservice to the industry, and the photographer by encouraging them not to bother investing in time and equipment to better their work, but also the client, who often times knows no better.

veritasimagery · #7 (**permalink**) 05-20-2011, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

There's a clear difference between creativity and technical ability, and an even bigger one between business paradigm and creativity.

The other factor is, just because someone is willing to pay for something, doesn't mean a self respecting photographer should sell it. Lets be honest, clients are in the same position as noobs... they only see whats out there to be seen. They also usually know nothing about photography...

...if you show them a technically weak shot, vs a strong shot with great off camera lighting and great processing, they can discern the difference immediately. The point being that the pool of skill is diluted by encouraging sub-par work to enter the market place.

It not only does a disservice to the industry, and the photographer by encouraging them not to bother investing in time and equipment to better their work, but also the client, who often times knows no better.

I agree, to some extent. But we also have to look at the "art" factor of photography. And a big part of art can be the removal of "rules". Again, to point back at the other forms of art (paint and sculpture for example) there are pieces that have zero "technical" ability shown in them, but are still considered creative and valuable. For example:

This painting doesn't follow the normal "rules" of painting. And it shows absolutely no "technical" ability. Comparing it to the works of DaVinci, it falls very short on what would be considered "strong". But yet, it's art. And I'm sure someone paid good money for it.

I think you miss my point. I do believe we should always strive to move forward in our abilities, but also strive for our own style. For anyone of us to tell another that they have "no right to charge" because their work is "sub par" by someone elses definition, though, is rather arrogant. I consider the inane, sugar-coated, fluff on the pop radio does a disservice to music, but I also understand that there is a market for it. The people that listen to, and buy, that junk have no true appreciation for the music and wouldn't know "technical" ability if it bit them. And so the people that make that stuff aren't really taking away from those "artists" that create the "good" stuff. The same goes in the photography world. We can encourage that beginners, and pros, strive to move forward (notice I said "forward" and not "better". "Better" is subjective.) in their art, but we should never demand it. We should not be pushing to create more photographers that take the same picture. If we did, we might as all work at those portrait houses in JCPennys, Sears and Wal-Mart. There is no creativity, just technical ability.

"Lets be honest, clients are in the same position as noobs... they only see whats out there to be seen."

And this is my point exactly, if the client can't see technical ability, then can we force it on them? All the technical ability in the world is lost on someone who can't see it. So if we have an amateur shooter, that takes less than "perfect" shots, but is still selling them to clients, if we tell them to "improve" their shooting to a more professional level beyond which their clients can tell the difference and won't pay for, aren't we trying to mold them in our image? And at the same time, move them away from their clientele? Who does that benefit? There are already a ton of "technically adept" photographers out there that the average person cannot afford, why add another? To say that they aren't "self-respecting" is arrogant. How do you know? Just because they don't shoot like you do? Because they are willing to serve the "lowest common denominator"?

It's funny, they used to say the same thing about Jazz musicians. The violin player listening to jazz and saying "No self-respecting musician would play that junk." Or how about rock, it got the same treatment. Everywhere in the art world we can see the same attitude. Some "art snob" will always look at a different genre and call it junk. Someone will always put down anothers "ability" because it doesn't match up with their own ideas.

And I think that's the key. We should all check ourselves. Are we bending to be more like everyone else? Are we striving to move forward, pushing our abilities and creative envelope? When we give critique is because we truly want to help or just create another one like us? Are we doing this to create income, or art? If it's art then sometimes the technical can go out the window. And if it's income, then anyone who can sell a picture has accomplished that.

Niresangwa · #8 (**permalink**) 05-20-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

I agree, to some extent. But we also have to look at the "art" factor of photography. And a big part of art can be the removal of "rules".

There's a huge difference between knowing the 'rules' and choosing not to use them for intended effect, and simply not knowing them in the first place. I'd bet my right arm that the artist who created the image you posted has been painting for most of their life, and had an extensive rationale behind the piece.

edit: I googled the artist behind this piece, Bea Danckaert. Though I don't read Dutch, do you really want to compare this guy to a noob who just got their Rebel 6 months ago and sells 100 shots on a cd for $50?

That's not the same as closing your eyes and just having at it. You see the phrase well used that you have to know the rules before you can break them, because unless you undestand the fundamentals, and know their intention and why they're in place, you cant ever decide when it's time to discard them.

That's issue here. It's not about style or creativity with these start-ups. they're mostly making mistakes and disregarding 'rules' because they don't know any better, which is usually when the critics step in and tell them to slow down. They're two stages back from where they should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

We should not be pushing to create more photographers that take the same picture. If we did, we might as all work at those portrait houses in JCPennys, Sears and Wal-Mart. There is no creativity, just technical ability.

I agree completely. However, it's only creativity when by definition, you seek to create something. Intentionally underexposing for effect is a completely different animal from underexposing because you have no bloody clue how to meter your shot correctly.

To do the latter, then claim you're doing it for artistic effect is disingenuous. Whether it's appealing or not isn't important, it's whether you could replicate the shot, or change it based on your own level of skill with the equipment. Until you have that level of mastery, what business do you have taking peoples money? Without a high degree of skill, you can't be relied upon to produce consistently, which is the essence of having your own style. You can't base your style on happy accidents and luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

And this is my point exactly, if the client can't see technical ability, then can we force it on them? All the technical ability in the world is lost on someone who can't see it.

This is pretty fatuous. That's like saying just because a buyer doesn't know the difference in quality, a manufacturer can use any old garbage in their production. Or a chef can use frozen food thrown in the microwave rather than cooking with fresh ingredients.

It's about self respect, and respect for your clients.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

So if we have an amateur shooter, that takes less than "perfect" shots, but is still selling them to clients, if we tell them to "improve" their shooting to a more professional level beyond which their clients can tell the difference and won't pay for, aren't we trying to mold them in our image?

It doesn't cost the client any more money to have a photographer who understands controlling exposure, or understands PPing beyond using 'vintage' actions downloaded from Deviant Art, or heck for the small investment in equipment to be able to use off camera flash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

To say that they aren't "self-respecting" is arrogant. How do you know? Just because they don't shoot like you do? Because they are willing to serve the "lowest common denominator"?

How do I know? I don't know for sure. However, I can make a pretty educated guess, after seeing literally hundreds of people making the same mistakes. The more you pat someone on the head and reward them for being mediocre, the less the chance they'll push to make themselves improve. The lower the standard of work they're producing, it affects the overall body of 'professional' work out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

Someone will always put down anothers "ability" because it doesn't match up with their own ideas.

I think the standard for technical proficiency should be one we all hold each other to. How you apply that technique, I couldn't care less about. I may or may not like the interpretation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that a peer take the time to learn, and not go off half cocked. When they do that, it damages everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veritasimagery

And I think that's the key. We should all check ourselves. Are we bending to be more like everyone else? Are we striving to move forward, pushing our abilities and creative envelope? When we give critique is because we truly want to help or just create another one like us? Are we doing this to create income, or art? If it's art then sometimes the technical can go out the window.

Again, there's a world of difference between the technical and the creative. No one can reasonably place an arbitrary value on what you deem creative. However, it's fairly easy to quantify the limits of an individuals technical proficiency.

When your technical ability allows you the control to be creative that's one thing, and something everyone should aspire to. However, when your skill and ability with the equipment demonstrates an apparent absence thereof, and you pass it off as 'art', that's insincere.

zona5101 · #9 (**permalink**) 05-20-2011, 05:24 PM

I am enjoying the conversation.
One point that you each touched on that was something I didn't understand until I had a brief exchange with DPS'r Brian Mullins... Being the capitalist I am, I tended to always follow the maxim "the customer is always right" so if a customer wants the latest fad, like selective color or desaturated images w/lens flare- then give it to them, sell, sell, sell! Right? But Brian pointed out, as did the article linked in this thread, that doing so doesn't allow you to develop your own style. The goal isn't to sell what everybody else is doing because that is fleeting, but to develop a unique style that is sustainable because it is your own. When people view your work and select you as their photographer, they are buying your unique style so you don't have to offer the latest fad, the customer wouldn't even see it in your presentation...and if they ask for it, you sell your style as a unique and timeless.
So now I better understand that part - now i just need style (and probably class).