“…there are times in a photographers career when they feel superhuman, that they can over come the obstacles with sheer will but it doesn’t work. You have to be vigilant and when you let your guard down shit happens and your photos suck.”

Wise words from APE… you know, when I was looking through my old contact sheets this morning, this is what I thought… only you articulated it better in words.

I think that’s sometimes true, because photographers can have a personal connection to their work that doesn’t necessarily make a good picture. I used to work in the film industry, where I ran across the phrase: “Don’t fall in love with your footage”, which is why in filmmaking there is a cinematographer and director, and then the editor to cut out the mediocrity.

And regarding the overall theme of this post, there are a ton of websites out there with 500 or more photographers listed for Los Angeles alone, and some shouldn’t be on the site. The quality control of the websites should be much higher. Also, you can currently list yourself as an automotive photographer on Photoserve (not to pick on them, because they are obviously a respected resource) and not show any automotive work in your portfolio/website. Not to shill for our website, but we show 14 photographers in LA, and we hope that by being discriminating, we’ll keep art buyers coming back.

-Neil

Part of what Rob’s post said was there is too much noise and it is almost impossible to filter it all out and find the good work. So, it takes more than just “good work” or even exceptional talent to stand out!!! Not unless a good or great photographer is extremely lucky they need a marketing plan to get noticed. If you don’t have some way to approach and get noticed by PE’s, or art directors the good work will be lost in the sea of noise.

I have no clue what the average PE, Art Buyers, or Art Directors gets in the way of promos every day. Back 8 or 9 years some magazine (can’t remember but it might have been CA) asked a handful of PE’s, AB’s and AD’s to keep a weeks worth of promos. At the time the overage was over 100 pieces of direct mail a day, mainly postcards. The bulk went to Ad agencies, AD’s and AB’s. That was my market at the time so really didn’t pay attention to the PE’s numbers as much.

Today, I would think the direct mail is lower and the e-mail is off the charts.

How long did these stay

Flat Boring FL lights - check got that one - (big push from Getty on that trend)

Tilted horizons - came and went

Cross-Processing (now it is a plug-in) still bad, still boring

Depressed not looking at the camera shoulders drooped stand in the middle of the MF frame look. Yee ha, still going strong. Too bad many of the pictures say nothing other than we,, I’m depressed, maybe you should be too.

The thing is - art directors and photo editors are influenced by trends as much as society is - the bad thing - is because of the trends and sway of ad page buyers, many magazines fall into the copy cat mode.

Some don’t - Outside has been consistently good and Dan Winter covers kick ass. (Gotta love 4×5 film)

Geographic has raised the bar again and there is fine work being produced and presented. Steve Winters Snow Leopard story in the current issue is amazing - mostly with remotes/traps and the images will stand the test of time.

Bad photography after the trend wears down is just bad photography. The key for me has always been to try to stay as true to myself as possible. Sometimes I fail, but I don’t much TV.

The internet, as Mike Shipman said before: “…does allow anyone to post their work for all to see.”

My concern is how it impacts the way we look at photo’s. In the old analog days we used to (because we had to) visit exhibitions, festivals, in order to enjoy great photography. Looking at photos was a far more mindfull experience. Nowadays, because of the enormous amount of and accessibility to photos has made us look in a far more superficial way.

When you write: “You’re seeing what I’ve been looking at since I started in this business. The volume of noise is loud but the signal is the same as it has always been, clean, pure and tranquil. Listen for the signal.”, I wonder who’s really listening for the signal?

Only after muddying up the very waters that they want to swim in do they realize they have just undercut themselves, diluted the market and done harm to the hard working, creative photographers they wish to emulate.

The problem also lies with older photographers, in all fields, who have made a career on poor photography, lowest common denominator stuff.

PE’s, art buyers and photographers themselves all need to set a higher bar to maintain a professional art and save photography from being a work for hire, assembly line, feed the media beast.

- Jacob

http://www.33and13.blogspot.com

Now when everyone can twist and turn and bend everything in PS my eye long for sincerity and story.

Maybe it’s just because it’s sports but it all looks the same…

Sometimes they ask if I need coverage of a particular event so if I find their work professional I ask for the one best shot from the event for our “gallery area”. It’s funny the response I get from this request…. do I want the winner, the top female, a tight shot or what… well what I want is the one best shot… it’s for a “gallery area”… you’d think the photographer would know which one that was.

Overall rather disappointing what is out there. Not sure I could do better myself although I guess most PE think they could.

-Rob

If you’re bored while working like I am you can check out my sports website at http://www.thepicturedesk.ca

When photographers were first in the business it used to be, you took your book around long enough and would get job. Some days you might shoot shoes, people, architecture, whatever was needed. Got known for being technically able to deliver what the Ad agencies wanted. Then would develop a style. Now, that crap work is stock.

Today it appears photographers are expected to have a style out right away. They might have a great book but may not have the technical skills to replicate it so they can be relied upon to deliver. That gets at Rob’s point about the success rate.

I can just imagine how good everyone was feeling before the Demarchelier/Jolie shoot. How can it go wrong. I’m sure it is exactly as Rob said, everything that could go wrong did. I feel for the PE who I’m sure was hoping for something special.

I agree with Robert (and APE) that “cherry picking” makes it tough for emerging freelancers to get more than a foot in the door without selling their soul for a full time, possibly work for hire, staff job. It seems that it’s more difficult to build relationships with clients in the mid-level because they are so often driven by price rather than image quality and working with a photographer they are familiar with.

Of course, as a photographer the hurt comes depending on whether you’re an aspiring commercial studio shooter or a fancy free editorial photog. It’s obviously easier to make it on less when your gear fits into a case or two (or less) and you work out of your house or apartment than it is trying to make rent and utilities on a studio space.

The question of mediocrity and bad imagery will be one that is never won. There are images out there that are just technically horrible, but the end user has the final say. I’ve seen crappy photos (literally, photos of crap) licensed as stock, so I’m not one to judge what’s good or not good. If someone want’s to pay me for a photo of a turd, who am I to argue?

Just because you’ve taken a bad picture and had it published or had a failed shoot and published the results doesn’t suddenly lower you down to the level of people who consistently do bad work.

As far as determining what’s great and what’s mediocre that’s done by the professionals in whatever market you’re in. Sure, every photograph is loved by someone but there’s a certain level at which they become worthwhile for commercial and editorial applications.

the web appears to level the field with respect to how entry level and advanced photographers get work, but to equate them doesn’t make sense. One has a huge amount of experience and the other is just at the beginning.

The field itself has changed. Jobs are being given to people with little or no experience (once) when in the past a more experienced person would have been used because it was harder to source talent. So an emerging photographer can at least be trusted to reproduce on assignment exactly what is in their portfolio, this is how the risk is mitigated of hiring someone without a lot of experience. A more precise matching. But after that, the editor probably will not, depending on how things go, ask the emerging photographer to extend themselves on something different. They can just cherry pick another look for another story.

Compare that to how it used to be where the editor would trust in the experience of the photographer to be able to confront a number of stories and come away with something usable because you could not cherry pick. This is how the field has changed. (Rob-does this match what you were seeing?)

We think because we see emerging photographers being used that the web is responsible for somehow making it level between them and the pro, however, it is not level, the emerg’ works rarely, does not build experience, gets left behind when the trend changes. The pro however is still working.

I think it is harder now for emerging photographers to get the experience level they need because they get “used” early and there is not enough work to give them a broader experience. I think the percentage of people starting now who will remain in the industry is much lower than the percentage starting out say 10 years ago or 15 years ago. that is how the field has changed. It is not level, it is draconian.

…the web has not leveled the playing field…

Alright, I’ll bite. Where else, but on the web, can a photographer spend 30 bucks a year, build a website and get the same or better look as a photographer who has millions of dollars? How he gets people to visit his site is a different issue but the ability to present work in a professional manor is the same.

this is the major misunderstanding that is floating today.

the field itself has changed; the relationship of the artist to the audience has changed, and the relationship of the artist to patronage has changed.

…photography is not easier technically either…

certain kinds of image making are easier, in other words, what technology wants is easier. But image making is a hard as ever.