Photo careers in the 21st century?

[AgX]

I don't know how common this knowledge is, but these days, much product photography may not actually be photographs, but renderings:
https://www.screenage.com.au/ikea-catalogue-3d-renderings/

You spoilsport. Now the "good" photographers no longer can blame the "bad" photographers for bad business...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Gregg. The Muir trail is what we locals called "The Freeway". I avoided it as much as possible, although have incidentally covered most of it, section by section, as part of unavoidably getting certain other places off-trail themselves. My younger backpacking understudy of the past decade did the Muir Trail in autumn to avoid people, taking six weeks, enduring three blizzards, and hauling a 110 lb pack in order to alleviate resupply issues, which are unrealistic that late in the season anyway. Lots of Muir / PCT thru-hikers are in such a hurry trying to be on schedule at resupply points that they get downright Zombie-fied, and don't even notice all the beauty around them. They're just clocking time. Therefore, given the unusual circumstances last summer, with both understaffing issues due to an epidemic, and repetitive severe forest fires, things got pretty clumsy with their booking system, which went remote, online, to half-baked emergency Federal site. But that has improved.

Ordinarily, for any given trailhead there are entry quotas for sake of keeping the backcountry still pristine. For any given day, 60% of the wilderness permits are available by reservation, and 40% available on a first-come walk-in basis no earlier than the day before, at the particular FS or NP office responsible for that jurisdiction. But with no walk-in's allowed either last summer or apparently this one, there's a kinda clumsy online substitute. Highly popular trails like in Yosemite NP are of course going to have the most demand, and therefore reservations fill up long in advance, while many other places in the high country have relatively little pressure on them, and are easy to get permits for, or even lie outside controlled areas. At the end of Sept (or end Oct in the case of Yosemite NP) permits are no longer required until the next subject season. But by then, most roads up to the handful of high road passes are closed anyway.

Keep in mind that, just because Yosemite Valley itself is a very well known tourist destination, just like Yellowstone or the Grans Canyon, significant parts of its high country as nearly vacant and largely devoid of trails. Same goes for Sequoia NP, and especially Kings Canyon, as well as many of the numerous designated Wilderness Areas. A lot of that topography is extreme enough to be self-protecting, at least unless something like a massive dam project is contemplated. There are many many many beautiful uncrowded locations, especially for the determined hiker, but also even for the car camper if they do a little homework and avoid the most obvious options.

Wilderness permits are only required for overnight or prolonged backpacking use. Dayhikers are exempt. This system lets them monitor how many people use particular places over the season, but also is important in case rescue is needed. All hell broke loose last summer when the rescue system was utterly overwhelmed by massive fire and smoke issues. Assistance from military chopper crews was required, and it took up to a week to get most people out. I know some of those people - smoke inhalation issues, catching covid either on the choppers or in evacuation facilities afterwards, really a mess.

The other nice thing about the Sierras is that dedicated OHV and 4WD are provided for those enjoying that kind of activity, in order to keep them away from sensitive areas. These are classified according to difficulty, including potentially fatal routes if they aren't scouted on foot in advance, with a 2 mile per DAY speed limit, and requiring winches and convoys. In other words, you could walk them faster, but some four-wheelers want a real challenge.

 

[Mike Lopez]

...its very sad the only way you can have conversations is by calling people names and insulting them.

I don't get that impression of Drew at all. I rather appreciated his response to my observation that Ansel Adams is accessible and facile for the masses in the way that Kinkade is.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe I'm prejudiced, but thinking you'll get it right later in the computer makes you sloppy at the time you need to do your best. If the angle is wrong., you can't correct that later. If the composition is wrong, or the subject isn't acting "right", you can't correct that. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Depends on whether you are starting out with an intention to create something that is part photograph and part post-processing.
While in current times the "post" part is typically digital, that doesn't have to be digital.
Think of things like hand coloured prints or bromoil work or the formerly ubiquitous "bride and groom together in a wine goblet" wedding album print - the modern version of which is quite disturbing:
https://bobbleheadsme.com/personali...d-bride-and-groom-in-wine-glasses-p-1177.html

 

[Don_ih]

Depends on whether you are starting out with an intention to create something that is part photograph and part post-processing.
While in current times the "post" part is typically digital, that doesn't have to be digital.
Think of things like hand coloured prints or bromoil work or the formerly ubiquitous "bride and groom together in a wine goblet" wedding album print - the modern version of which is quite disturbing:
https://bobbleheadsme.com/personali...d-bride-and-groom-in-wine-glasses-p-1177.html
View attachment 276996

That is a true work offff aart.

 

[removed account4]

I don't get that impression of Drew at all. I rather appreciated his response to my observation that Ansel Adams is accessible and facile for the masses in the way that Kinkade is.

Hi Mike
I understand where you are coming from but. ... IDK. calling their work something akin to road kill and suggesting they have no talent like a kindergartner ( although most artist try to get back to their no rules kindergartner frame of mind so maybe it is high praise ?) and the only people who would enjoy them are cultureless fools? IDK. maybe I am misreading what he has said and his intent, sure sounds like insults to me.

 

[removed account4]

Depends on whether you are starting out with an intention to create something that is part photograph and part post-processing.
While in current times the "post" part is typically digital, that doesn't have to be digital.
Think of things like hand coloured prints or bromoil work or the formerly ubiquitous "bride and groom together in a wine goblet" wedding album print - the modern version of which is quite disturbing:
https://bobbleheadsme.com/personali...d-bride-and-groom-in-wine-glasses-p-1177.html
View attachment 276996

my local lab will turn a photograph into a 3D object made of lucite, its quite remarkable, not as nice as that though

 

[Don_ih]

maybe I am misreading what he has said and his intent, sure sounds like insults to me.

Pretty sure you're not misreading - he was fully intending for that to be insulting. The question is whether or not his opinion is warranted. A world in which you're not allowed to say that shit is shit is a world that's eventually full of shit.

 

[Down Under]

..."bride and groom together in a wine goblet" wedding album print - the modern version of which is quite disturbing:
https://bobbleheadsme.com/personali...d-bride-and-groom-in-wine-glasses-p-1177.html
View attachment 276996

Disturbing? I think, amusing.

Think Barbie and Ken. Cheesy-cliche'd wedding photography at its very - whatever. I hesitate to say "best".

This truly made my day. Funny!!

All the local charity shops I visit now and then are full of this tat. Somebody buys it. Not me. I would be laughed out of home if I returned with this. It did make me wonder if the marriage went sour and one of the (ex) partners donated it to be rid of it, or whether it was handed out to guests who did the same. Something I will never find out. Oh, well.

(Later thought) It did rope us all in, though. Ha!

 

[BradS]

....A world in which you're not allowed to say that shit is shit is a world that's eventually full of shit.

This is beautiful!
Thanks!

 

[Sirius Glass]

that's right I don't plod the narrow path, because it is too narrow and I see nothing on it ...and the path is full of closed minded bitter people...
I'd rather plod on the path not taken, or rarely taken, better view and more interesting people

Maybe ...
but both Adams and Kinkade had a beautiful way of rendering light and turning an ordinary scene into something otherworldly. Peter Lik too but he is more of a showman than art for every-man ( or woman ), Like Adams Kinkade allowed for people without much $$ to enjoy his work. Lik's slot canyon phantom photograph is absolutely beautiful at least as beautiful as any Ansel Adams image I have ever seen. Its too bad there is so much hatred thrown toward people who have made money using photography or people who don't use a camera like everyone else.. its really sad..

Did you know that Kinkade is not a photographer, but a painter who lithographs a painting 10,000 add some brush strokes to each and charges for an original?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, getting it wrong in camera was not something you could know until it was too late - event over, film developed, turned out blank or whatever. Now, the back of the camera will show you what you got. You can quickly review to see if it's good enough. And software allows you to fix up any image - digital photo or a scan of a negative or a scan of a print or even something you did in MS Paint. Are computer image manipulation skills photography? Seems that they are, now, just as much as darkroom work is photography.

I think most of the film that's shot only ever sees a scanner. So, its "print" stage is digital, anyway.

One will only see problems in a photograph on the camera back, if and only if they are looking for them. Most people are to focused on the subject or subjects to inspect the whole frame. That is just one of the differences between a gwc and a good photographer.

 

[Don_ih]

One will only see problems in a photograph on the camera back, if and only if they are looking for them. Most people are to focused on the subject or subjects to inspect the whole frame. That is just one of the differences between a gwc and a good photographer.

So which does which? Does the "guy with camera" inspect the frame and the photographer actually focus on the subject? Or is it the other way around? Are you suggesting a photographer would not check the images taken? Or the guy with camera wouldn't check the images? From what I can tell, everyone checks the images if they can. There's nothing virtuous about not looking at the back (the back will tell you when there's no card installed - the viewfinder will not). And now most people look at the back to compose the picture - even if their camera has a viewfinder. There are a million Sony A6000 cameras out there that are all used just that way.

 

[removed account4]

Did you know that Kinkade is not a photographer, but a painter who lithographs a painting 10,000 add some brush strokes to each and charges for an original?

He adds some brushes strokes and charges for an original? who cares, he actually did something ... and plenty of people bought his work, and enjoy it. Photographers can be charlatans, start another "limited edition" by changing mat size or developer, or print the images in cards or posters to be sold at the gift shop, and THEY are long dead, don't even print them ... pumping the well dry.

Why is it OK for one to do it but not the other?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

From what I can tell, everyone checks the images if they can.

How many rolls of film were left unchecked when Winogrand died again? Was it hundreds, or thousands? Or that Vivian. How many rolls did she develop again?

 

[Don_ih]

How many rolls of film were left unchecked when Winogrand died again? Was it hundreds, or thousands? Or that Vivian. How many rolls did she develop again?

I'm not sure what your point is. They both had their reasons for what they did, and whatever reasons they are, they have nothing to do with looking at the back of a digital camera. It might be more akin to taking 1500 pictures in one day, saving them to a hard drive, and never looking at them again.

 

[VinceInMT]

But here in Northern California all I see is barber wire on both sides of highways with "no trespassing" signs left & right, mixed up with "no parking at any time". You feel like you're in a tube and can't even get out. We have national parks, but those feel like zoos where everyone is following the same "vista points"….

This is just one of the reasons I left California 30-years ago and moved to Montana. While there are issues here about landowners trying to limit access to public lands, the hunting/fishing lobby is pretty strong and we all benefit from their efforts. With state lands, national forests, and Bureau of Land Management lands, there is no shortage of places to get out and photograph with out crowds or traffic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

He adds some brushes strokes and charges for an original? who cares, he actually did something ... and plenty of people bought his work, and enjoy it. Photographers can be charlatans, start another "limited edition" by changing mat size or developer, or print the images in cards or posters to be sold at the gift shop, and THEY are long dead, don't even print them ... pumping the well dry.

Why is it OK for one to do it but not the other?

As usual you miss the point. Kinkade is not a photographer, so he work should not be considered in the conversation about photograph. Just as adding and removing major objects from photographs is not part of photography and since you are part and parcel of that group, you are not considered part of photography. Call what ever you do anything but photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One will only see problems in a photograph on the camera back, if and only if they are looking for them. Most people are to focused on the subject or subjects to inspect the whole frame. That is just one of the differences between a gwc and a good photographer.

So which does which? Does the "guy with camera" inspect the frame and the photographer actually focus on the subject? Or is it the other way around? Are you suggesting a photographer would not check the images taken? Or the guy with camera wouldn't check the images? From what I can tell, everyone checks the images if they can. There's nothing virtuous about not looking at the back (the back will tell you when there's no card installed - the viewfinder will not). And now most people look at the back to compose the picture - even if their camera has a viewfinder. There are a million Sony A6000 cameras out there that are all used just that way.

How obtuse! Looking at the viewfinder or image screen is the same thing! The point is if the person taking the photograph does not check the foreground, subject and background, mistakes will be made. Good amateur photographers and professional photographers do that as a matter of course. GWC, not so much.

 

[removed account4]

As usual you miss the point. Kinkade is not a photographer, so he work should not be considered in the conversation about photograph. Just as adding and removing major objects from photographs is not part of photography and since you are part and parcel of that group, you are not considered part of photography. Call what ever you do anything but photography.

I know he's not a photographer. Perhaps you should talk to Drew. He used him as a straw man in his argument as he attempted to suggest that his work was inferior like Lik's work ... so inferior to Masters of photography that he puts on a pedestal and worships. Adding and and subtracting elements from photographs has been going on since 1839 when Talbot used pencil to retouch a paper calotype negative. Maybe you should learn a little bit about the history of photography and photographic practices and what has been part of photography from its invention before you make comments that adding and removing elements from a photograph isn't photography.

Are you also suggesting Yousuf Karsh is part of my group that is "not considered part of photography" ? Every portrait he made was retouched, just as I learned how to do with a graphite leads and a knife. Your definition of what photography is makes absolutely no sense.

If you are interested in furthering your photographic knowledge, about the history and practice of photography, using Light to Draw, here are some texts that are not very expensive and might be useful.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Photography-1839-Present/dp/0870703811
https://www.amazon.com/History-Phot...+of+photography&qid=1623425723&s=books&sr=1-5
https://www.amazon.com/World-Histor...of+photography&qid=1623425723&s=books&sr=1-11
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Alterna...ristopher+james&qid=1623425808&s=books&sr=1-1

 

[Mike Lopez]

As usual you miss the point. Kinkade is not a photographer, so he work should not be considered in the conversation about photograph. Just as adding and removing major objects from photographs is not part of photography and since you are part and parcel of that group, you are not considered part of photography. Call what ever you do anything but photography.

Did you hear that, jnantz? You ain't shit!

Question for you: why do you take umbrage with what Drew Wiley says, but you seem to abide the tripe that comes from this guy in nearly every single post?

 

[removed account4]

Did you hear that, jnantz? You ain't shit!

Question for you: why do you take umbrage with what Drew Wiley says, but you seem to abide the tripe that comes from this guy in nearly every single post?

I know Mike. Photography means different things to different people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't get it why people have to be so rigid about this stuff. I mean
I make my own photo emulsion from scratch, coat my own paper and glass
retouch by hand and its not photography. its not like any of it matters anyways LOL
Not sure why I even respond... I should probably just leave them on ignore cause
I look at the people hurling the insults making a scene bout this stuff
they never show their work, they spout off all sorts of stuff that makes no sense and for all I know
they are 13 year old middle school gals pirating their neighbor's wifi ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know he's not a photographer. Perhaps you should talk to Drew. He used him as a straw man in his argument as he attempted to suggest that his work was inferior like Lik's work ... so inferior to Masters of photography that he puts on a pedestal and worships. Adding and and subtracting elements from photographs has been going on since 1839 when Talbot used pencil to retouch a paper calotype negative. Maybe you should learn a little bit about the history of photography and photographic practices and what has been part of photography from its invention before you make comments that adding and removing elements from a photograph isn't photography.

Are you also suggesting Yousuf Karsh is part of my group that is "not considered part of photography" ? Every portrait he made was retouched, just as I learned how to do with a graphite leads and a knife. Your definition of what photography is makes absolutely no sense.

If you are interested in furthering your photographic knowledge, about the history and practice of photography, using Light to Draw, here are some texts that are not very expensive and might be useful.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Photography-1839-Present/dp/0870703811
https://www.amazon.com/History-Phot...+of+photography&qid=1623425723&s=books&sr=1-5
https://www.amazon.com/World-Histor...of+photography&qid=1623425723&s=books&sr=1-11
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Alterna...ristopher+james&qid=1623425808&s=books&sr=1-1

Just because early photographers added and removed objects from photographs does not show nor prove that the practice is accepted in mainstream photography. The fact that you do that shows that you do not do work in photography, merely is photography to achieve your purposes, yet you are out of mainstream photography. I will commend you on your ability to attack those who have demonstrated superior knowledge with trivial and obscure cockamamie. Very well done. Of that you are among the stars.

 

[removed account4]

Just because early photographers added and removed objects from photographs does not show nor prove that the practice is accepted in mainstream photography. The fact that you do that shows that you do not do work in photography, merely is photography to achieve your purposes, yet you are out of mainstream photography. I will commend you on your ability to attack those who have demonstrated superior knowledge with trivial and obscure cockamamie. Very well done. Of that you are among the stars.

you mean they were photographers? you said adding and removing objects was not photography?
make up your mind. retouching has been part of mainstream photography since the beginning.
knowledge about the history of photography and photographic practices is obscure cockamamie ?
the books I put links to are not obscure but readily available and probably at your public library. they are
text books typically used to teach the history of photography since IDK the 1980s and might be an interesting read.

 

[BradS]

hey, how about that Palestinian situation?