Technology. Who can knock it ? In the last ten years the advancements in the digital imagery revolution have transformed the way in which press photographers work, think and play. The Canon EOS focusing system was so advanced that overnight the sporting arena quadrupled in the amount of photographers now able to cover football. In fact digital camera technology is so good, even primates can use them. And to what effect? Well, in reality a digital camera is just another highly sophisticated tool they can play with and they are probably not that interested in the end result. It focuses, exposes, sharpens and saturates for them, all they really have to do is point the camera in roughly the right direction and hey presto they have a usable image of Prince Harry leaving a London nightclub at 3 am looking rather worse for wear. Then to complete the picture, money exchanges hands for the rights to publish and voila, we have a bona fide chimpanzee.
I have never really quite understood those whose thought processes creak to the conclusion ‘I have a camera therefore I am a professional photographer.’ It used to be that a portfolio of prints (which then evolved to a CD) was an absolute neccessity in order to obtain work. The physical process of watching a picture editor flash through your 20 best prints in mere nano seconds and then to be told “don’t call us…. “ was a sight to behold and an experience never to be forgotten. It was such a shock to the system that it made you invent ways of trying to keep a picture editor hovering over your pictures for just a few more precious seconds. Nowadays it’s, “ have you got a camera and a laptop?”. And there you have it. Invest a couple of grand in some sophisticated equipment and you too can see your pictures in lights and call yourself a professional. I always wanted to be an RAF test pilot, so maybe if I bought myself a jump suit and a pair of raybans I could become a top gun? Being a musician, if I bought the right drum kit surely Paul Simon might let me take Steve Gadd’s drum stool for the forthcoming Royal Albert Hall gig? Somehow I think not……and so what is it that gives those with no experience or qualifications the right to assume the mantle of professional photographer?
Technology. It is our friend and our enemy simultaneously. It has totally changed the way we work as professionals in this industry for the better. It has made our jobs less stressful from a wiring perspective, it has lessened the load on our backs and given us the opportunity to see what we do instantly and just as importantly allowed our clients to have a ready to publish World Cup final trophy pictures within 4 minutes of the shutter being released. However It has also allowed those who with little or no skill or experience to downgrade the picture quality of our industry. As long as people are prepared to pay for these images, these so called photographers will continue to invest in the latest state of the art equipment and continue to tar us with the same brush.
We all chimp, but that doesn’t make us monkeys.
Trackback
17 comments so far
nice…eloquent and articulate! tobe
- Posted by toby melvilleWhat have you got against monkeys, they highly intelegent animals, the morons who walk about with cameras are pond life.
- Posted by Dylan MartinezWell said.
I photographed from 1982 to 2005 (!) using Canon film cameras with slide film and yet got frequently published (though not in the ultra-fast daily press). I never felt the need to switch to digital.
However, at one point the whole film handling and post-processing got so awkward, slow, and expensive, especially when more and more customers demanded digital files anyway, that I invested in 100% digital equipment.
Did that change my photos? Not that much. I still shoot some of my best shots in M mode. I shoot more photos, giving me and my customers more choices (*sigh*). I can get the photos out much faster (minutes/hours instead of days/weeks). The photos are usually of better technical quality compared to 35mm slide film (especially when looking at those grainy 400 ASA films).
But the composition? Well, the composition basically remained the same; still appreciated by most who see the portfolio (and yes, having a photoeditor go through your portfolio is an unmissable experience).
So I wholeheartedly agree that technology does not make you a photographer, let alone a professional photographer.
- Posted by Mark ZanzigI think the Steve Gadd comparison hurts your attempt to make a compelling point. Would your example have worked equally well if you had the drum kit owner ask to sit-in with ANY group of musicians playing a venue for money? Can it be argued that anyone who is paid as a photographer is a professional (rather than an amateur) photographer according to Merriam-Webster? If you want to “preach to the choir” you might be doing a fine job. If you want to make a compelling argument to a wider audience, I don’t think you have. This sounds like what a friend of mine often refers to as “sour grapes” when I read it. I am not saying that professions aren’t altered (for the worse perhaps) when there is a “cheap” entry route providing lesser-trained workers in what had been previously limited to well-trained “professionals” and you have short-sighted clients hiring them (computer programming? web design? others?). Is the fault with the new type of photographer or with the picture editor who no longer requests a portfolio? Also, if a photographer with no formal training has an eye for things, is her work less worthy of the profession? Historically, didn’t “ordinary citizens” with film cameras and access to a Fotomat hire themselves out as inexpensive events photographers? What made Ansel Adams a professional?
- Posted by FredWaaaah! If someone is willing to pay said ape for the picture, then said ape is a bonafide photographer. It’s like the real estate business. Location! Location! Location!
- Posted by John WilsonKieran,
i am finding it harder to work now due to the amount of people with digital cameras. I agree with your article wholeheartedly. I spent a lond time on fm2 and hasselblad photographing to death before i considered myself a competent photographer. I now despise the photoshop photography that is being banded about by amateur photography magazines. These magazines are giving people the tools to work us out of our jobs. You cannot do electrical repairs or gas work in your own home without being registered. Pity there is not an organisation in the UK that is recognised by police as proof that we have a right to photograph. Yes i was an amateur once and i wince at the memories of me getting in the way and commiting cardinal sins within a presspack. I get fed up as in my field of work people claim to be official photographers when they have no accreditation. Nuff said going to have some pg tips and a banana.
Rich
- Posted by Richard CaveGet over it - the old “business model” is near death, and the medium has been democratized. The fact that there are more people with more cameras may leave a sour taste in your mouth, but overall it is good for the medium and good for democracy. More pictures will be taken, more information recorded and conveyed. End of story. Yes, you may lose your job or find it harder to get one; too bad. Adapt - do not become a dinosaur like the record executives that are hanging on by a thread due to MP3s.
- Posted by EricKeiran, a poor point badly made. But hey, you have a computer so you must be a writer, right?
- Posted by Adam CIf it ever happened that monkeys have gone arund flashing cameras then the world will be certainly running around in such a deaddly speed….
Its unimaginable that such pictures can truly be got ..they amaze.Its where my interest in photos come in…
- Posted by echwalu@Eric
It’s important to note that having an abundance of images of lesser quality isn’t really a proper replacement for a select choice of images which properly convey the emotion and story of an event. A hyperbole of your statement would be that it’s best to have thousands of photos taken at eye-level for an event, all giving partial, unclear information, albeit in their entirety they may convey slightly more information than a half dozen photographs taken by professionals, each of which properly conveys the entire event.
Phtography and photojournalism actually do involve some amount of skill, and while certainly anyone with a camera can capture some moment of a news story, there’s much more to understanding and properly establishing that story with a single photo than simply dropping $5,000 on equipment and clicking the shutter release (and that’s not even going into issues such as potential libel, conflict of interest, and journalistic integrity).
I also find your comparison to record executives unfair - the recording industry at large (and particularly the big business “dinosaurs” which you seem to be refering to) have essentially given up on true quality (that’s a matter of personal opinion, but it seems you’d agree with me) and work simply towards producing as much bottom-of-the-bucket, lowest common denominator crap as possible (essentially, quantity over quality, much like what you’re trumpeting in your comment).
I’d love to have some response if you read this. I believe this is an important conversation in the modern world of journalism (I’m not even going to get into blogs right now).
- Posted by Skyler Reid@ Skyler:
Thanks for your response. Sorry for the delay - just getting around to reading it now.
First, I totally agree that the skills of a trained photojournalist are, most of the time, priceless. Look at the work of Nachtwey, Hicks, Silva, etc. and that is readily apparent. But, I’m not talking about an abundance of poor images of an event. I’m talking about zero images of an important event vs. a few amateur ones. Is it not valuable to have amateur video of the tsunami, the virginia tech massacre, etc.? Were it not for the fact that more people have pretty darn good digital technology at their fingertips, we would not have some of those images. Do those images compare to a photo essay of the VT massacre in the days after the attack? Of course not. That’s what the pros are for. But my bottom line is that I would hope that professionals do not sit back and decry the amateurs with cameras as killers of their careers. More cameras in the hands of more people is a GOOD THING and I would hope that pros agree with and recognize that rather than feel threatened by it, because they shouldn’t feel threatened by it. They have talents most people don’t have - they will need to adapt and continue using those talents, possibly in ways they never dreamed of.
My comparison to the record industry was only to allude to the way a whole industry - if it doesn’t adapt - can fail miserably. I agree that one of their failures was to respond by going down the lowest common denominator road indeed, and I’m sure that aspect does not apply to photojournalism.
- Posted by Eric@Eric
I suppose my confusion came at the comment ” … you may lose your job or find it harder to get one … ” but I guess I misinterpreted the rest of the comment.
I was overlooking the necessity of abundance of footage in situations where professionals cannot make the scene. Indeed, those are situations where the coverage was greatly enhanced by the digital technology available, and I didn’t think of that. Thanks for the clarification.
Oh, what an age we live in.
- Posted by Skyler ReidA professional photographer is defined as one who gets paid for his work. Similarly, calling yourself “a professional” does not entitle you to more skill.
In fact, to complain about competition being increased because equipment is cheap is, ironically, “unprofessional”.
You say “However It has also allowed those who with little or no skill or experience to downgrade the picture quality of our industry.” … this was just as possible before. You might be doing that even now. Similarly, it’s not just your industry.
- Posted by MichaelWhat an insulting article. I really dislike this snobbery. I have had many thousands of photographs published in national magazines over the past twenty years. I used to write illustrated features and earned a full-time living this way for ten years.
The images were all shot with a Pentax K1000 SLR, Olympus rangefinder camera and a few with a Mamiya TLR. I’ve never owned a Nikon in my life! I’m self-taught except for a month or two doing photography as part of a foundation course in art and design.
As a result of this work I was offered (didn’t apply!), and accepted, a job as features editor on a national magazine at one of the biggest publishers in the country. I was then responsible for commissioning work from ‘professional’ artists, writers and photographers.
Editors don’t give two hoots what equipment produced a particular image, providing the quality is up to a certain standard. Nor do they care about qualifications, just that the contributor has a ‘professional’ attitude.
The market is being killed by publishers who won’t pay for photography.
- Posted by RobertAnd just because one cannot afford a good old school camera doesn’t make then less than an artist, does it. And for the record………what have you got against people who enjoy taking good photos, I don’t call myself a photographer, I’d love to be, but I am a beginer who LOVES to make everything look good out of any picture. I used to use dark rooms and all the nifty little chemicals and colored lenses….but now I can’t afford all that, but I still can enhance my photos just fine on the computer…not all out photoshopping but enhance the color or make it a black and white, or a sephia. I do not totally agree with what you are saying, it sounds like youresent alot of the new technologies, and Minkeys are highly intelligent…. alot more then quiet a few people.
- Posted by HarmonieI know it’s mentioned above already, but I must point out the irony of a blogger crying havoc at the dilution of the photography market.
Adam C: “But hey, you have a computer so you must be a writer, right?”
I suppose the ‘professional’ photographers don’t have access to the same affordable, high-tech equipment that these ‘amateurs’ do? Ah yes, they do.
So, I guess the process of taking technically sound photographs is a mystical art, then? According to your evaluation, the camera can do all of this for itself. Machines cannot produce art, but they can supplement technical ability. (Let us not forget these cameras are almost never operated in auto mode in the hands of a pro, anyway.)
What is left, then? The artistry of photography, minus the inhibiting technical learning curve that has been traditionally present. What can you, the professional, sick at the sight of so many young amateurs flooding the market, do?
Impress us with your photographic artistry. You know, that stuff you tout so much to the people just learning. If youre that good, you should have no problem getting your stuff published ahead of other people who are now on a level technical playing field.
What… you cant? Ah, then youre not really as good as you thought? Good thing you can pick up a DSLR for cheap and shoot till your hearts content like the rest of us schmucks, and just wipe the card when youre done.
Now go write some more blogs and make it harder for a real journalist to find a gig, will ya?
- Posted by ElijahThe ‘monkey’ analogy is apt, but not for press photographers.
They say an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters will eventually give you Shakespeares plays, and that’s the model (the law of averages) which gleans a few pearls out of an average ocean, when it comes to getting breaking news images off the general public.
But to use that to claim the monkey/typewriter model makes individual amateur photographers somehow intrinsically equal to people who shoot pictures all day, just because we can all now use the same cameras, is just patently ridiculous.
It’s not the cameras (at all), or the images alone which mark people like Kieran out from amateurs. It’s Kieran’s (and Toby’s and Dylan’s) ability to produce cracking images under conditions which would test most amateurs skill, not to mention stamina, and to produce those images time after time.
Of course anybody with a mobile phone or a point’n’shoot can get something if a bus goes ‘boom’ at the end of their street, but part of the reason they can do that is because the infrastructure exists for them to shoot and transmit the image.
But most pictures don’t just present themselves for your convenience while you’re walking down the street, so drop that same person into Darfur, or Afghanistan, or New Orleans after Katrina and you won’t see much.
Why? Because they don’t have the necessary skills to get out and find the story, get the images which tell the story, then figure out how the hell to get ‘em out - to a deadline.
Every day.
It’s THAT which separates professional photographers from amateurs. They don’t have the luxury of shrugging their shoulders when the images ‘just didn’t come out’ - they have a picture editor going totally ballistic and pointing them to the ‘Exit’ door.
If you were writing an originally researched, originally sourced blog piece every day to a deadline, you probably would be threatening a journalists gig.
But most people writing blogs don’t do that.
Because they can’t.
- Posted by Sion Touhig