What's new

Digital STINKS (1 Viewer)

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Oh yeah Steve. Regarding the guy who asked if you shoot digital. What can you say, there's one born every minute. I know when it comes to video, digital has so many significant advantages that anyone who thinks it is bad is seriously misinformed. Misinformation is basically what I am griping about here.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Oh yeah, Rob said a couple things I want to respond to.
Of course I'm not.
 

Scott Kimball

Screenwriter
Joined
May 8, 2000
Messages
1,500
You definitely have a personal stake in the whole thing, John - which gives you a unique perspective among this group.

My bread and butter doesn't come from photography - it comes from commercial and educational video and motion picture production, as well as online media. Sure, I've done a few weddings, I've sold some images through galleries and to magazines, and I've taken on a few photo jobs related to tourism. I've also taught workshops and college classes. But I don't rely on any of them as primary income.

I won't do weddings anymore - partly because they are a pain in the @ss, but also partly because of the number of novices hanging out a shingle with cut-rate prices. It makes it harder to explain to a client why you charge what you do, when there are other local wedding photographers charging half your rate.

I think there are as many people as ever who are interested in actually learning about the craft - but they are less visible due to the easy access that the digital format provides the novices who just don't care - the background noise has increased. When you consider what you can capture for an image with a digicam on full auto, vs. what was possible when I was learning photography in the 70's and 80's, it's no wonder the novices are over-confident. Using the camera's AI can result in good snapshots. Many people can't distinguish snapshots from photographs.

-Scott
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
What is your point? That to stay in "business" pros have to work for free? Seems to me that thread is reinforcing exactly what I brought up.

Seriously, what on earth are you talking about with your "pros will either adapt or fade" comment?
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,671
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Saying exactly the same that you did, some wont handle the extra competition, some will take advantage of what digital has to offer them to enhance rather than steamroll them.

Like it or not Photography is becomming a commodity service where it once was a very specialized one. Those who can adapt will do so despite the "noobs".

Its not that I dont feel empathy with those who find themselves in this position, but I disagree with being bitter about it rather than trying to embrace what it has to offer. I'm a software engineer, we are constantly reinventing ourselves, learning new skills, the good ones are anyway. The lousy ones stick with one language/skill and ride it into the sunset. Their choice. Photographers will have to do the same. At least Photography cant be easily offshored )

Sam
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,671
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten

Ya know, it occurs to me that this might be true of ALL professions. There are those who do them for the love of it, there are those who do it for the money, there are those who do it to feed their family, there are those who do it cause it seemed like fun when they started. I've seen it in at least 3 different career fields that I'm exposed to, and its all the same, you can sorta pick out which class people belong to (tho of course there are surprises, and making assumptions and judgements is a dangerous bet)... And in each of em, those who did it cause they loved it were always baffled by and frustrated in those who were in it for the money.

Sam
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Maybe we didn't read the same thread. The one I read was about people coming in and working for free, credit only or for virtually nothing and polluting the entire profession. Maybe my math is off, but no matter how I work it, I find no way to pay for equipment, food, rent or heating bills with photo credits.

If I am missing something, please enlighten me.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,877
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
John,

I too was a little confused like you by Sam's comment at first after just reading the first page of that pretty long thread although I did understand what he was trying to say anyway (and can agree w/ much of it, including the example of software engineering field). Anyway, I decided to jump to the last page of that thread to see if maybe Sam's comment was refering something there, and yes, it seems that Sam is pointing to the sentiment expressed in the last few posts there.

Basically, the sentiment in those posts is that if you're good enough and make the most of new technologies, you shouldn't have to worry about the cheap imitations. To a great extent, I can agree w/ that -- and it's certainly a sentiment that seems to be expressed by at least some, if not quite many, high end pro photographers. And as Sam pointed out, this has also been fairly true in the software engineering world. Those of us who are truly good at the field and continue to grow our skills, etc. continue to do well despite all the changes that have been happening over the past decade plus. Even as jobs are getting sent offshore to places like India for much lower costs, those who are impacted the most usually are the ones who aren't really all that good (if at all) anyway -- or perhaps, they were overpaid before. And free (or extremely cheap) work has been around in the field for a very long time too before low cost, offshore outsourcing became so popular. Of course, there will be points at which we need to substantially reinvent ourselves in order to stay ahead and do well (or be prepared to "retire" from the field at one level or another, if not entirely). But one really shouldn't expect it to be otherwise though. The comparisons may not be exact, but probably close enough.

Anyway, it sounds like you wouldn't necessarily disagree w/ the sentiment based on some of what you said, but yeah, I'm sure it can be frustrating and at times very concerning nonetheless.

FWIW, even though I'm not a pro in your field, but as a serious amateur, I still do my own part in trying to educate others about the issues as much as I reasonably can -- and make a conscious effort to not ruin things for the working pros. Now, if only we can also educate people, even programmers in some cases, that software piracy is a bad thing...

_Man_
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,671
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
What this conversation comes down to is the intersection between the art and business of photography. I have to hand it to the pros today who are able to make it work, when you think about it most businesses fail within 2-3 years of starting up, to be successful you have to be both artistically competent AND a savvy business person. Either of which on its own is ridiculously hard. But that is capitalism. Its s savage, brutal system. You can choose to compete based on your artistic/quality basis and the other guy eats your lunch based on price =)

Again, I'm neither of those two, I work for the man and I'm just a noob with more gear and time to chat than talent. But perhaps it takes a dispassionate observer to see the issues a bit more clearly. I dont say what I have said in this thread or the one I linked to to be mean or a jerk, I say it because I happen to have rolled through the digital revolution on my own path and these are the things I have observed and come through relatively unscathed, and I hope that my own 2 pennies can be helpful to others, regardless of what profession they are in.

BTW, one of the best blogs I read that covers issues like this is Mark Cuban's. www.blogmaverick.com He is entertaining and insightful but also likely to make 90% of his readers mad. Thats a good thing IMO.

Sam
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I have 2 main thoughts on that. First is the one which is the most difficult for most people not truly involved in the PROFESSION to understand. Making the most of new technologies has nothing to do with it. When it really comes down to it, the technology of digital makes virtually no difference, as Rob pointed out early in this thread. Photography is still the same. The Academy Award winning cinematographer Roger Deakins put it best in the excellent interview on the DVD of The Man Who Wasn't There when he said that digital is just another way of recording an image. Honestly, anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fool. Sorry to be blunt, but that is the pure and simple truth. At its most basic, all digital does is eliminate a couple steps between clicking the shutter and opening a file in your computer. That is assuming the goal is to get that picture in your computer.

The second is the comparison to software engineering, which is a completely irrelevent and inaccurate comparison. With photography, it is possible for absolutely anyone to point a camera, push the shutter and get at least something. If it is for an ad, there will be something to fill the space, no matter how awful it is. So, in a certain way, that is all it takes to get something that "works" in the sense of filling the space with an image. Software engineering is not that way. You can't just take 5 seconds of your time and produce something that at least operates. An awful lot of people think they are photographers, not many think they are software engineers.

Finally, I would like to say the "if you can't compete against thhe noobs, your work must not be very good" comment seems reasonable, but I have found the reality is that clients are more likely to do what is cheap, regardless of the quality.

To support that, I refer to a fairly recent experience with a builder who contracted with me to do photography for a brochure. They paid their deposit and we began the job. Just for comparison, here is are some examples of the work I do.

[c]

I removed the shots because apparently I am insane to think anyone would want quality.

[/c]


Of course, because as everyone knows, photography requires nothing more than a digital camera, they decided to buy one and complete the job themselves. They actually forfeited their deposit. Paid me for work I hadn't done, rather than have me complete what they had agreed to hire me for.

Here is a sample of what they have chosen to use instead.
[c]






[/c]

Now, this may be a somewhat extreme case, but it is a far from unusual situation. These people actually decided to pay some money to not have me complete the job because they see no reason not to use their own work instead of mine in the marketing of their own company. Of course, I expect someone will chime in with something about "you got paid" but I only got paid a small percentage of what it would have been to complete the job. Besides, I am in this for photography, not to make a few bucks from people breaking a contract.

This is probably the best I can do to try and get across how the perception of high quality photography is not the issue. It is the perception of photography in general. Would you want to represent your business with those pics? You'd be amazed how many people these days don't have a problem with it. That is how bad the perception that anyone can do good photography is.

Hard to believe, but that is the reality of it.
 

Rob Gillespie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 17, 1998
Messages
3,632
I have to be honest here John, if clients think those are preferable to yours (for whatever reason) then the client doesn't seem to be worth the time.

Was their decision just down to the film vs digital thing or were they just trying to skimp?
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Actually, the film vs. digital issue never came up with them. I started off shooting exteriors digitally, because it was the only way to get the job in under their budget, but I was planning to shoot the interiors on roll film.

I wouldn't say they think their shots are "preferable" just that there is not enough of a difference to pay to have me shoot.

I just don't think you guys have any idea how common this is. I can't tell you how many times I have been told "we don't need a photographer anymore. We bought a digital camera." Mostly that has come from people who are not previous clients of mine, but maybe it will give you an idea of how I perceive digital to have distorted the mentality of so many people.

Ultimately, you are correct Rob. Someone like that isn't worth the trouble. Unfortunately, people like that are becoming the vast majority. A less extreme example is a client who I did ads for about 5 years for. They were always a nuisance and I had actually started thinking of ways to cast them off without their knowing when they decided to use a different photographer who is also endorsed by the particular magazine they advertise in. He only lasted for one ad, so I don't feel too bad about handling them for 5 years. They decided to buy a digital camera and shoot their own ads. The interesting thing is, I know without a doubt not a single one of the ads they have run since would have been acceptible when I was doing them, but suddenly they are fine when they are doing them themselves. People have a tendency to become blind when the pictures are their own, or they are getting them cheap.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,671
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten

Again, it gets back to business, but this time its THEIR business and not yours. From their perspective, the ROI of using their own shots vs. yours isnt worth it to them personally.

Weigh it out:
Costs of you shooting each run
-Your pro gear
-your editing time
-your shooting time
-their time spent dealing with you, time they arent working on stuff for their clients
-you keep the copyright

vs.
Costs of shooting it themselves
-$300 cam
-$50 compact flash
-$40 photo book
+ego for doing it yourself
+they keep the copyright and can have copies in an instant without asking anyones permission
+they get to keep the camera and might get better each time they shoot, and if not, hell it will be fun to have shots of the kids at disney world.
+showing their own shots to THEIR clients shows they know how to keep costs down and that they are progressive enough to take advantage of cheap, enabling technologies.
+no recurring costs for gear or labor on their next job
+they can have a record of EVERY job they do
+dual purpose nature of the gear, for example they can have photo evidence they can use for insurance purposes, they can use the photo for instant feedback to their clients, they can give before and after shots for example

It's not personal, it's business.

Sam
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
You forgot one negative of doing the work yourself.

Potential customer looks at their ad/brochure/web site and says "their houses look like crap. Why the hell would I hire them." Losing them 20 times the income they would have paid me to produce good work. Figure that could and is likely to happen multiple times, but of course, they aren't likely to know about it.

That is business.

Why advertise at all if you are going to practically go out of your way to make yourself look bad? Doesn't make sense to me, but apparently it makes perfect sense.


Besides, I can't believe how far you are pushing it on the second half of that list.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,671
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten

Nobody questions your talent, you have more than most of us will ever dream to have. Nor your principles. That you fight for your clients to want and get quality results speaks volumes.

It is a balancing act tho, and I'm sure its not fun to be in your position.

Sam
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,900
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
It's just that over the last year or so I have gone from frustrated to just plain pissed.

Poor quality is invading everything. I shoot multi millions dollar houses where the doors stick. Where if you turn on more than one faucet at once, there is no pressure. Of course, they have wine grottos, casitas and full house music systems, which is what really matters.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,671
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Hehe, very true, its all about priorites and showing off for the neighbors. It happens at every level tho, I've got a great HT and a lousy bathroom. We are, as a society all sizzle and no steak =)

Sam
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,138
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top