During longer travels, there are usually plenty of times of wait and boredom. So, if I can, I try to find possibilities to have web access and browse photography sites.
Just funny, how many photographers are out there nowadays, thanks to the internet, who are „award winning photographers“ (quite an achievement, considered, there are about 20 photo local competitions each year in every village around the planet) catching images in “unique style” (when so many seem to copy from each other to such an extend, it’s hard to say who copies from whom…), taking pictures “in every corner of the world” (when on their web-galleries I can usually just spot images from their homestate, if at all… Maybe it is, because the definition of “the World” is not so clear to everyone?), helping to protect (if not even save) the Earth (quite the silent understatement, what do you think…?), having their work seen around the world. (which is easy: just throw it on the web…) Of course, you can buy their “Fine Art Prints” for a couple a bucks, if you wish.
I remember Pete D. posting the cartoon "on the web nobody knows you're a dog". So true.
Oh man, it can get tiresome! I dunno, maybe it’s just me…
Posted by Jim Erhardt on September 19, 2008 at 6:46 AM
The Internet is certainly an empowering medium, perhaps even more so than television. To the uninformed observer (Internet surfer), photography hobbyist can convincingly present themselves as seasoned pros. To those of us who have a better eye and knowledge of photography, we can usually see through the facade.
No doubt, the Internet has given rise to a plethora of "pro photographers" who have simply copied the styles/techniques of others, experts of all kinds and even "publishers" who depend on ghost writers to make them look good. But as is usually the case in "real life" the true pros eventually separate themselves with consistently great work that is always a joy to view.
funny thing is, sometimes some truly seasoned pro's of the pre-www generation don't look half as good on their websites as some beginners who just know how to use the internet to look bright...
Only in printed/published material like books, calendars, exhibitions, advertisements etc, which is quite the separating/truth-finding process, they are often still in a different league. thank god.
georg
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 19, 2008 at 9:43 AM
For me, the photos tell the tale. I analyze them closely. What I am looking for is whether or not the photographer seems to understand how to use light. That's the whole thing, after all. I have no website. I might be the last person on earth to not have one, I don't know. As for "photos from every corner of the earth," and "unique style,", I don't know. I have mostly been a niche photographer the past five years. The past year I have mainly taken photos at night using an elaborate lighting system (13 lights and radio triggrs.) Only a handful of people doing that consistently that I know of. Now if I can only master it, I might be able to put together a website featuring a unique style of photography from every corner of the Dakotas!
Kent in SD
Posted by Guy Tal on September 19, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Maybe it is, because the definition of “the World” is not so clear to everyone?
Kinda like the "world series" of Baseball
Guy
Posted by Rick Dunn on September 19, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Your consternation (and maybe contempt?) seems to be directed at either amateurs or their use of the internet. I think a lot of the responsibility lies with some of the pros. You've got seasoned pros who may be better at photography than marketing, and amateurs who are better at marketing than producing original, compelling work.
Prior to the internet, my world of photography was largely limited to what I could see in print. Now, if I listed my top-10 most inspirational photographers, I suspect less than 1/2 would be "traditional" pros. Most would be non-pros who have simply chosen to not make it a profession, and whose work I would have never been able to enjoy if it weren't for the internet.
And with that benefit comes the reality that less-accomplished photographers have the opportunity to masquerade as something more than what they really are.
I think the challenge is for the "seasoned" pros to get with the current state of marketing and take it as seriously as they do their craft. For some, reputation may make it unnecessary. For those that can't benefit from their pre-internet, print/publish-centric reputation, quality work alone won't do.
The world is full of popular but mediocre products that won out due to superior marketing.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on September 19, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I think Rick is absolutely correct. From my perspective, it seems some of your frustration stems from "truth in advertising" issues related to the photographer's websites. Truth in advertising isn't something new but is true that websites are not monitored or regulated by any agency to keep people honest.
Competition is fierce and as long as there is a dollar to be made out there some will take liberties with the truth.
I am among a large group that thinks your work is outstanding and your accomplishments back that up. The cream does rise to the top.
Posted by Brad Hill on September 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Hello Verena & Georg,
Every creative professional has to balance business concerns with artistic or creative concerns. Indeed, I face this balance daily when deciding how to allocate my own efforts (shooting vs. processing vs. marketing vs. distribution issues vs. teaching opportunities vs. being a normal human being, etc.). Of course you'll find individuals everywhere on the self-promotion:artistic quality continuum - from mediocre to poor artists who are wonders at marketing themselves through to amazing artists who don't know a thing about promotion (and who are normally starving!). All the web does is give more people a chance to exhibit where they stand on this self-promotion:artistic quality continuum. Ultimately, the best marketing in the world can't sustain a bad product forever...and the best work in the world will generate no revenue if its languishing somewhere in a cave. For me, balancing these concerns is all part of being a professional...and ensures that I'm never bored. I find it fascinating (and sometimes humourous) to observe the business:creative balancing strategies of others and have no problem sorting the wheat from the chaff...
Just my 2 cents worth...
Brad
Posted by John Mikes on September 19, 2008 at 1:16 PM
"You've got seasoned pros who may be better at photography than marketing, and amateurs who are better at marketing than producing original, compelling work."
Let's be fair and point out that some of the most well-known and successful pros have mastered the art of marketing far more than they have a camera. Michael Reichmann comes to mind.
Posted by Richard Wong on September 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
What I am interested in is seeing work that interests me and presented in a non-pretentious manner. In many cases, the bigger the reputation the bigger the head. This is what is tiresome to me.
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Georg,
Another problem with "throwing it on the web" is communication. We've never met right? So I can only make assumptions as to what your intent is, and I'm sure you considered that probably 95%+ of the folks reading this are those photographer's you're referring to, including myself; the ones throwing their work on the web selling "fine art" for a couple bucks.
Not only has the www allowed the masses to put stuff out there (obviously everything else besides photography too,) but I also think digital has made it easier. People can literally take pictures directly from camera to web using a multitude of free programs - you don't even have to know about aperture, shutter speeds or depth of field anymore or writing html for that matter.
The only thing that remains the same, is change (don't know who said that originally.) It's so true. What that means is that it's not up to the mass of new "photographers" inundating the web to go away and quit taking market share away from the "pros," it's the pros who are having to learn to adapt and change to an ever-changing market. You don't adapt, you don't make a living.
Don't get me wrong, I respect and admire those who can and have made photography a career - or at least been able to support themselves financially. I won't qive my work away, or even offer Royalty Free images because of that respect for those who are scraping to make a living at it. But at the same time, I refuse to feel as an amatuer that some how I'm diluting the quality of photography available or taking away from someone elses means to make a living.
I completely agree with Rick's and others comments about marketing. I'm one of those who sucks at it. I don't blame anyone, the market, the web or anything except my own abilities, drive and personality traits.
I understand your frustration, even though I'm the one stuck in mediocrity...
Lon
Posted by John Mikes on September 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM
But at the same time, I refuse to feel as an amateur that some how I'm diluting the quality of photography available or taking away from someone elses means to make a living.
There is an attitude among some pros that if you're an amateur, you're dog doo. The condescension that is sometimes directed at me because I make my living without a camera, and merely shoot as a diversion, never fails to irritate the heck out of me.
Don't get me wrong, I respect and admire those who can and have made photography a career - or at least been able to support themselves financially.
Ditto. Freelance photography is a dog-eat-dog biz, and frankly I don't know how you guys can do it. Just this morning, a college athletic department offered me the princely sum of $5 (yep, five bucks!) for the unlimited use of this photo. With that kind of economic environment, being able to feed your family is quite an achievement.
Posted by Stan Rose on September 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Ha!! Get some perspective, people--become a musician!
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 19, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Ha!! Get some perspective, people--become a musician!
Stan--
You're a musician? Hey, there's a fall festival in my town in a couple of weeks and we'd love to have you play for it. It's very low budget so we can't pay anything, but it would be GREAT exposure for you!
Kent in SD
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 19, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Kent Staubus said a mouthful when he said he wanted to see the photographer who could "use light".
I'm not a professional but I agree that "light is everything".
One more item.
With possible exceptions there are two other words that can separate pros from wannabes. Those two words are "be there". The guys and gals who do nature photography are outdoors a lot--sometimes in not-so-comfortable conditions. The best technique and knowledge does nothing if one is "not there when the 'good light' happens".
the fisch
"The great majority of men live like bats, but in twilight, and know and feel the philosophy of their age only by its reflections and refractions."—Coleridge, Essay on His Own Times as quoted in The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, unmarked page prior to page one.
Posted by David Senesac on September 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Yes Verena & Georg there are so tooo many, haha. Well I've been a serious landscape photographer since 1980. But not one that has depended on making money from it since for color before the late 90s that used to be mostly about stock sales. Historically a rather pathetic market with difficult to crack competition. I'm on my third attempt at making a half serious business out of it. Each time I've waded in knee to waist deep before pulling the plug and going back to my career in high tech where making bucks is alot easier. (like now) There are VASTLY more photographers out there today than just a decade ago. For a great many years I rarely saw anyone with large tripods here in California natural areas outside a few Mecca locales like Point Lobos or South Tufa. The whole business end of what it takes to sell professional fine art prints radically changed in the mid 90s with the advent of Evercolor prints, drum scanning, Photoshop, and Lightjet type printers. Then as the 21st Century dawned, imaging on the Internet, inkjet printers, digital cameras, and an explosion of photography software have created a second technology knee that is radically into a second phase. I tend to agree with Rick and Lon's comments. The large numbers of photographers today, seriously impacts the ability for those producing the better work to rise to the top with visibility. That is because getting serious exposure has more to do with one's network of professional contacts, marketing, and banging persistently on doors.
I have been wondering about that too. What I do not like either is the third person biography-style and this award-winning stuff thing one reads regularly on websites. Or that artist-thing all over again. I have my personal definition of art and many that claim to be an "artist" look like many other "artists" (their photography). For me this is more a product of the oversaturated market and everyone does it like this. If you chose not to point out how award-winning you are then maybe you will be considered as less good by potential clients. And the fact that many photographers that make a living or part of their living come from the US and - no offense to US-photographers now - but in the U.S. just everything is adverticed very loud and catchy with buzz-words.
But at the very end of the day, quality of the work and having a signature style matters I think. But then I do not know much about the business side...
Just my view on this of course.
a few additional remarks:
I don't think there is anything wrong with being an amateur or with trying to sell your work. just don't make a fool out of yourself in the process.
I don't think these exaggerated description on websites do help in any way when trying to sell your work. my experience is, that the folks who are most impressed by that, are seldom willing to invest much money anyways. potential clients like art buyers, photo editors, ad agencies etcetc. are rather put off by photographers bragging to much about themselves. To keep a lower profile can even help selling images, as many of the clients do enjoy "discovering" talented people themselves.
Also: on the web there are "star-photographers" nearly non existent in the business world of photography. it's all virtual - strange as this seems. Business-wise I'm not intimidated at all by any of these websites, as there is rarely any need to be.
what I do also see on these websites is the offer for leading workshops. that's a point where beginners will be impressed and taught by wannabees and I rather don't want to think what they are really learning in those workshops... that's a kind sad thing.
well, I'm sure there's more coming to me...
Guy: good point. yep, that's were it's going into the wrong direction. although it's quite an american phenomena...
Lon: all true, of course.
Thanks all for comments on this, although I'd love to read more opinions!!
Georg
Posted by Brad Hill on September 21, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Georg,
I find your comments about leading workshops - and advertising them on websites - both puzzling and a tad too negative. Who is to be the arbiter in deciding who can and who cannot lead workshops? You? As one who offers a very finite number of workshops and Instructional Photo Tours annually (and makes the grievous mistake of announcing them on my website) it would be easy to be offended. But...all I have to do is remember how excited and charged up my class of 10 keen participants were yesterday when the day-long seminar and field session that I taught ended and I can pretty much can forget about taking offense...
My motivation in producing and maintaining my website - and offering instruction in digital nature photography - has absolutely nothing to do with intimidating anyone (business-wise or any way). Nor am I attempting to impress beginners - simply to help them.
I'm a little reluctant to say this but I have to be honest: With all due respect, the attitude conveyed by your "additional remarks" entry seems very cynical and even slightly arrogant to me.
Anyway...'nuff said. I have to go back to doing my own thing and continue being both a virtual wannabe and non-existent photographically and business-wise...(albeit very successfully).
Brad
Posted by Rick Dunn on September 21, 2008 at 7:43 PM
To keep a lower profile can even help selling images, as many of the clients do enjoy "discovering" talented people themselves
.
I don't know Georg... that's a peculiar marketing strategy. Keep a low profile and wait to be discovered?? Really...? I make a very good living at marketing and business development; I can't see ever subscribing to that strategy...
There's obviously something bothering you, but I'm not sure that you're communicating it well at all. I agree with Brad about the negativity and arrogance of your remarks. Most troubling is the tone of condescension and judgment. Particularly the comment about "wannabees" teaching workshops. This is particularly puzzling coming from someone who participates in a forum where its generally accepted that even the best, most-seasoned pros can learn from the least experienced novices via the critique process.
I wish that I could say that this all seems very out of character for you, but I don't know you that well. I can say that your views are quite disappointing.
Posted by Jamie Botdorf on September 21, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Hmmm...I'm wondering how (and maybe even, why) we classify one photographer as a pro and antoher as an amateur.
One generally accepted deliniation used to be, I believe, was that calling yourself a professional photographer meant you made your living off of your photography. I know a few people who do that, but not everyone would consider their work as of the highest quality.
On the other hand, I know several folks (many on these forums) that consistently deliver amazing, quality photographs, but only do this as a hobby, etc. and may never make a career out of photography.
I guess the only ones really I envy are those that can do what they love and whose love shows in what they do - whether or it pays the bills or not.
Brad: I did read my own remarks again and I can not find a point at which I said leading workshops or advertise that fact is - per se - a negative thing. (???) Matter of fact, I do it, too...
My initial remark is an addition to my first post, if it wouldn't I would have started a new thread.
So no reason to be offended, as long as you are not selling yourself as someone that you are not.(and cheat people) I took time to check out your website and it is a good example for an honest, rather low profile website of a competent photographer (I don't care at all whether you are a pro or not, whether you make money with it or not - everyone dos that as he pleases), that I can very much enjoy viewing. Not at all in the "target" group of my initial post. All I need is to look at the images. "cynical or arrogant": yes, I can get both at times, it comes from being in this business.
Rick: ditto to what I just wrote to Brad. I don't get it, why the people I meant the least get offended the most... (must be another web-phenomena) about the low profile strategy: put it this way: if you market yourself as a globe trotting, award winning photographer, setting out to save the planet with your images and a magazine or art director approaches you and finds out you are just another nice fella taking your camera out one or the other day day and shoot your backyard, you'll hardly be taken serious. while on the other hand, if you say you're a hobby photographer taking out your camera as time allows shooting your backyard - and the photos are great - someone might be interested very much. to stay quiet and under the carpet (so to speak) is sure not a marketing strategy and it wasn't what I meant. use the website as a billboard, but - again - just don't cheat. cheating is never a good strategy in the long run. (remember the saying: you can cheat some people all the time and you can cheat all people some times - but you will never be able to cheat all people all the time.) also I do agree that all photographers (pro or not, seasoned or not) can learn from anyone. but in return, that doesn't mean just about anyone should lead workshops. there gotta be some competence in doing that. it's a kind of teaching job. and again - if you tell upfront you are a beginner or someone with only very little experience and people will still attend your workshop - that's all fine with me. and I'm sure many of these workshops can be very good, too. my "tone of condescension": again I read my own remark and can't agree to that. (it's more, if you want to find a certain tone in what's written, you will find it, but I don't see it here. If it's the case, I apologize. who knows, after all it's not my home language) Finally: like what I wrote to Brad: it seems you are getting offended about something I haven't written but you interpreted it in a certain way and you, also, seem to be on the other end of the spectrum of my "target" group, according to what I saw on your website. but I don't think I can help that, I don't have time to write a novel long comment here, I just have to leave it at that. (we probably need to meet sometimes on the westcoast on go for a beer or two...)
Jamie: I didn't classify anybody. I was getting at how photographers classify themselves. And I could care less about it, if it wouldn't border to cheating in many cases. for the big time bragging on the web, it's just annoying that's all. I wouldn't do it. I don't like people running around telling everyone how great they are. (no matter whether they are or not. but even worse if they are not) On all you wrote. I can only agree. simple as that.
I have to say it's probably not a good idea for me to make comment aside from the positive-group hugging-all is well-everyone can do as he pleases - mentality - especially not in a foreign language. (ha, here I'm cynical, that's right.) Again, if against my knowledge or intentions I did sound negative (aside from what I was criticizing) or what I wrote had a "tone of condescension" or I just sound arrogant (well, a (very) bit arrogant I can live with, it comes from maintaining a certain proud in what I'm doing), I apologize. The ones I have seem to insult were the wrong ones after all...
If you wish, reduce my statement to: be honest in what you do.
georg
Posted by Brad Hill on September 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Georg,
All is fine...thanks for taking the time to respond.
Brad
Posted by Steve Foss on September 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Georg, negative attitude is just as much a part of the world as positive. Can't have one without the other. Your post was no skin off my nose.
Posted by Rick Dunn on September 22, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Hi Georg - I'm not taking issue with your statements because I feel that they are targeted at me; they simply seem overly harsh for whomever they're targeted at.
I can fully subscribe to your last statement - be honest in what you do. The reality is that the web - or any kind of marketing - involves embellishment to some degree. And when it goes too far, sure it can be dishonest. The more controversial issue, from my perspective, is making it personal by using terms such as "fools" or "wannabes" to describe those who take it too far.
No need to keep all comments super positive, group-hugging love-ins. Obviously this is a site built on the philosophy that one can be simultaneously critical and constructive - ultimately a positive thing. Towards that end, it's always good form when critiquing anything to focus on the product and not on the individual, regardless of whether or not you exclude present company.
No worries from my end. Just being as open an honest about how I see things as you are about how you see them.
Rick, maybe I'm (sometimes) a little more emotional on these things than I should be, because I just happen to make a living with shooting landscape images. Putting all the effort and energy and all the roadrunning into that, might make me a tad too sensible.
still: I didn't call anybody a fool, just said one shouldn't make one out of oneself. And for wannabees - sorry, but they sure as hell are "out there", spoiling my day every now and then...
georg
Posted by Steve Foss on September 22, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Georg, today's pros were yesterday's wanna bees. Weren't you ever a wanna be working hard to break free from your office job and into the ranks of professional photographers? I sure was. I spent many years as a hard-working amateur and four years as a newspaper photographer before splitting off on my own. Now I'm making my living at it, but I'm proud of the work I did before I called myself a "pro."
I'm sorry but, while I took absolutely no offense at your post, I can see why others would, and why some might consider your thoughts arrogant. Easy to look down on the amateurs once one has made it as a pro. Easy to forget one's own humble origins. Ninety percent of my excursion clients are amateurs, and no small number of them have a compositional instinct at least as good as, and in several cases better than, my own.
When you were trying to break into the ranks, are you telling us you never once gave yourself the benefit of the doubt on your qualifications or presented yourself as more accomplished than you were?
In the end, there's simply no point in getting upset over what another photographer thinks of one's work or one's status as a pro or amateur. Photographers have to please themselves and their clients, and absolutely no one else. Pleasing other photographers should be at the bottom of any photographer's list of priorities.
Jesus, either I'm getting something wrong here or I dunno...
AGAIN: MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH WANNABEES (excuse the term, but it just fits) IS, THEY RUN AROUND TELLING THE WORLD HOW GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS THEY ARE, SAVING THE PLANET, MAKING IMAGES AROUND THE GLOBE AND WHATELSENOT - WHEN THE TRUTH IS THEY ARE NOT EVEN COMING CLOSE TO THAT! IT'S A COMPLICATED FORMULATION OF: STAY HONEST! (AT LEAST, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE PRIDE IN WHAT YOU DO!)
It's rather tiresome repeating that.
Steve: If you read that someone is upset, read what he/she is upset about and start from there.
Don't pick up fragments. Otherwise we all would need to copy-in everything said above before making a new comment.
Besides the marketing stuff (which I actually don't care at all) it's a matter of character and I'm annoyed at how MANY photographers are out there doing this.
Yes, I was and (hopefully) still am a wannabee (hell, thank god I am, otherwise it would be boring having fullfilled all my dream goals) but this NEVER meant I would run around with a list of fake achievements.That's out of question for me. Tbo, I even leave many achievements out, for I don't care about it. To be an "award winning photographer" for example is rather inflationary these times anyways. To answer that Steve. But I have to confess I wasn't seduced to do so, because Internet was not an option back then when I started out. It was either you had something to show or you don't. Yeah, maybe nowadays it's just fine for everyone to exaggerate or to accept the fact that only 50% (max) of what you see is for real. I have to accept the fact, that it's just seems to be at least fine with some others here (otherwise there is no need to be upset about my statement) and it even upsets them, that it bothers me. Yet, even that is no problem at all, too.
Georg
Posted by Brad Kargus on September 23, 2008 at 4:03 AM
Georg, I have two things I would like to ask you about.
1) You used some terms in your second post: "truly seasoned pro" and "separating/truth-finding process". These terms imply that there is some absolute scale by which someone - oh, let's say a photographer - can be measured. Do you know how I might learn more about such a scale, if it exists? Surely it would help me to set goals and devise methods to achieve them such that I can ascend the hierarchy of photography. I would be able to have an absolute measure of my ability that would be hardly affected by things like the subjectivity of individual viewers. It just seems so difficult to measure my photographic ability against that of others when the vision of each individual viewer is coloured by a lifetime of unique experiences that cause their intellectual and emotional responses to my images to vary relative to one another.
2) Georg, the second thing I want to ask you about is what you hope to achieve in your lament of those photographers whose internet marketing ability exceeds, at least in your view, their ability as photographers? Do you think characterizing them as "wannabes" trying to "cheat" people helps them or anyone else, for that matter? Have you approached them directly to express your opinion and possibly suggest something that may improve the situation (if a remedy is even required) or is this method of indirect attack the only action you have taken? This thread could have easily gone into a hideous, downward spiral if even one name had been dropped. I credit the civility and maturity of this forum that this thread has somehow maintained an even tone, more or less.
1: the "true pros" were brought into the discussion by Jim, you might ask him. I kept it going and added "seasoned" which means, they have some years of being in the business and "truly" (meaning "really") as in opposition of just a fake. I don't know of any scale of thelike and hope there is none! For your wish to be measured, I can't help you with that. (although I'm afraid now, it will be brought up against me, as this was MY initial idea or I brought THAT up! lets see...)
2: I didn't want to achieve anything, yes, it was a lamento and if it filters through that it can be annoying and annoys people, so be it. at least you thought about it. I never mentioned names, because, for one it's not important to me to address it that way, second, I (at least) do not want to make this personal and am too realistic about the outcome... third: the ones that spurred my concerns aren't part of the NPN community, so what should be the point.
and:
"whose internet marketing ability exceeds their ability as photographers" - that's nicely formulated.
Georg
Posted by Richard Wong on September 23, 2008 at 8:34 PM
There is a landscape photographer out there with numerous galleries who claims on his website bio to be the "The most awarded photographer in history." However none of those awards were courtesy of BBC, Sierra Club, etc...
So yeah there are people out there that Georg describes.
Posted by Andreas Resch on September 28, 2008 at 6:33 AM
We live in a fake world - Austria isn't much better than US. We are just less observed by media. From my experience nothing about business, success and popularity comes even close to an honest handshake with no strings attached. I don't support this fake life most people live - in fact I hate it and sometimes it even drives me nuts. But you know where these real idealists often end up. Sitting in a real corner with real problems and nobody really noticing them.
Just my 2c from my short life and little experiences so far.
Andreas.
quote: "We live in a fake world - Austria isn't much better than US. I don't support this fake life most people live - in fact I hate it and sometimes it even drives me nuts."
- more or less what I was trying to say...
"But you know where these real idealists often end up. Sitting in a real corner with real problems and nobody really noticing them." - that's one way to justify things, hey, maybe you should become a politician! (just joking...)
Discussion
32 repliesJust funny, how many photographers are out there nowadays, thanks to the internet, who are „award winning photographers“ (quite an achievement, considered, there are about 20 photo local competitions each year in every village around the planet) catching images in “unique style” (when so many seem to copy from each other to such an extend, it’s hard to say who copies from whom…), taking pictures “in every corner of the world” (when on their web-galleries I can usually just spot images from their homestate, if at all… Maybe it is, because the definition of “the World” is not so clear to everyone?), helping to protect (if not even save) the Earth (quite the silent understatement, what do you think…?), having their work seen around the world. (which is easy: just throw it on the web…) Of course, you can buy their “Fine Art Prints” for a couple a bucks, if you wish.
I remember Pete D. posting the cartoon "on the web nobody knows you're a dog". So true.
Oh man, it can get tiresome! I dunno, maybe it’s just me…
No doubt, the Internet has given rise to a plethora of "pro photographers" who have simply copied the styles/techniques of others, experts of all kinds and even "publishers" who depend on ghost writers to make them look good. But as is usually the case in "real life" the true pros eventually separate themselves with consistently great work that is always a joy to view.
Only in printed/published material like books, calendars, exhibitions, advertisements etc, which is quite the separating/truth-finding process, they are often still in a different league. thank god.
georg
Kent in SD
Kinda like the "world series" of Baseball
Guy
Prior to the internet, my world of photography was largely limited to what I could see in print. Now, if I listed my top-10 most inspirational photographers, I suspect less than 1/2 would be "traditional" pros. Most would be non-pros who have simply chosen to not make it a profession, and whose work I would have never been able to enjoy if it weren't for the internet.
And with that benefit comes the reality that less-accomplished photographers have the opportunity to masquerade as something more than what they really are.
I think the challenge is for the "seasoned" pros to get with the current state of marketing and take it as seriously as they do their craft. For some, reputation may make it unnecessary. For those that can't benefit from their pre-internet, print/publish-centric reputation, quality work alone won't do.
The world is full of popular but mediocre products that won out due to superior marketing.
Competition is fierce and as long as there is a dollar to be made out there some will take liberties with the truth.
I am among a large group that thinks your work is outstanding and your accomplishments back that up. The cream does rise to the top.
Every creative professional has to balance business concerns with artistic or creative concerns. Indeed, I face this balance daily when deciding how to allocate my own efforts (shooting vs. processing vs. marketing vs. distribution issues vs. teaching opportunities vs. being a normal human being, etc.). Of course you'll find individuals everywhere on the self-promotion:artistic quality continuum - from mediocre to poor artists who are wonders at marketing themselves through to amazing artists who don't know a thing about promotion (and who are normally starving!). All the web does is give more people a chance to exhibit where they stand on this self-promotion:artistic quality continuum. Ultimately, the best marketing in the world can't sustain a bad product forever...and the best work in the world will generate no revenue if its languishing somewhere in a cave. For me, balancing these concerns is all part of being a professional...and ensures that I'm never bored. I find it fascinating (and sometimes humourous) to observe the business:creative balancing strategies of others and have no problem sorting the wheat from the chaff...
Just my 2 cents worth...
Brad
Let's be fair and point out that some of the most well-known and successful pros have mastered the art of marketing far more than they have a camera. Michael Reichmann comes to mind.
Another problem with "throwing it on the web" is communication. We've never met right? So I can only make assumptions as to what your intent is, and I'm sure you considered that probably 95%+ of the folks reading this are those photographer's you're referring to, including myself; the ones throwing their work on the web selling "fine art" for a couple bucks.
Not only has the www allowed the masses to put stuff out there (obviously everything else besides photography too,) but I also think digital has made it easier. People can literally take pictures directly from camera to web using a multitude of free programs - you don't even have to know about aperture, shutter speeds or depth of field anymore or writing html for that matter.
The only thing that remains the same, is change (don't know who said that originally.) It's so true. What that means is that it's not up to the mass of new "photographers" inundating the web to go away and quit taking market share away from the "pros," it's the pros who are having to learn to adapt and change to an ever-changing market. You don't adapt, you don't make a living.
Don't get me wrong, I respect and admire those who can and have made photography a career - or at least been able to support themselves financially. I won't qive my work away, or even offer Royalty Free images because of that respect for those who are scraping to make a living at it. But at the same time, I refuse to feel as an amatuer that some how I'm diluting the quality of photography available or taking away from someone elses means to make a living.
I completely agree with Rick's and others comments about marketing. I'm one of those who sucks at it. I don't blame anyone, the market, the web or anything except my own abilities, drive and personality traits.
I understand your frustration, even though I'm the one stuck in mediocrity...
Lon
There is an attitude among some pros that if you're an amateur, you're dog doo. The condescension that is sometimes directed at me because I make my living without a camera, and merely shoot as a diversion, never fails to irritate the heck out of me.
Ditto. Freelance photography is a dog-eat-dog biz, and frankly I don't know how you guys can do it. Just this morning, a college athletic department offered me the princely sum of $5 (yep, five bucks!) for the unlimited use of this photo. With that kind of economic environment, being able to feed your family is quite an achievement.
Stan--
You're a musician? Hey, there's a fall festival in my town in a couple of weeks and we'd love to have you play for it. It's very low budget so we can't pay anything, but it would be GREAT exposure for you!
Kent in SD
I'm not a professional but I agree that "light is everything".
One more item.
With possible exceptions there are two other words that can separate pros from wannabes. Those two words are "be there". The guys and gals who do nature photography are outdoors a lot--sometimes in not-so-comfortable conditions. The best technique and knowledge does nothing if one is "not there when the 'good light' happens".
the fisch
"The great majority of men live like bats, but in twilight, and know and feel the philosophy of their age only by its reflections and refractions."—Coleridge, Essay on His Own Times as quoted in The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, unmarked page prior to page one.
But at the very end of the day, quality of the work and having a signature style matters I think. But then I do not know much about the business side...
Just my view on this of course.
I don't think there is anything wrong with being an amateur or with trying to sell your work. just don't make a fool out of yourself in the process.
I don't think these exaggerated description on websites do help in any way when trying to sell your work. my experience is, that the folks who are most impressed by that, are seldom willing to invest much money anyways. potential clients like art buyers, photo editors, ad agencies etcetc. are rather put off by photographers bragging to much about themselves. To keep a lower profile can even help selling images, as many of the clients do enjoy "discovering" talented people themselves.
Also: on the web there are "star-photographers" nearly non existent in the business world of photography. it's all virtual - strange as this seems. Business-wise I'm not intimidated at all by any of these websites, as there is rarely any need to be.
what I do also see on these websites is the offer for leading workshops. that's a point where beginners will be impressed and taught by wannabees and I rather don't want to think what they are really learning in those workshops... that's a kind sad thing.
well, I'm sure there's more coming to me...
Guy: good point. yep, that's were it's going into the wrong direction. although it's quite an american phenomena...
Lon: all true, of course.
Thanks all for comments on this, although I'd love to read more opinions!!
Georg
I find your comments about leading workshops - and advertising them on websites - both puzzling and a tad too negative. Who is to be the arbiter in deciding who can and who cannot lead workshops? You? As one who offers a very finite number of workshops and Instructional Photo Tours annually (and makes the grievous mistake of announcing them on my website) it would be easy to be offended. But...all I have to do is remember how excited and charged up my class of 10 keen participants were yesterday when the day-long seminar and field session that I taught ended and I can pretty much can forget about taking offense...
My motivation in producing and maintaining my website - and offering instruction in digital nature photography - has absolutely nothing to do with intimidating anyone (business-wise or any way). Nor am I attempting to impress beginners - simply to help them.
I'm a little reluctant to say this but I have to be honest: With all due respect, the attitude conveyed by your "additional remarks" entry seems very cynical and even slightly arrogant to me.
Anyway...'nuff said. I have to go back to doing my own thing and continue being both a virtual wannabe and non-existent photographically and business-wise...(albeit very successfully).
Brad
I don't know Georg... that's a peculiar marketing strategy. Keep a low profile and wait to be discovered?? Really...? I make a very good living at marketing and business development; I can't see ever subscribing to that strategy...
There's obviously something bothering you, but I'm not sure that you're communicating it well at all. I agree with Brad about the negativity and arrogance of your remarks. Most troubling is the tone of condescension and judgment. Particularly the comment about "wannabees" teaching workshops.
I wish that I could say that this all seems very out of character for you, but I don't know you that well. I can say that your views are quite disappointing.
One generally accepted deliniation used to be, I believe, was that calling yourself a professional photographer meant you made your living off of your photography. I know a few people who do that, but not everyone would consider their work as of the highest quality.
On the other hand, I know several folks (many on these forums) that consistently deliver amazing, quality photographs, but only do this as a hobby, etc. and may never make a career out of photography.
I guess the only ones really I envy are those that can do what they love and whose love shows in what they do - whether or it pays the bills or not.
My initial remark is an addition to my first post, if it wouldn't I would have started a new thread.
So no reason to be offended, as long as you are not selling yourself as someone that you are not.(and cheat people) I took time to check out your website and it is a good example for an honest, rather low profile website of a competent photographer (I don't care at all whether you are a pro or not, whether you make money with it or not - everyone dos that as he pleases), that I can very much enjoy viewing. Not at all in the "target" group of my initial post. All I need is to look at the images. "cynical or arrogant": yes, I can get both at times, it comes from being in this business.
Rick: ditto to what I just wrote to Brad. I don't get it, why the people I meant the least get offended the most... (must be another web-phenomena) about the low profile strategy: put it this way: if you market yourself as a globe trotting, award winning photographer, setting out to save the planet with your images and a magazine or art director approaches you and finds out you are just another nice fella taking your camera out one or the other day day and shoot your backyard, you'll hardly be taken serious. while on the other hand, if you say you're a hobby photographer taking out your camera as time allows shooting your backyard - and the photos are great - someone might be interested very much. to stay quiet and under the carpet (so to speak) is sure not a marketing strategy and it wasn't what I meant. use the website as a billboard, but - again - just don't cheat. cheating is never a good strategy in the long run. (remember the saying: you can cheat some people all the time and you can cheat all people some times - but you will never be able to cheat all people all the time.) also I do agree that all photographers (pro or not, seasoned or not) can learn from anyone. but in return, that doesn't mean just about anyone should lead workshops. there gotta be some competence in doing that. it's a kind of teaching job. and again - if you tell upfront you are a beginner or someone with only very little experience and people will still attend your workshop - that's all fine with me. and I'm sure many of these workshops can be very good, too. my "tone of condescension": again I read my own remark and can't agree to that. (it's more, if you want to find a certain tone in what's written, you will find it, but I don't see it here. If it's the case, I apologize. who knows, after all it's not my home language) Finally: like what I wrote to Brad: it seems you are getting offended about something I haven't written but you interpreted it in a certain way and you, also, seem to be on the other end of the spectrum of my "target" group, according to what I saw on your website. but I don't think I can help that, I don't have time to write a novel long comment here, I just have to leave it at that. (we probably need to meet sometimes on the westcoast on go for a beer or two...)
Jamie: I didn't classify anybody. I was getting at how photographers classify themselves. And I could care less about it, if it wouldn't border to cheating in many cases. for the big time bragging on the web, it's just annoying that's all. I wouldn't do it. I don't like people running around telling everyone how great they are. (no matter whether they are or not. but even worse if they are not) On all you wrote. I can only agree. simple as that.
I have to say it's probably not a good idea for me to make comment aside from the positive-group hugging-all is well-everyone can do as he pleases - mentality - especially not in a foreign language. (ha, here I'm cynical, that's right.) Again, if against my knowledge or intentions I did sound negative (aside from what I was criticizing) or what I wrote had a "tone of condescension" or I just sound arrogant (well, a (very) bit arrogant I can live with, it comes from maintaining a certain proud in what I'm doing), I apologize. The ones I have seem to insult were the wrong ones after all...
If you wish, reduce my statement to: be honest in what you do.
georg
All is fine...thanks for taking the time to respond.
Brad
I can fully subscribe to your last statement - be honest in what you do. The reality is that the web - or any kind of marketing - involves embellishment to some degree. And when it goes too far, sure it can be dishonest. The more controversial issue, from my perspective, is making it personal by using terms such as "fools" or "wannabes" to describe those who take it too far.
No need to keep all comments super positive, group-hugging love-ins. Obviously this is a site built on the philosophy that one can be simultaneously critical and constructive - ultimately a positive thing. Towards that end, it's always good form when critiquing anything to focus on the product and not on the individual, regardless of whether or not you exclude present company.
No worries from my end. Just being as open an honest about how I see things as you are about how you see them.
still: I didn't call anybody a fool, just said one shouldn't make one out of oneself. And for wannabees - sorry, but they sure as hell are "out there", spoiling my day every now and then...
georg
I'm sorry but, while I took absolutely no offense at your post, I can see why others would, and why some might consider your thoughts arrogant. Easy to look down on the amateurs once one has made it as a pro. Easy to forget one's own humble origins. Ninety percent of my excursion clients are amateurs, and no small number of them have a compositional instinct at least as good as, and in several cases better than, my own.
When you were trying to break into the ranks, are you telling us you never once gave yourself the benefit of the doubt on your qualifications or presented yourself as more accomplished than you were?
In the end, there's simply no point in getting upset over what another photographer thinks of one's work or one's status as a pro or amateur. Photographers have to please themselves and their clients, and absolutely no one else. Pleasing other photographers should be at the bottom of any photographer's list of priorities.
AGAIN: MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH WANNABEES (excuse the term, but it just fits) IS, THEY RUN AROUND TELLING THE WORLD HOW GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS THEY ARE, SAVING THE PLANET, MAKING IMAGES AROUND THE GLOBE AND WHATELSENOT - WHEN THE TRUTH IS THEY ARE NOT EVEN COMING CLOSE TO THAT! IT'S A COMPLICATED FORMULATION OF: STAY HONEST! (AT LEAST, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE PRIDE IN WHAT YOU DO!)
It's rather tiresome repeating that.
Steve: If you read that someone is upset, read what he/she is upset about and start from there.
Don't pick up fragments. Otherwise we all would need to copy-in everything said above before making a new comment.
Besides the marketing stuff (which I actually don't care at all) it's a matter of character and I'm annoyed at how MANY photographers are out there doing this.
Yes, I was and (hopefully) still am a wannabee (hell, thank god I am, otherwise it would be boring having fullfilled all my dream goals) but this NEVER meant I would run around with a list of fake achievements.That's out of question for me. Tbo, I even leave many achievements out, for I don't care about it. To be an "award winning photographer" for example is rather inflationary these times anyways. To answer that Steve. But I have to confess I wasn't seduced to do so, because Internet was not an option back then when I started out. It was either you had something to show or you don't. Yeah, maybe nowadays it's just fine for everyone to exaggerate or to accept the fact that only 50% (max) of what you see is for real. I have to accept the fact, that it's just seems to be at least fine with some others here (otherwise there is no need to be upset about my statement) and it even upsets them, that it bothers me. Yet, even that is no problem at all, too.
Georg
1) You used some terms in your second post: "truly seasoned pro" and "separating/truth-finding process". These terms imply that there is some absolute scale by which someone - oh, let's say a photographer - can be measured. Do you know how I might learn more about such a scale, if it exists? Surely it would help me to set goals and devise methods to achieve them such that I can ascend the hierarchy of photography. I would be able to have an absolute measure of my ability that would be hardly affected by things like the subjectivity of individual viewers. It just seems so difficult to measure my photographic ability against that of others when the vision of each individual viewer is coloured by a lifetime of unique experiences that cause their intellectual and emotional responses to my images to vary relative to one another.
2) Georg, the second thing I want to ask you about is what you hope to achieve in your lament of those photographers whose internet marketing ability exceeds, at least in your view, their ability as photographers? Do you think characterizing them as "wannabes" trying to "cheat" people helps them or anyone else, for that matter? Have you approached them directly to express your opinion and possibly suggest something that may improve the situation (if a remedy is even required) or is this method of indirect attack the only action you have taken? This thread could have easily gone into a hideous, downward spiral if even one name had been dropped. I credit the civility and maturity of this forum that this thread has somehow maintained an even tone, more or less.
2: I didn't want to achieve anything, yes, it was a lamento and if it filters through that it can be annoying and annoys people, so be it. at least you thought about it. I never mentioned names, because, for one it's not important to me to address it that way, second, I (at least) do not want to make this personal and am too realistic about the outcome... third: the ones that spurred my concerns aren't part of the NPN community, so what should be the point.
and:
"whose internet marketing ability exceeds their ability as photographers" - that's nicely formulated.
Georg
So yeah there are people out there that Georg describes.
Just my 2c from my short life and little experiences so far.
Cheers ... Andreas.
quote: "We live in a fake world - Austria isn't much better than US. I don't support this fake life most people live - in fact I hate it and sometimes it even drives me nuts."
- more or less what I was trying to say...
"But you know where these real idealists often end up. Sitting in a real corner with real problems and nobody really noticing them." - that's one way to justify things, hey, maybe you should become a politician! (just joking...)
georg