|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
The Demise of the independent photographer
This was post on the Dan Margulis Forum Color Theory, for those who don't know Dan he is a master on color management wrote some of the most importants books about the subject and he post this on his forum this week, read if you have time (it's Long) I've just finished my classes for the year, winding up with a couple of advanced courses consisting only of people who have already taken the first Applied Color Theory course and who are therefore fairly sophisticated both about color correction and about the state of affairs in the industry. For these reasons, I always ask the advanced classes about their practices and about trends as they see them. This year, I got some surprises that I thought I would share with the group, as I think they have ramifications about our business. There were 13 students in the advanced class, 8 from the U.S., five from Canada. Here's what they do (there is some overlap so the numbers sometimes add to more than 13). *Two are professional photographers. *One other is technically an amateur but clearly is serious enough about his photography to be ranked as a professional. *Two work in facilities that accept work from the general public (one printer, one service bureau). *Three work in advertising agencies. *Two are one-person operations. *Three work in in-house operations preparing promotional material. *Two others are supervisors of such in-house departments. *One is a professional color scientist. *Six output almost exclusively in CMYK, two in RGB, five often output in both. *Three usually work with first-class images; five generally do but also have to work with some mediocre ones, chiefly royalty-free stock photography; five often have to try to correct garbage shot by amateurs. *Ten use Adobe RGB as their prime workspace, two sRGB, one a custom RGB that falls roughly between the two. THE DEMISE OF THE INDEPENDENT PHOTOGRAPHER As nearly as I can tell, the independent photography business is in a state of near-collapse. There is still wedding shooting and portrait work, of course, but corporate assignments are few and far between, as almost any company can now afford to open its own studio or whatever they choose to call it. In fairness, the photography business has been poor for some time, but this year seems to be something special. Many people are leaving the business or seriously scaling down the operation. It used to be that there was an elite group of photographers who could write their own ticket. No more. I have been astonished to hear that some of the very biggest names in the field have no more clients--"no" as in "none" as in "zero". They are moving into teaching, or full-time employment, because there's nothing else left. I've noted in my own courses that independent photographers, who used to make up about a third of my students, have almost vanished. In my advanced classes, there were, as noted, two professional photographers, but one supervises a photography department in an international corporation, and the other is heavily involved in retouching and other non-photographic services. The photographers who used to take my courses have been replaced by hobbyists who have the desire to get better images and the means to take serious training. BETTER, WORSE, THE SAME I always ask the advanced classes about quality issues and whether they perceive that things have gotten better, worse, or stayed the same in the last 2-3 years. As to the question of whether printers and other output are more knowledgeable than they used to be, recent years have seen the groups say that they are less knowledgeable. This year the result was much more mixed, with votes for all three responses. As to image quality, there was again a shift. Recent years have consistently voted that images from PROFESSIONAL sources are getting better, but that images from other sources are either the same or getting worse. This year the group was more pessimistic. They said that professional sources were delivering about the same quality as two years ago, but that other sources were delivering worse. As for the professionals, this makes sense to me. The industry naturally had a long learning curve with respect to digital photography, which accounts for the continual improvement in quality up until recently. Now, although equipment continues to get cheaper and better, we've learned most of what we're going to about how to use it. THE RISE OF THE BAD ORIGINAL As for the amateurs handing in stuff that's worse than it was two years ago, eventually the ready availability of quality digicams ought to make amateurs more sophisticated. For now, amateurs are discovering how much time and money they save by submitting their own shots for publication--even in otherwise high-quality scenarios. There has always been a small market for correcting really bad images. Photo restoration is an important application, one that will become more demanding as more and more "old" pictures are in color rather than B/W. And certainly, every photographer who shoots animals, children, sports, or news events has the experience of working with an inferior shot that nevertheless has to be used because there's no way to shoot it again. And newspapers have always gotten all kinds of garbage from their advertisers, who of course expect it to print well. Up until recently, however, it wasn't worth the effort for most businesses to try to get good quality out of bad images. While my classes work on a lot of bad images because they offer a lot of hints on how to work on good images, historically only about 1 in 10 students actually often have to work on really poor images in real life. As you can see from the composition of my advanced classes, that number is increasing rapidly. Throughout 2005, I think at least 25% of my classes had to work on such images. Often these students would say that they were actively discouraging their clients from submitting them. To that, my reply is that you can discourage it all you like, but that's how it's going to be. THE RISE OF ADOBE RGB I noted a couple of months ago that at Photoshop World, surveys indicated that almost everyone was using either Adobe RGB or sRGB in spite of perceived problems with both. At one Photoshop World it was a 50-50 split; at the other it was not quite 60-40 in favor of Adobe RGB. Yet in my advanced classes the vote was 10-2. I find this surprising, especially among those who are only concerned with CMYK output. I'd regard this as proof of the power of negative publicity. If you are good at color correction (and these people are) AND if you never have to output to anything but CMYK, then on the assumption that sRGB and Adobe RGB are the only choices in the world, then sRGB is superior. But there's been so much anti-sRGB rhetoric that people seem to be ashamed to used it. Dan Margulis Dec 07 05 09:23 pm Link in regards to last part. erm, Adobe RGB good for when you arnt sure exactly where you will put the final product sRGB ideal for web and uncertain targets. I don't think sRGB is superior or inferior, its just simply has it's purposes. Course not to mention the common file formats dont support CMYK (Jpeg, etc). And most people here are going to present their files in something small, but at the same time high compatibility with number of people who may not have the ability to work with a Tiff or PSD, etc. Personally I use both adobergb ( mainly cuz the hardware calibration has me put photoshop in AdobeRGB ), but once I get something ready for a typical consumer printer, or web presentation, it's sRGB conversion from there. Dec 07 05 09:33 pm Link Digital killed the Professional Photographer . Yes it did . High quality digital cameras are starting to become commodity items . Go to Walmart. Now almost everyone can become a "PHOTOGRAPHER". It use to be the Instamatic vs the Pro camera.Nikon, Canon, Hassy were the identifying symbols of the PRO photographer. Well, not any more. Technical knowledge of photography for the GWC ?? Why , just point and shoot and bring the film or digital media to the BIG Box store who pays the film/digital processor clerk $5.00/hr . They just came from the cosmetics dept What a shame ! Sorry, I 'm just rambling on but this is a sore spot for me . It hard to make a living in photography now. I'm from the old school . Went to photography school in NYC in the 70s Dec 07 05 09:56 pm Link Looks to me like the class was made up mostly of people for whom exact color is necessary. That group would certainly include more folks involved with publication and printing than it would photographers of most any sort except catalog and possibly fashion - work dealing with textiles. And even then it would be mostly the post prod folks who have to get some of it exactly right, not the photographers. I think the poster jumped to conclusions that aren't correct. Independent photographers, if they are not delivering final art - most in advertising, fashion, catalog, and most anything but weddings and senior portraits - need to know less about color than you might think. -Don Dec 07 05 10:35 pm Link CameraSight wrote: Yes, and pre-coated plated killed the professional photographer...no, it was roll film...no, it was 35mm film...no, it's digital. D. Brian Nelson wrote: Accurate, except that commercial/editorial photographers delivering digital files are frequently expected to deliver files that are already corrected. I'll grant that this is often done by someone other than the photographer him/herself--and if that's so, the sample would largely exclude smaller operations where there's only person on staff. Dec 08 05 12:26 am Link blah blah blah your the artist noone killed the independants accept themselves im still here..... just adjusting to digital format...they cant take my style... Dec 08 05 12:36 am Link The Don Mon wrote: Amen! Dec 08 05 01:05 am Link I have never made a living at this, but with the expensive degree I am now attmepting to earn I can always teach at a college! Dec 08 05 01:06 am Link I have one of the older Dan Margulis books. He is rather arrogant and opinionated, sometimes to a humerous extent. He has some good point and definately has a preferred work-flow. But not everythingy he, or anyone else, says is right. But the photography playing field has been significantly leveled and there are a lot more people on it now. If I had 15 years ago, what I have now (and I mean the MF film camera and lighting I lucked into) they I could have easily gone into business. But being financially challenged most of my life, I am always behind the curve of the best equipment out there. I think with growing population, increased automation, abundance of how-to information, that some fundimental thing will have to change in how our economy works in the next 10-20 years. Soon we will all be working help desk jobs calling each other about those few things each doesn't know. Dec 08 05 01:32 am Link This is interesting. I see it from more than one angle as I also own and run a recording studio (in addition to the photography). The past 1.5 years has been terrible, business just died - almost overnight. Weird. I know of a couple studios around here that have shut down and several pro photographers who are wondering how they will pay their bills next month, some of whom have been in business for decades. It would seem many of us in the "arts" are no longer at the level we used to be at. I don't think you can blame just on digital either (photographically or recording-wise). The whole paradigm of our lives has been changing the past couple of years. I don't see much improvement coming down the line any time soon.... -R Dec 08 05 02:07 am Link Well in my view and from my experience this seems to be all wrong. Over the past 3 years my client base has increased. More clients have come to me with the same complaint. That too many "photographers" appraoching them for commissions just don't seem to know what they are doing. One actually said "glad you old guys are still around, you seem to have a better idea of what quality is and you seem to be able to stick to deadlines". My experience with assistants from college is that they don't seem to understand the basic technical principles behind photography. They can run rings around me in Photoshop, but ask them to produce the effect with 1 shot on 5"x4" and they are totally lost. The training they get seems to point more to computer technology than to photography as a trade or an art. I have had 3 assistants straight from college that had never used a large format camera!!!!!!! I studied photography at University for 3 years, spent 10 years with Kodak, 6 years on the film unit with the BBC before I went freelance. I find now many young "photographers" expect to earn big money from word go. They don't understand the business of finding clients and keeping them. I have about 15 major clients that have used me for the past 10 years so I must be doing something right. Dec 08 05 06:48 am Link CameraSight wrote: with all due respect, if you think that any yahoo with a camera can shoot the way that a pro does, you're dead wrong. no amount of gear and no amount of photoshop will make me a better shooter. can anyone who's got a good guitar play in a successful rock and roll band? think about it a bit. Dec 08 05 07:24 am Link johnny olsen wrote: I agree it comes down to the 'eye' every time. I used to rent out my old studio to a guy who did ' photo club shoots' ( IE: the only way a GWC is ever going to shoot a model naked). Dec 08 05 08:46 am Link Merlinpix wrote: You hit the nail right on the head! Dec 08 05 09:09 am Link johnny olsen wrote: Don't sweat it johnny. Looking at the post, it doesn't sound like the information quoted was based on a real industry overview. Certainly the print industry has been shrinking over the past several years, but other media has been growing. It would take an in-depth examination of all aspects of the industry to really make that kind of statement. Dec 08 05 09:10 am Link johnny olsen wrote: The better analogy is the digital "have the camera do all the work" more closely resembles filling the room with music...using player pianos. Dec 08 05 09:35 am Link area291 wrote: yeah but are people PAYING to go sit and listen to karaoke? (and i'm not talking a cover charge for the bar either) Dec 08 05 12:37 pm Link johnny olsen wrote: Yes, or using the guitar that Jimmy Hendrix used, will not make someone a good guitar player either. Dec 08 05 12:42 pm Link I think if your good, you should'nt feel threatened by the walmart people buying hi end camera's. Its about how you use the tool and your creativity no? Im certainly not a pro but remember in art college how much a pain film was to work with & develop. No doubt it took greater skill to master so you have to respect that. Its a new era now not just in photography but communication, welcome to it..! Dec 08 05 12:46 pm Link CameraSight wrote: That's like saying good, cheap hammers killed the carpentry business. Dec 08 05 12:49 pm Link UdoR wrote: Aside from quality capabilities from the camera ( for example you cant take too sharp a picture if the lens is like vaseline smeared on it ), I feel that no matter the camera you use, its the photographer behind the camera. But in part of being a photographer you know what equipment or material will help you get the job done, and you know how to use those equipment. Its like myself when I was younger in algebra, and people saying I got better grades because I had a calculator ( not to mention I was using a Tandy PC-6 pocket computer, and everyone else was using generations newer Texas insturament Ti-81 graphing calculators ), it all came down to knowing how to do what you had to do already, rather than trying to let the equipment do it for you. Sometimes 'better' equipment will make those who dont know how to use it worse... like rich people and humvees. Dec 08 05 12:52 pm Link Im Still Alive and Kickin!! Competition is what its all about.. With No Competition you just get Stagnent.. Competition allows us to get better .... So just get Better and Desist your Vociferisness!!! (:--------- Hj Dec 08 05 12:59 pm Link Its not just in the photography bizz, the technical revolution is changing so fast in all industries, as an hand keying Animator Im fighting for my life against motion capture, gotta adapt or be left behind. Dec 08 05 01:04 pm Link In regards to the reply I just posted, friend of mine had this to say [14:01] soddingaohell: I think to some extent that's true Dec 08 05 01:07 pm Link I will continue with photography for as long as I can see and hold a camera. As with most artists, it can be hard to make a living. I commend the ones that do, and especially the ones who still love what they do. I'm getting my Plan B & C so that I can do photography, whether or not someone places a monetary value on what I do. Dec 08 05 05:00 pm Link |
