This reminds me of something I realized the other day while shopping for artwork to decorate the guest room. I'd rather order a print of a photo from deviant art or some other such website than buy some medium quality picture from Target or other big box retailers.
I agree with that, but also offer another option, local artists. In every good sized city, there will be an arts community. And within that community, there are events, art fairs, local shops showing art, galleries, etc. In Minneapolis, there is the North East arts district, http://www.northeastminneapolisartsdistrict.com/. Also check out local colleges. Most should have an art department that have a end of year student sale. There can be some great finds in those.
I have nothing against Deviant Art or Etsy or SupermarketHQ or any other site to buy great art for the artists, but don't discount the local artists.
That's a good point. As someone who does most of my shopping online I sometimes forget about the ability to purchase from local artists. In the past I have found a lot of local artists to be to expensive. Perhaps I should check out student sales like you suggest.
It can take a lot of digging to find good local art that isn't expensive, but it is out there. Generally, if you hit big art fairs, you have a better chance.
My wife is a photographer/artist so I have become very familiar with the local art scene in Minneapolis and have gotten my hands on some great art. Some pricey, some very cheap.
A lot of the local artists are a bit insane with how much they're trying to charge for their prints. I've seen moderately interesting prints that cost >$500 and are from people who do photography as a hobby.
I'm not saying artists shouldn't be paid, but when I cannot tell the difference between a $20 print from Target or a $500 print by some unknown artists that I bought off the wall of a coffee shop, I'm probably going to either just go for $20 thing, or spend $50 and print some of my friends' photos.
At $500 dollars, you might be paying for the framing, printing, and matting, plus the fact that the artist might be well known in the community and has people buying his work. Or they are just unreasonable.
But I would hope there are local artists with more reasonably priced artwork.
heh sounds familiar, I do gig photography (and travel), just because I like having the memories and was a fun skill to learn, I upload all my photos to flickr full size under the cc license, sometimes the bands come across them and use them for various things, always pretty appreciative.
I have had quite a few sneers and emails complaining about ruining their livelihoods because I give stuff away for free, I found it pretty strange, like me going to github and complaining about these programmers giving stuff away.
I was in a band in the 1990s and remember hiring some photojournalist friends of mine to take our publicity and live photos. We paid the equivalent of $50 for a few rolls (it was overseas) but I remember in the end we or some friends started doing it for us for free. Kind of wish Flickr had been around then, maybe we could have gotten some useful shots from a wider range of people and cameras.
>"Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure," Ms. Eismann said. "Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?"
An interesting re-occurrence of Steve Martin's observation in a recently posted article:
"[It] was easy to be great. Every entertainer has a night when everything is clicking. These nights are accidental and statistical: like lucky cards in poker, you can count on them occurring over time. What was hard was to be good, consistently good, night after night, no matter what the circumstances."
Yes that's exactly it. Every photographer looks at a professional shot and says "I could have taken that". But what makes a great lansdcape photo (for example) is that some guy for 6 months woke up before dawn every day and humped his gear up the hill and picked the right moment to take the shot, then sorted through dozens of images to find the shot and that's what appears in the calendar. Sure you could have taken that shot if by sheer coincidence you happened to be on that hillside at just the right moment, with all your gear and your wits about you. But you weren't...
I attended a lecture once by Dewitt Jones, a National Geographic photographer. He says that people always
ask him how many shots it takes to get that magazine-worthy shot. To which, he answered "Not shots. How many rolls"
While it's unlikely one amateur could have coincidentally matched the pro's efforts, a few thousand amateurs working independently could have come up with at least a few pro-quality shots -- and not demand professional wages to do it.
Note also that not all pro work is concentrated around difficult shots or situations. Gabe Rivera of Techmeme tweeted a few weeks ago about Agence France-Presse flying a professional photographer out to the U.S. to shoot him as part of an interview package. The photo they used online? His hand holding a mouse:
OK, but a professional-quality photograph still costs money to produce, let's say a photo costs $1000. That might be the pro charging the magazine $1000 and delivering the image or it might be a thousand amateurs all "spending" $1 on their camera, their time, gas for the car, whatever and one of them giving it to the magazine for free (after we have also accounted for the photo editor sifting through a thousand submissions). I'm just not seeing where the net value-add is here.
A thousand people enjoy taking the picture - that's worth a lot. A hundred actually think they took a good one and post it. An editor browses flickr or whatever and quickly finds a good one and offers that person $50 or a photo credit, and makes their day. Everyone wins, except the professional photographer.
I still can't help but feel that we're losing something. Where's the next Ansel Adams in this scenario?
The thousand-amateurs argument is like the argument that the world doesn't need professional developers, any amateur can build their own apps with Excel and Access...
I think the world gets more great artists when the barriers to entry are lower, and there are more amateurs in the field. It might have been easier to name the great photographers of 50 years ago when there were fewer of them, but I think there are a lot of great photographers now - likely more than when it was a less accessible art to get into.
Another angle is that there are certainly more "good" photographers now - I think this generations personal photo collections are way better on average than in the past, because so many people know good photographers, or can take lots of pictures and get lucky sometimes. That's really valuable on an individual level.
Catching that moment is one of the reasons I'm building http://shutterscouts.com - an idea notebook and forecasting service for landscape photographers.
A pro landscape photographer will plan their shoot: weather, sunrise/set, times, directions. And then they'll wait, try, fail, try, fail, kinda succeed... and then come away a completely different shot ;-) Apparently, it's 50% planned shot / 50% unplanned (but discovered during a planned/failed shot)
I hope Shutter Scouts can make it easier for enthusiasts and professional alike to make the most of their time by pointing them in the right direction, at the right time, for their most promising ideas.
Photography is different from other fields in that the typical unit of work is quite small: one photo. That means amateurs can overwhelm the professionals by shear volume. There are so many more of them, and they take so many photos; so what if 99.9% of them are awful, as long as there's a good filter to find the gems.
This of course doesn't work if you absolutely must have photos of some particular event, so there will always be room for professionals even if they're squeezed.
I think it's wrong to say "Amateurs, happy to accept small checks for snapshots of children and sunsets". It's more of a democratization of the tools needed to do a successful photo shoot. Anyone can buy a DSLR, the strobist movement means good-looking lighting for cheap and excellent post processing tools are available for free.
This means that amateur photographers in many cases can do just as good a job as a professional. It's pretty much the same reason why magazines and newspapers are declining, the internet and social networks have lead to a democratization of news.
To be successful as a professional photographer, you have to offer more than what amateurs are capable of, and in addition be able to educate your customer why you're worth the extra cash. As always, it's about staying competitive, instead of weeping over the past.
Most stock usage isn't sunsets - how many sunset photos do you need?
It's smiling attractive people sitting at desks, or smiling in front of power poles wearing hard hats.
There is still a business of stock photos for people that want it. You just have to know what the market wants - and it isn't another misty dawn view of the Golden Gate.
Yeah, despite the protestations, I think in a lot of relevant ways the amateur stuff is up to par these days. There is plenty of professional photography that really is unlikely to be replicated by amateurs, but from a market perspective, the photographers' biggest problem is that they don't have a monopoly on the profitable mid-range stuff anymore. It used to be that to have even a decent looking shot of like, a computer on a desk, you needed to pay a professional. Amateurs owned the "shitty snapshot" market, and professionals owned everything above that. But these days there are 100 decent shots of computers on desks on the internet, and professionals only really still own the high-end market, which is much smaller.
For a while I've been trying to think of other fields where this will happen. iStockPhoto has already expanded into stock video, stock illustrations and stock audio (environmental and music). It's also clearly happening with written articles and perhaps even entire books.
You already see that with software both GNU and non-GNU. The internet means that any good that can be reduced to bits on the wire will become widely available at low or no cost. And it's not just piracy, but competition between substitutes that cost almost nothing to reproduce. Automated fabrication means that this is beginning to happen to physical goods as well.
What you see happening is producers competing against all other producers in their field, past and present.
Uniqueness, originality and authenticity become the premium values for any creative work.
I was a pro shooter for three years and 90% of what set me apart was being a nice guy to work with, being professional and being consistent.
* Other pros that I took work from were often jerks. Being a nice, direct and reasonable individual takes you a long way in that business.
* Being professional meant having a studio, quoting and billing clearly, being a good communicator with clients. Things amateur shoots don't always do well.
* Being consistent in terms of quality, turn around time, etc.
There is still work out there if you have a stable of good clients that need and value the above. But in cases where stock photos will do, you're screwed.
I'm the CTO for an image archive (http://trunkarchive.com/). You could sort of consider us a boutique stock agency, but that would be sort of demeaning to the stable of photographers we rep.
Interesting article, but I doubt professional photographers have much to worry about. The amateur will fill a niche, perhaps compete with the low-end of the spectrum of professional photographers, but - ultimately - the kind of image licensing that nets the most cash, and makes the most careers, is celebrity and high end editorial.
Shrinking market due to this trend? Certainly. But who are you going to hire for your wedding / magazine cover / bikini model shoot?
This strikes me as the market realizing that, when they just need a photo, there's plenty out there. For cases where a professional is needed, say for a photo shoot, professionals are still hired. Most of the rest of this seems like an increase in stock photo use (which was previously unfairly snubbed) combined with the economy troubles. It's happening everywhere, photography isn't alone in this.
Pages are at a premium, and there’s more competition to get anything into a magazine now, and the bar is just higher for excellent work.
Is this somehow a bad thing? Lack of competition to improve may very well have caused this whole trend.
I've often long said it: there's no money in photographs but lots of money in photographers.
More photographers =
more competition (if you're also a photographer)
OR a bigger market (if you sell to photographers)
which would you choose? I'm an enthusiast photographer but have no intention of going down the pro route. Instead, I'm building http://shutterscouts.com -- an idea notebook and weather forecasting service for landscape photographers. Just went live for beta this week!
29 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadI have nothing against Deviant Art or Etsy or SupermarketHQ or any other site to buy great art for the artists, but don't discount the local artists.
My wife is a photographer/artist so I have become very familiar with the local art scene in Minneapolis and have gotten my hands on some great art. Some pricey, some very cheap.
I'm not saying artists shouldn't be paid, but when I cannot tell the difference between a $20 print from Target or a $500 print by some unknown artists that I bought off the wall of a coffee shop, I'm probably going to either just go for $20 thing, or spend $50 and print some of my friends' photos.
But I would hope there are local artists with more reasonably priced artwork.
I have had quite a few sneers and emails complaining about ruining their livelihoods because I give stuff away for free, I found it pretty strange, like me going to github and complaining about these programmers giving stuff away.
( * http://www.flickr.com/photos/daleharvey/collections/72157600... my music stuff)
I was in a band in the 1990s and remember hiring some photojournalist friends of mine to take our publicity and live photos. We paid the equivalent of $50 for a few rolls (it was overseas) but I remember in the end we or some friends started doing it for us for free. Kind of wish Flickr had been around then, maybe we could have gotten some useful shots from a wider range of people and cameras.
An interesting re-occurrence of Steve Martin's observation in a recently posted article:
"[It] was easy to be great. Every entertainer has a night when everything is clicking. These nights are accidental and statistical: like lucky cards in poker, you can count on them occurring over time. What was hard was to be good, consistently good, night after night, no matter what the circumstances."
http://DewittJones.com
Note also that not all pro work is concentrated around difficult shots or situations. Gabe Rivera of Techmeme tweeted a few weeks ago about Agence France-Presse flying a professional photographer out to the U.S. to shoot him as part of an interview package. The photo they used online? His hand holding a mouse:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jj324Ei1-...
The thousand-amateurs argument is like the argument that the world doesn't need professional developers, any amateur can build their own apps with Excel and Access...
You still might not pick an amateur photo for a calendar, but you'd probably pick it for a background in an ad.
A pro landscape photographer will plan their shoot: weather, sunrise/set, times, directions. And then they'll wait, try, fail, try, fail, kinda succeed... and then come away a completely different shot ;-) Apparently, it's 50% planned shot / 50% unplanned (but discovered during a planned/failed shot)
I hope Shutter Scouts can make it easier for enthusiasts and professional alike to make the most of their time by pointing them in the right direction, at the right time, for their most promising ideas.
This of course doesn't work if you absolutely must have photos of some particular event, so there will always be room for professionals even if they're squeezed.
This means that amateur photographers in many cases can do just as good a job as a professional. It's pretty much the same reason why magazines and newspapers are declining, the internet and social networks have lead to a democratization of news.
To be successful as a professional photographer, you have to offer more than what amateurs are capable of, and in addition be able to educate your customer why you're worth the extra cash. As always, it's about staying competitive, instead of weeping over the past.
There is still a business of stock photos for people that want it. You just have to know what the market wants - and it isn't another misty dawn view of the Golden Gate.
What's next? Software? 3D models?
What you see happening is producers competing against all other producers in their field, past and present.
Uniqueness, originality and authenticity become the premium values for any creative work.
* Other pros that I took work from were often jerks. Being a nice, direct and reasonable individual takes you a long way in that business.
* Being professional meant having a studio, quoting and billing clearly, being a good communicator with clients. Things amateur shoots don't always do well.
* Being consistent in terms of quality, turn around time, etc.
There is still work out there if you have a stable of good clients that need and value the above. But in cases where stock photos will do, you're screwed.
Interesting article, but I doubt professional photographers have much to worry about. The amateur will fill a niche, perhaps compete with the low-end of the spectrum of professional photographers, but - ultimately - the kind of image licensing that nets the most cash, and makes the most careers, is celebrity and high end editorial.
This strikes me as the market realizing that, when they just need a photo, there's plenty out there. For cases where a professional is needed, say for a photo shoot, professionals are still hired. Most of the rest of this seems like an increase in stock photo use (which was previously unfairly snubbed) combined with the economy troubles. It's happening everywhere, photography isn't alone in this.
Pages are at a premium, and there’s more competition to get anything into a magazine now, and the bar is just higher for excellent work.
Is this somehow a bad thing? Lack of competition to improve may very well have caused this whole trend.
More photographers = more competition (if you're also a photographer) OR a bigger market (if you sell to photographers)
which would you choose? I'm an enthusiast photographer but have no intention of going down the pro route. Instead, I'm building http://shutterscouts.com -- an idea notebook and weather forecasting service for landscape photographers. Just went live for beta this week!