phew, I shouldn't have mentioned the word "passion". lol.
But maybe that's what they thought they should say at the interview?
There clearly is a difference between photographing for a living and for leisure or pocket money. I admire the photographers so much that are able to make this living, because they learnt exactly what you say, to make a good shot, in an efficient and fast way, to have full control over the situation, at the same time joke with the customers to make them feel at ease and move in the way you want and have an eye on the camera to choose the right setup, settings, etc. For me - it is amazing. It is a quality you need for real professional photography. I think in most situations there are no masterpieces needed. You can do that in the studio if you really want or sometimes when a client can really see the difference.
Oh and then you still have a boss, you can't just give things away for free if your boss doesn't like.
I really admire you guys. When it comes to take photos of people I am really really shy.
Thank you for welcoming me here! :-)
Simone
No?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Bill:
Yes, it's sad. Sometimes I feel guilty because I don't want that photography changes into something "normal" everyone can do - and then I also contribute to it. :-(
On the other hand, it is probably a change of time as many other things. Like the fact that in banks you have less people and more machines, and you can sign up online for many things and don't need to go to see someone in an office.
It's sad and apart from photography I am wondering where our modern world will lead, but that's off topic now ;-).
Thank you for this nice post, it's a pleasure to contribute to it.
Simone
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I have a great passion for what I do. If I was going to do something I didn't like for money, I would have been an investment banker. You also have to be a professional, and that means valuing your skills enough to charge a fair price for them.
As for newspapers printing submitted photos because they're "good enough". I've spent over 20 years as a press photographer, and I promise you, it's attitudes like these that are killing the newspaper business. Why would anyone put a value on work that any schlub off the street could produce? Newspapers are run by MBA's who know how to squeeze a few cents onto the quarterly share earnings report, but don't know jack crap about running a newspaper.
Newspapers are run by MBA's who know how to squeeze a few cents onto the quarterly share earnings report, but don't know jack crap about running a newspaper.
I resent that David.
The reality is, the internut has changed the economic landscape for newspapers. Even creative entrepreneurs such as Sam Zell are getting their noggins bashed in. Unless your newspaper is able to deliver somthing unique and time sensitive, you are likely to encounter difficulty. In other words, if there is a niche (read, small) market, then great. If you are trying to run a large daily where the news is all over the internut, then good luck.
The only newspapers that are faring reasonably well are--you guessed it--the financials, such as Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, that are aimed at MBAs. Money still makes the world go around, and the suits still require in-depth financial reporting in real-time. So these financial newspapers are able to offer their online stuff using a subscription model, something that most other newspapers are unable to do.
I got out of the mainstream media after a publisher called me, to my face, "non-revenue producing personnel". With attitudes like that, the writing was on the wall long before the internet became a force to be reckoned with. As for Sam Zell, he's a real estate mogul who's newspaper experience doesn't extend much past reading them on Sunday morning. Back in the day, most of the great papers were family owned, and they would send their sons to work as pressmen and copy boys to groom them in every facet of the business.
The drop started when large corporations took over the papers, and made the push that the already profitable business could earn more money by cutting back on the "non-revenue producing" aspects of the business, such as editorial content. Slowly, the experienced and skilled people were retrenched and replaced by inexperienced, low cost personnel, and the editorial space was reduced for more advertising. It works for a while, but eventually you erode your product so much that nobody's interested in it anymore. I could say the same thing about any number of industries, it's certainly not unique to the news biz.
The development of a pay-per-use internet model for news distribution was ignored by the major papers, with the exception of the financials, which why they remained profitable. Craig's List cut the heart out of classified sales, and that was all she wrote.
That's not to say that news is doomed. When you look at the content of what's on the internet, most of the reliable news information, such as what's in Yahoo News, comes from either on-line newspapers or the AP and REUTERS news services. If some kind of pay-per-use system isn't figured out soon, that stream of information is going to dry up. I think you're going to see something similar to iTunes, a central site where you buy credits to view stories, something like $.01 per story. Once we get that point, that will probably be the end of most printed newspapers.
Just so that others know, David and I get along fine. We are not so different in many of our outlooks, though we do have a slightly different viewpoint here.
Any bozo who insults another hard working individual is insecure and has his or her own issues to deal with. So I am going to dispense with your poor treatment David, and just chalk it up to another individual that doesn't like him- or herself.
My view is that the news media started having difficulty when the internut came of age. They all believed, wrongly so, that it was a passing fad. They never got out in front it, tried to exploit it for their own advantage. Instead, they became roadkill.
We can see that by looking at some once highly profitable and highly desired magazines. Look at Vogue or Vanity Fair or even a financial such as Fortune. All have substantially less advertising today than yesterday. Vogue and Vanity Fair still have their historical managements and have suffered the same fates. So we know it isn't the young guns who ruined things. Instead, the business landscape has shifted, without traditional media marching along in time.
As far as the pay-for-view model has been ignored except by the financials is incorrect. The New York Times tried the pay-for-view model. It didn't work. Readership dropped off, and they were less profitable with their pay-for-view than with their free with advertising model. So they reverted back to free with advertising.
The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times use a pay-for-view model because they can. The other dailies are not in the same fortunate position where their news is time sensitive and insightful.
I agree with you, though, that Craig's List has really done a number on the print media. How do you compete against a person who doesn't really care about profits? Reality is, you can't. There was a great article recently about Craig's List. I'll see if I can dig it up. Nope, I can't.
Challenging times for print media. I don't think it gets better anytime soon unfortunately. One of the many negatives is that our news more geared to the lowest common denominator now.
I know nothing about the newspaper or magazine business except that I don't get anything anymore - zero. My grown kids get even less.
I used to get a daily paper and probably 4 magazines a week - mostly trade journals. The last one I gave up was Discover - a really nice magazine that I actually read, a month or two behind schedule.
No one has time anymore and the ones that do don't care. I even unsubscribed to 3 ezines this morning after months of not opening the email. I get the headlines I need in 2 min. by viewing a few opening pages of the 5 sites. Thankfully, my wife even grew to hate Reader's Digest (just in time for them to go Chapter 11) Thankfully, we never won the $$$ for a lifetime contest. Betcha that's gone too.
So, when we wonder where most of the photo journalism jobs have disappeared to, look in the same place where people have no idea what is happening in this world.
Back to photographers for a minute. It continues to amaze me how so many people see photography as being 'glamorous' Really??? SLRs made it easy to take great photos, now digital has made it easy to take, make and delete all the memories you want.
Sunday night I was in a fine restaurant up high overlooking Niagara Falls well after sunset. I couldn't get over the number of people who took out their cameras, turned them on and proceeded to take great flash pictures of the glass wall. I watched as they took dozens of shots and couldn't figure out why all they got was a white washout on their LCD.
Maybe there is hope - someday.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
