On Being A Professional Photogapher...Tell us your story, please...

[MattKing]

You take a night school class.

 

[CMoore]

You take a night school class.

I was wondering if that was one option.
Did a lot of photographers take a beginning (digital) photo class
Or were colleges actually offering a class in just the Computer/Software aspect of it.?

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure about 2003 specifically.
But Photoshop started out as a graphics program, and continues (in many ways) to be more a graphics program than a photography program.
If I was still doing professional work in 2003, I would have been a member of the PPABC (the Professional Photographers Association of British Columbia) and I would have been relying on the resources they provided, along with the resources available from my Pro Lab (ABC Photocolour at that time).

 

[cramej]

It's 1991 and you're an illustrator for a western wear catalog who hasn't used a computer. You find out the company is getting a Mac to start doing layout. What do you do? Sit down with the computer, a book and learn to use it.

I worked for an art director who did exactly this when he was an illustrator. Everything he did at that time was self taught and he did very well at it.

It works the same across many disciplines. When you have to change, you learn to change.

 

[CMoore]

It's 1991 and you're an illustrator for a western wear catalog who hasn't used a computer. You find out the company is getting a Mac to start doing layout. What do you do? Sit down with the computer, a book and learn to use it.

I worked for an art director who did exactly this when he was an illustrator. Everything he did at that time was self taught and he did very well at it.

It works the same across many disciplines. When you have to change, you learn to change.

I wonder if that is what most photographers did. They just muddled through it, maybe looked on The Internet.
I suppose if you worked for a big magazine or big newspaper, they probably gave you help.
Self employed photographers probably did as you say.
No doubt it was pretty rough going for some.

 

[foc]

I remember the change from film to digital in the late 1990s and early 2000s for professional wedding photography and GP studios in Ireland. It was a gradual change over.
The Irish professional photographers association organized seminars and workshops to introduce digital photography, workflow, and best practice.
The film labs also did the same.
I attended a few and learned a lot but I also got a lot of help from fellow pros who were very generous with their knowledge.
Attending a course in Photoshop was the best digital experience for me because it focused on post-production. When using film there was minimal post-production, now with digital is could be overwhelming, and for me, it was a case of, less is more.
I know some photographers got sloppy taking the photo as they could clean it up in Photoshop but I was of the opinion, take it right from the start and then use Photoshop just to tweak it and so less time sitting in front of a Pc.
Having shot film for so long, I never developed the habit of "chimping"(checking every shot in the camera display after every capture) with the digital camera. Of course, I checked them but not in front of the client.

 

[juan]

I was working in television and doing still photography during the late 90s and early 2000s. We dug into the books, looked at tutorials online, taught each other, and experimented.

 

[removed account4]

In 2003you’d get a scanner, get the program and a book or 2 and experiment in your free time. You realized that it (PS) offered 100s more things to use than you actually needed and you’d get good (practice) at what you needs to know. You’d realize that the writing was on the wall with film and do what you could to keep up.

 

[Pieter12]

When digital first started to come to the pro market, it was embraced mostly by photojournalists and sports photographers for the speed of delivery of images and the ability to take an enormous number of shots on a single memory card. Some of the cameras started to have built-in wi-fi so images could be transmitted directly to a booth or van without the photographer needing to leave the field. Most photographers at that time did not need any new training or to do any post-production work, just as they might never have had to set foot in a lab or darkroom. For commercial and editorial photographers, the push to digital came from the art directors and photo editors who were already working with computer-based layout systems and wanted digital files to place in their layouts, and got used to having immediate results to choose from not waiting days for film to be processed and edited by the photographer. The era of a photographer having to use a computer program to sort, edit and adjust image files is relatively new and many established pros have staff or outside resources to handle those tasks. Retouching is another story, film photographers never did any beyond spotting prints. It was always done by a specialist. Now, with digital, many photographers want to capture that end of the business, too. And clients have come to expect it from photographers--whether they do it themselves or out-source it. In a certain sense, it is kind of like typesetting. Once a booming, profitable independent business, the introduction of computers and design software has made them obsolete. And there is a lot of crappy typesetting as a result.

As far as learning the programs that are associated with digital photography, at first it was catch-as-catch-can, learning from books and workshops. As the practice became more prevalent and the programs more affordable, it is now taught in schools. Still, a lot of people just teach themselves with some help from books, the internet and colleagues.

 

[CMoore]

When digital first started to come to the pro market, it was embraced mostly by photojournalists and sports photographers for the speed of delivery of images and the ability to take an enormous number of shots on a single memory card. Some of the cameras started to have built-in wi-fi so images could be transmitted directly to a booth or van without the photographer needing to leave the field. Most photographers at that time did not need any new training or to do any post-production work, just as they might never have had to set foot in a lab or darkroom. For commercial and editorial photographers, the push to digital came from the art directors and photo editors who were already working with computer-based layout systems and wanted digital files to place in their layouts, and got used to having immediate results to choose from not waiting days for film to be processed and edited by the photographer. The era of a photographer having to use a computer program to sort, edit and adjust image files is relatively new and many established pros have staff or outside resources to handle those tasks. Retouching is another story, film photographers never did any beyond spotting prints. It was always done by a specialist. Now, with digital, many photographers want to capture that end of the business, too. And clients have come to expect it from photographers--whether they do it themselves or out-source it. In a certain sense, it is kind of like typesetting. Once a booming, profitable independent business, the introduction of computers and design software has made them obsolete. And there is a lot of crappy typesetting as a result.

As far as learning the programs that are associated with digital photography, at first it was catch-as-catch-can, learning from books and workshops. As the practice became more prevalent and the programs more affordable, it is now taught in schools. Still, a lot of people just teach themselves with some help from books, the internet and colleagues.

That was very interesting.
Thanks for you Perspective - Experience.

 

[jtk]

When digital first started to come to the pro market, it was embraced mostly by photojournalists and sports photographers for the speed of delivery of images and the ability to take an enormous number of shots on a single memory card. Some of the cameras started to have built-in wi-fi so images could be transmitted directly to a booth or van without the photographer needing to leave the field. Most photographers at that time did not need any new training or to do any post-production work, just as they might never have had to set foot in a lab or darkroom. For commercial and editorial photographers, the push to digital came from the art directors and photo editors who were already working with computer-based layout systems and wanted digital files to place in their layouts, and got used to having immediate results to choose from not waiting days for film to be processed and edited by the photographer. The era of a photographer having to use a computer program to sort, edit and adjust image files is relatively new and many established pros have staff or outside resources to handle those tasks. Retouching is another story, film photographers never did any beyond spotting prints. It was always done by a specialist. Now, with digital, many photographers want to capture that end of the business, too. And clients have come to expect it from photographers--whether they do it themselves or out-source it. In a certain sense, it is kind of like typesetting. Once a booming, profitable independent business, the introduction of computers and design software has made them obsolete. And there is a lot of crappy typesetting as a result.

As far as learning the programs that are associated with digital photography, at first it was catch-as-catch-can, learning from books and workshops. As the practice became more prevalent and the programs more affordable, it is now taught in schools. Still, a lot of people just teach themselves with some help from books, the internet and colleagues.

Yes. That's what I watched as digital began to appear. I was mostly dedicated to E6 and Kodachrome at the time (decades ago)....but almost mysteriously got great B&W assignments from advertising agencies because I was one of the last who did good B&W work in a graphic context., They weren't interested in AA devotees, who have no real interest in graphic design...art directors recognized graphic abilities.

I suspect todays photographers who have graphic design capabilities could prosper Vs digital if they showed actual B&W prints. But of course, nobody wants to hire someone without color expertise, which by definition means digital.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes. That's what I watched as digital began to appear. I was mostly dedicated to E6 and Kodachrome at the time (decades ago)....but almost mysteriously got great B&W assignments from advertising agencies because I was one of the last who did good B&W work in a graphic context., They weren't interested in AA devotees, who have no real interest in graphic design...art directors recognized graphic abilities.

I suspect todays photographers who have graphic design capabilities could prosper Vs digital if they showed actual B&W prints. But of course, nobody wants to hire someone without color expertise, which by definition means digital.

Albert Watson for one always likes to reference his training as a graphic designer. And I believe he still shoots black and white as well as color, but it is all digital now as far as I know.

 

[jtk]

Albert Watson for one always likes to reference his training as a graphic designer. And I believe he still shoots black and white as well as color, but it is all digital now as far as I know.

In Watson's wonderful, very small format book Cyclops (Watson has only one eye !) it's clear that many of his photos were shot large format. Reproduction quality is astounding and the shots were made for publication. He credits his art directors and technicians. That crediting tells us IMO, that his work is ultimately more honest than that of almost all of todays purportedly non-commercial artistes. Not merely exquisite.

 

[Pieter12]

In Watson's wonderful, very small format book Cyclops (Watson has only one eye !) it's clear that many of his photos were shot large format. Reproduction quality is astounding and the shots were made for publication. He credits his art directors and technicians. That crediting tells us IMO, that his work is ultimately more honest than that of almost all of todays purportedly non-commercial artistes. Not merely exquisite.

There is also a large-format version of Cyclops. If you can get your hands on it, you can really appreciate the photos even more. I also love that he has the guts to really crush the black in his images. And have David Carson do the typography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In college one of the guys in the dorm was getting married and he wanted me to take the wedding photographs. Both he and the intended were of the heavy persuasion I purposely did not photograph with any round or square objects on the foreground or background. When I started printing I experimented and found the best angle to tilt the easel to elongate the bodies. I delivered three albums, one for the couple and one for each parent couples. The family and guests were so excited that finally someone had photographed the real them and they brought enough separate additional prints that that one job paid for one year at college including the room and board, books, supplies, lab fees and spending money.

 

[jtk]

In college one of the guys in the dorm was getting married and he wanted me to take the wedding photographs. Both he and the intended were of the heavy persuasion I purposely did not photograph with any round or square objects on the foreground or background. When I started printing I experimented and found the best angle to tilt the easel to elongate the bodies. I delivered three albums, one for the couple and one for each parent couples. The family and guests were so excited that finally someone had photographed the real them and they brought enough separate additional prints that that one job paid for one year at college including the room and board, books, supplies, lab fees and spending money.

Fun story ! What era was this ?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fun story ! What era was this ?

1967 I always thought of it not so much as a job but a mitzvah.

 

[jtk]

Every satisfying (what does that mean?) shot seems like a mitzvah, but only some of those get to remain mitzvahs when printed or otherwise reproduced. They ain't mitzvahs for long.