After the shutter has fired, then what?

As we all know the advent of digital photography has changed photography enormously. Not only has it fundamentally changed the way photography businesses operate, and how professionals are perceived, it has changed our whole relationship with photography. And by ‘our’ I mean everyone’s.

What once was a very simple relationship, both in nature and in volume, and which might have been called ‘me and my photo album’ is now a complex web of relationships with a vast array of both print and digital media. Through this over saturation of imagery, we have become sophisticated consumers of visual communications, and we consume imagery voraciously on a daily basis, but still the vast majority of people don’t look past the surface impression and still don’t have a good understanding of what makes a professional photographer a professional, and an amateur just that.

It is clear, that in many ways photography is being devalued. Online, the $5 stock library sites, like istock.com are a good example. Getty Images and other traditional image libraries look to be surviving, but their market has decidedly shrunk. Some will say this is just natural selection, and in a strict sense they are right, but the implications of devaluing photography goes a lot further than getting a bargain stock shot.

And it’s not just the digital revolution that’s getting us in trouble. Sheer media overload is causing problems as well. Attention spans are getting smaller. Research tells us that at a photography exhibition, we can expect to hold people’s gaze on a single image for no more than 3 seconds. The images had better be good if you are going to hold them longer than that.

In educational institutions teaching photography there are also massive changes. Out with the traditional darkroom skills, in with Photoshop. Yet by its very nature, digital photography can be a poor teacher, with its wide latitude of error, instant feedback and cost efficiencies. Digital doesn’t help students learn to ‘get it right behind the lens’, because they know they can just ‘shoot the shit out of it’, and fix it in Photoshop if it’s ordinary. But of course many of these same things are the positive benefits of digital. Being able to rattle off hundreds of frames without thinking of cost is amazing, and Photoshop is just a fabulous new fangled digital darkroom. ( There is a big hint in this if we will listen. As is often the case, mixing the best of the old ways with the best of the new is a smart way to do things…)

Within the industry itself, just look at how difficult it is now to become a professional. Photographers are falling over each other in a shrinking market. Even at the top end of the professional market, where the status quo has largely been retained, the good old days are definitely gone, and the top end is getting thinner and thinner.

The reasons are pretty clear. These days cameras are ubiquitous. Point and shoots, mobile phone cams, and consumer digital slr’s, the list and numbers are staggering. Everyone has a camera and everyone takes photographs.

But there are huge differences in the way photography is created. Most people take their photos, trundle off to the photo kiosk to print them out, or email them off to friends or put them up on facebook or the like. The image as captured (in jpeg of course) is the image that is printed, shared etc.. This is how it has always been for consumers, even back in the days of film. It was similar for professionals in the past as well, but for them it was critical everything was done right in camera, as the film went off to the lab and the transparencies or prints came back and were handed over. It was completely different however for black and white film, and there the keen amateur and the professional had a whole world of post processing in which to impart his artistic vision on the image BEFORE it was printed (or to be more accurate, as it was being printed).

And this is where I want to leap forward to the present, as it is here, in the similarities between the old black and white printing and today’s’ modern digital photography that I want to explore. Because it is here where professionals today can make their biggest mark. One thing is to take a good picture. It’s actually a very big, and sometimes quite difficult thing. But a professional should be able to obtain a good exposure, light correctly, compose with interesting effect, and technically create a good image. The trouble is that many amateurs can also (with a bit of luck and aided by amazing new technologies) take the same image. Not all the time for sure, but the point is, today’s’ point and shoot cameras can produce some amazing results even in the hands of amateurs. More and more people don’t consider hiring a professional photographer for this very reason. They reason that their digital slr is the same as a photographer’s so why bother paying for a professional. I see this all the time lately with brochures and other advertising, their impact severely reduced by amateur photography.

Professionals are aware of the problem. The massive blurring of the line between amateur and pro is confusing everybody, consumers included. Suddenly they don’t even know what they are buying. They equate a professional looking digital slr with professional photography. The consumers themselves can see that technology itself is narrowing that gap. So called ‘shoot and burn’ cowboys have popped up everywhere and are ruining the wedding industry, charging ridiculously small amounts to shoot a wedding and burn the images to cd. It is left to professionals to focus on the things that make them professional to try and widen the gap again so that they and the larger industry will survive.

One thing they can do is ensure they are very competent photographers. And as many of us know, that’s a whole lot harder than it sounds. The technical aspects of photography and lighting are demanding and require a whole range of talents from technical to artistic. But is it in this artistic area I think we need to focus once our technical skills are in place. This is an area that can clearly define us from amateurs and cowboys! The problem here is also about education, delineation and re-valuing photography so that once again people are prepared to pay a decent dollar for a quality product.

Recently I came across a recently launched website that had packages designed for portraiture. The idea behind this website was well thought out. Consumers are, rightly so, sick of portrait studios and their unpalatable marketing campaigns where they offer very cheap or even free portrait sittings and then hard sell extremely expensive prints. Many portrait photographers still use this model, but I think it’s a dinosaur just waiting to die. Obviously so do the makers of the website in question. Their idea is to have a network of professional photographers with online portfolios, working at a fixed rate with a packaged product. For instance, for $399 you can get Photographer A (or whoever you best like in your area) to come and shoot your family reunion, and you know you will get 6 4×6 prints and 12 hi-res shots on cd, for you to print as you like. An interesting business model in many ways, but one that I think misses a very important mark.

For $399, (and the photographer’s cut of this is likely to be $200 or even less) they are expected to shoot for two hours, produce a one page pdf proof sheet of 25-30 of the best shots, and then process and burn and send 12 shots to the client on cd. Now I don’t know how ‘professional’ these photographers are, because from the sound of it, they would be working casually for about $50 an hour. It’s fine for the website owner, as they do basically nothing, but I’m not about to join.

So I’m waffling and waffling… I know. When am I going to get to the point?
Now. Well, I’ll try. I don’t think it’s always just about the point, sometimes it’s equally about the journey.

The thing that can clearly define us and separate us from the consumers and the cowboys is this: our artistic vision.

One thing is to have nice shots taken professionally. That’s a damn fine start. But is that enough? There’s clearly no time in the above business model for the photographer to spend more than a couple of minutes on any one photograph. And this is where the business model is forgetting something.

The most massive difference between film and digital photography is in the processing. Now it is done by the photographer! And the possibilities are now ENDLESS!

A photograph is no longer what just comes out of the camera. It is the final image that is created from the RAW data (pun fully intended) that a digital capture obtains. The taking of the photo is just gathering data. The real work comes in the processing, and the artistic vision employed therein. If we use all our professional skill to take a good photo, and then just process it as a photo kiosk would and hand it over, then we are missing a massive opportunity. With both technical skill AND creative vision, we can create images that stand clearly out from the masses. The trick will be getting people to pay for it. But think of it this way.

Do you want to pay $399 (with only half or so going to the photographer) for 12 shots, quickly processed and burned to cd, or would you rather pay, say, $499 to me for 6 shots that have been painstakingly hand processed and turned from a photo into a work of art? Let me know 😉