The Business of Photography - The Root Of The Problem

The Business of Photography - The Root of the Problem 

written by Barry for Exel Photography

 There are few people who will dispute the fact that the world of photography is changing. In fact it's changing so fast that it can be challenging to keep up. Most of these changes are for the better but because of advancing technology some of these changes are having a negative impact on professional photographers and how we conduct business. This includes both seasoned photographers and those just starting out. With that said, from my point of view, the single biggest problem that our industry is facing is our societies changing view or rather it’s perception of what we as photographers and the photographs that we create are worth. In the end anyone’s value is what it’s perceived as by others. It's most certainly not what we would choose to value it at ourselves. Because of this our value, overall, has dropped dramatically.

When I Grow Up

So many people see photography as a potential source of income that we are inundated by people trying to earn extra income from their photos. This is happening because it’s now so easy to create decent photographs and not only get reasonably acceptable results but those results are instantaneous. It’s important to point out that growth of an industry isn’t a bad thing. In fact it’s a good thing. There are always people and business that will want and need photographs. This simple fact alone allowed me of all people to join the ranks of working photographers. Trust me when I say that’s an astonishing feat all by its self. Though I have always loved making pictures it never once occurred to me that there were actually people out there that might be interested in licensing even one my photos. This statement alone brings us back to perception and how perception adversely affects our industry. With that in mind I am going to bore you with a prime example of how that perception has changed. I’m going to tell you a little story about what I wanted to be when I grew up. Believe it or not this short story is an excellent example of how perception about photographers has changed. When I was a young and in high school like so many others I was confused about “What I wanted I to be when I grew up.” In my case there were two things. I either wanted to be a naval architect and design boats and ships or I wanted to be a photographer. Oh yeah, those two choices were certainly alike! Hey, I was young and confused so give me a break! Anyway, on one hand I wanted to go to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD. On the other I wanted to take pictures of stuff. As many of you know there are only 4 appointments to the Naval Academy from each state each year. Even if I were to receive an appointment to the academy I’d need to qualify for the School of Naval Architecture. This was quite a lofty goal for any young man/boy and though it would be a challenge I saw it as reasonably attainable. After all, someone would be chosen. Why not me? Next, I wanted to be a photographer. In my mind this was just a pipe dream. It was a grand notation but it was not a realistic or attainable goal. Photographers were creative people who had natural talent that I simply didn’t possess. As a serious hobbyist and having a decent eye for the craft did not qualify me to join the ranks of working photographers. Can anyone tell me why I felt this way? Well, the answer was really quite simple. It’s because photographers were gods and who dares ask to join the ranks of the gods! Looking back over the last 30 plus years I now see many flaws in my own twisted perception of the facts. Most of all, I can also assure you that there is nothing even remotely god like about me. This does however show how our perception has changed. Although my own notion about working photographers was slightly exaggerated it wasn’t so far off the mark from the perception of the general population of my day. Oh my, has that perception changed. And that change is the root of the problem facing our industry today.

Who Is To Blame

In the most basic terms there are two factors that have changed the way that our society as a whole views photographers and our photographs that has caused the decline in our value. One is the ease with which anyone can now create a photo. New technology and good quality glass is readily available to anyone willing to invest a few bucks. Editing software like Adobe Photoshop is also there for the taking. Anyone who chooses can simply download it without the need of investing in a license. Photoshop is and has been one of the most pirated software titles out there. That however is a whole new can of worms that we shall not explore here today. Anyway, because of the ease in which the average user can now create a reasonably acceptable photograph it's often assumed that there is little or no difference between armatures and professionals. In fact there often isn’t. Many amateurs are amazingly skilled individuals and I only wish I had half their talent. Even so that doesn’t mean that every hobbyist out there can consistently produce acceptable photographs. This leads us to the second and most pressing reason that we as photographers have lost value. In short we, as a group, have done it to ourselves and despite all the crying and complaining we have no one to blame but ourselves. In this digital world so much has changed and there are many who think that they have what it takes but to get their name out there they will give away their photos for practically nothing or in the case of publication often license their photos for free. This has always been a problem but these days it's done more so than ever before. Vanity publishing is run amuck. The fact that Newspapers and TV Stations no longer have to employ a large staff of photographers because people will simply shoot and upload photos with their iPhones is a great example. Why on earth pay for a service that you are getting for free? Most photographers will say. “But the quality isn't the same.” True enough but if the papers and TV stations cared about quality over price they would be hiring photographers rather than letting them go. Their readers don't care about quality. They want to read the story and want to see the shot. It’s as simple as that. If I am on location of a grand disaster it’s almost certain that I will not license a photo of that disaster to any local paper. No matter how compelling the photo or how well composed, No matter how close and how much detail. Before I can get any well-chosen photograph to the paper they have already chosen an iPhone shot for free of charge that is ready to run. It may be from a quarter mile back and show little if any of the real story but they have it and it didn't cost them a dime. In turn this is changing the perception that our society has on photographers and the value of what we create. Potential photographers think "if" I do it it's just me. It's not going to harm the industry. But it does and it has. Or, more often than not they could care less as such a thing as damaging the industry they want to be part of never even enters their mind. They are only concerned with here and now. Tomorrow and how it affects all of is isn’t even a consideration. It has become so common place for photographers to give their work away that our much or our society has come to expect it from us. In the case of publication many will photographers will jump at the chance to see “their name in lights.” As it’s more important for them to get “exposure” than compensation that it’s now accepted by many potential or would be clients that we as photographers must somehow do what we do only for love and passion. We obviously have no need to feed our families or keep a roof over our head. I can only assume that some potential clients think that these things magically appear! If for example, every burger place I walked into just handed over a paper sack stuffed with Whoppers and McNasty burgers I’d come to expect it as well. When the day came that I was asked to compensate a burger joint for my usual sack of burgers I’d also be surprised that they didn’t just hand it over like always. I'd decline their generous offer to sale me a burger and go back to the place that just handed it over for free.

Real World Examples

I have two clear-cut examples of this problem. One happened to me. Well, I’ve been asked to work for cheap or free so often that I’ve lost track of who and when but one case really stands out in my mind. Anyway, In August of 2009 I was asked to shoot a project that a local bike shop wanted to submit to Easy Rider Magazine. We set down and talked about what we needed to do. It was decided that I would cast for models and have a small selection of them come in for a go see, or casting call. The owner of the shop and I would choose the most likely candidate from the casting call and then schedule the date for the shoot. After the shoot I would select and edit the best images and provide them to the client. From there they would submit the photos and story to Easy Ryder for consideration. Since the client had been published in the magazine before they were well aware that it would benefit them and get them a great deal of exposure. They were willing to pay the model reasonably well for her services. This was whether their submission was accepted or not. Me? They had no idea in hell that for the casting, the photography or the post work that I would require any kind of compensation at all. I mean, it never crossed their mind that I wouldn’t just do it for exposure or for all I knew just for fun! I can only guess that it completely slipped their mind that I fed my family with photographs and the same way they feed their family by customizing bikes and selling black t-shirts with eagles on them! It should be pointed out that these people were not monsters. They were not swindlers or bad people in anyway. They had however always had “photographers” do this for them for nothing just to see their name in lights. It was assumed that everyone worked that way and paying a photographer a handsome fee for all that was involved was simply not in their budget. It wasn’t even something they have considered! The bottom line is they had always gotten their sack of burgers for free and there was no reason for them to expect otherwise! Needless to say I didn’t accept the assignment but who is to blame for the clients notion that I’d work for free? Was it the potential client or the previous photographers that had set this precedent? I say it’s the photographers. It is us as a group who have allowed this sort of thing to happen and be accepted as the norm. Regardless of how and why this has happened there is, even as I type this story, a grand billboard that sets on the interstate just north of where I live. On this billboard is a beautifully done photo of a girl on a bike advertising that bike shop. I can’t help but wonder if the photographer that snapped that photo worked for free just to see his photo on that billboard. Perhaps, perhaps not who is to say. The only thing I know for a sure is that I wasn’t one of the photographers called to quote on the job. There is another case involving another of our local photographers that was so ridicules that it just has to be shared with everyone here. Though it’s rather involved I’ll not get into it more than to say that a photographer was asked by a multimillion dolor business that literally spends millions of dollars in advertising a year to license his photo for one of their ad campaigns. When examining the usage, print run and potential of this campaign a fair market licensing fee for the photo would have easily been in the thousands of dollars and could have come to as much as $45,000+ in a media buyout. In the end the client, if you can call them that, said “We don’t pay for photos.” Why is it that a large corporation that can afford millions of dollars to get their name out there can’t afford fair market value to license the intellectual property that they want to use for their ads? Why weren’t they even willing to negotiate a reduced rate? The answer is simple. They don’t have to. They know very well that there will be another photographer just around the corner that will be more than willing to license their photograph for nothing just to say “look at me.” “Look what I did!” when in fact they should be saying “Look at me. I’m a sucker and not only did I take food off of your table I have screwed every photographer and future photographer out by happily contributing to a rapidly deteriorating situation.

There Is Still Hope

It is important to point out that there are good clients out there. There are still good contracts to be won. But make no mistake things are changing and since we as photographers have created this problem for ourselves it is unlikely that we will be able to take back what we have already given away. Last but not least there are many photographers out there that say things like “the cream rises to the top” or “Those with real talent will succeed and need not worry about such things.” In some ways this is true. At the same time no matter who you are in the world of photography, what you do or who you do it for if you think for one min that you will not be affected by this new turn of events you have a big ass surprise headed your way. Sooner or later it's going catch up to all of us.

  Barry Kidd Photography

Read More

Merry Christmas from Exel Photography

Read More

There Is Still Time...For Christmas Orders!

*There is still time!*

...to order an array of amazing holiday gifts and have them delivered before Christmas.
We recommend you choose one of our expedited shipping methods to guarantee holiday delivery- we don’t want to leave any good boys and girls without presents.

Click the proofs link above to order from past sessions, or sched. A new portrait shoot today by using the contact form.

Read More

Tutorial 002: Composition

     My friend Tim asked me about composition rules, and the rule of thirds, so I decided to make that topic my next tutorial

     Composition is the way you organize the different elements on the scene in front of the camera.  It's tempting to imagine that the world is just the way it is, and all you can do is just turn up, point the camera and take the picture but there's a lot more to it than that in the real world it's usually not possible to move objects around your ideas - but you generally don't need to.  Just by changing your viewpoint, and sometimes the focal length you're using, you can completely change the appearance of the photo and the objects within it.
     Composition in photography is like the rules of grammar in writing. If you don't put what you think in the right order, using the right words, with the right punctuation, no one's going to understand what you're trying to say.  It's the same in photography. If you just shoot at random your pictures are going to look visually incoherent with no clear point of focus or meaning.  But with a little compositional awareness, it's possible to draw the viewers attention to your subject, create interesting juxtapositions between objects and get them to see and feel exactly what it is you want them to.
     Composition isn't just about making the meaning of your pictures clearer, though. Photographs can also be satisfying, challenging or intriguing on a purely graphic level, and this is down to the arrangement of the shapes tones and lines in the picture.
     The best known 'rule' for creating graphically pleasing pictures is the 'rule of thirds'.  This says that you should never put your subject in the center of the frame, but a third of the way from the top or the bottom, or from the sides.  In fact, many cameras can display grid overlays on the LCD or in the viewfinder, which show you exactly where these 'thirds' are.  If you were shooting a landscape, for example, you might position horizon on the lower horizontal third and a solitary tree on the left or right vertical 3rd.  This is a pretty weak kind of rude though.  It's a good fallback if you can't think of a more interesting way of composing the picture, but that's about all.  If you see an arrangement which you think looks better you should use it.
     There are other rules to follow.  For example, you must make sure that your subject is looking into the frame rather than out of it, and you should avoid any composition that leads your viewers eyes out of the frame.  But maybe want to emphasize the symmetry between the landscape and the sky, or the central Isolated the position of a lone tree?  Maybe you like having your portrait subject looking out of the edge of the picture, because it hints at some unseen event and introduces a note of tension or unease?  Rules are there to be broken especially rules of composition, but this only works if you know what they are in the first place, and you break them clearly and deliberately and for a reason.
    Top Tip» Focal length and perspective: We normally think of zoom lenses simply as a tool to 'get more in' or bring distant objects closer, but in terms of composition there's a lot more to it than that. Instead of using the zoom to change the size of the object, try moving closer or further away and then adjust the zoom to keep the subject the same size.  What you discover then is that the focal length you use has a big impact on the relationship between your subject and its background.  A short focal length makes you get closer to the subject and makes the background look smaller and further away.  A longer focal length means you move further away, and this makes a background look larger ( it's simple geometry really but the affects become obvious when you try them out).  Telephoto lenses effectively enlarge the background, making it easier to find neutral areas to act as a backdrop for your subject, or to emphasize the scale of a landscape.  It's often said that wide-angle lenses exaggerate perspective and that telephotos flatten it which is another way of saying the same thing.  Stop thinking of your zoom lens as a substitute for walking, and start using it as an aid to composition!
     The arrangement of objects and shape affects the meaning and the mood of the picture, and they also affect the sense of 'movement' in the image.  The eye doesn't absorb the whole photograph in a single instant as a static image.  Your eye moves from one object to another, sometimes in curves, sometimes in zigzags.  This movement is a key part of the photographs appeal, or at least the extent to which it holds your attention.  It's perhaps why you can quickly get bored with a photo that initially looks great, but become more and more fascinated by one which doesn't have a big initial impact, but does have a lot of compositional complexity.
     The most obvious way to create this movement is with lines.  These can be very literal, such as railway lines converge in the distance, or 'implied', such as the direction of the subjects gaze in a portrait.  Pictures can have a single dominant line or they can have a number of lines which direct your gaze in a certain direction, and cause it to follow a certain route around the picture, or form a more complicated interlocking structure.
     Shapes are very important for photography too.  They might be easily recognized shapes such as human figures or silhouetted trees, for example, would gain extra power when thry stand out starkly against a contracting background, or they could just be areas of tone rather than specific objects.  These are just as important in terms of composition  however, because they contribute towards any picture's feeling of 'balance'.
     Shapes can be used as natural frames to draw attention to your subject and to prevent the viewer's gaze from wondering out of the picture.  Look out for archways, overhanging branches, gates, hedges... you can find natural frames almost anywhere.
     Composition is part-science, part-instinct.  The science is the way elements of the picture work together and affect the way you see it.  The instinct is the way you as a photographer combine those elements in your own unique way.

*picture 3: the bees eye is placed at the right third.  Eyes are usually the focal point, so his eye is placed directly on the third point.
*picture 2: the sun is on the left third, while the boat is off center along the horizon.  This helps to 'lead' you through the image.
*picture 1: the eye again is the focal point, and thus this image has depth and emotion by having the subject off center as opposed to centered in the photo.

(photo credits: 2 & 3google images, 1 Photographer Adam Paul)

Feel free to comment below with thoughts, ideas and posts of your composition success and failures.

Read More