Photo careers in the 21st century?

[MurrayMinchin]

That was last century and I don't think he was well-known or did well financially for the first half of his career. Today, location has little to do with success or accessibility to locations. It is very much a question of being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people. A bit of talent can be an asset, but it is not a requirement from what I've seen. Social media savvy helps, too.

As always, little is black and white...too many shades of grey.

I'll flesh it out a bit.

It helps to have had generations of millions of people per year taking holidays in the area you photograph. It also helps to be from a country where there are public service announcements on the radio about who to contact to find the nearest forest to where you live. So, if you live and work somewhere where Nature isn't easily accessible, shelling out some serious money on a fine B&W image which represents something that brings back cherished memories from a distant place hanging in your office or home becomes plausible.

If where you live and work is surrounded by nearby, accessible, easily found wilderness, me-thinks a photographer who works in the mountain park you holiday at, which sees 50 thousand visitors per year, has less of a chance at selling enough prints to attract the level of attention which could reach 'fame' level.

That's what I meant by location counts.

Not saying the photographer from the obscure park couldn't get famous, especially in this modern world, just saying it would be harder.

 

[Pieter12]

As always, little is black and white...too many shades of grey.

I'll flesh it out a bit.

It helps to have had generations of millions of people per year taking holidays in the area you photograph. It also helps to be from a country where there are public service announcements on the radio about who to contact to find the nearest forest to where you live. So, if you live and work somewhere where Nature isn't easily accessible, shelling out some serious money on a fine B&W image which represents something that brings back cherished memories from a distant place hanging in your office or home becomes plausible.

If where you live and work is surrounded by nearby, accessible, easily found wilderness, me-thinks a photographer who works in the mountain park you holiday at, which sees 50 thousand visitors per year, has less of a chance at selling enough prints to attract the level of attention which could reach 'fame' level.

That's what I meant by location counts.

Not saying the photographer from the obscure park couldn't get famous, especially in this modern world, just saying it would be harder.

And how many photographs (that you have purchased, and not postcards) of parks and places you've visited hang prominently on your walls? Yes, there are many "local" photographers who produce fine work that hangs in galleries and coffee shops near places of natural beauty, but it does not often lead to a viable career in photography as the title of this thread alludes to. There is probably more money (pennies, really) in stock photography of these places. On the other hand, many photographers regularly visit places such as Death Valley or the Galapagos and other photogenic places far from where they reside to make photos they later (try to) sell.

Adam's career started by having a patron for several years and later a book to raise money and awareness for the Sierra club. People who buy Ansel Adams prints are not looking for a souvenir, rather they connected with the image and/or are collecting and investing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

AA married the daughter of the guy who owned the gift shop in Yos Valley. But his work sure didn't sell for much in that venue back then. Before he was well into old age, he made most of his income as a commercial photographer, and then later, due to the rapid rise in Polaroid stock which he earned in exchange for testing their film early on. But a lot of his best work wasn't even taken in Yosemite. I grew up right across the river from there, and had property there until recently, and have shot and printed large format for the past forty years, but never took more than six shots in Yosemite Valley itself. I once shared a big retrospective with AA's prints; but can't recall a single print in that venue from either of us taken in Yos Valley itself. But yes, for much of my life I have been surrounded by wilderness, meaning places that might not see six people in a decade, or even in a century! And yes, I've been in some of the overall Yosemite Park boundary backcountry, last time just a few years ago, when I didn't see another person for an entire week of a two-week backpacking trip, or even any signs of human presence except for obsidian flakes from ancient bighorn sheep hunters. But all that in turn is bounded by even more serious wilderness to the south. Just like most areas, 98% of the people go to just 2% of the places. ... So yes indeed, please do crowd the same "scenic overlook" as six tour buses at a time, cause that will leave other places more pristine for people like me!

 

[Down Under]

Only a very few will succeed in the dog-eat-dog (mostly amateurs consuming professionals) world of commercial photography in 2021. This is the harsh truth of life in business in the real world. The writing has been big, bold and loud on billboards everywhere since 2006 when the flood of online digicrap by amateurs who had $10,000 worth of camera kits and desperately wanted to be noticed even to the point of giving away their quite adequate work, hit the market. Nothing in 'pro' photography has been the same since.

A few wedding pros do well but mostly by linking with other establishments in the field and often as not paying kickbacks. Landscapes never, ever sell. One now and then, yes. For pocket money. Everybody shoots them (I sure as hell do), even with phone cameras.

The days of amateurs having their work printed up big and selling through exhibitions are long gone. Being retired, I travel around a it in Australia and I always drop in on small town exhibitions, usually sponsored by business clubs or municipalities for the purpose of keeping the local folks occupied. Very little of anything on the walls ever sells. I listen to people's comments and I always hear the same (depressing) remarks - "you could take photos like this" (usually from a wife/girlfriend to her partner) or more often, "it doesn't suit our decor".

Negative? Maybe. I think not. Depressing, yes. But we have to accept that the good times in professional photography were mortally damaged from about 2003-2004 when the flow of online digicrap by by amateurs with $20,000 camera kits desperate for attention after having swallowed the makers' marketing guff of "you buy our gear, you too can be a pro" turned into a deluge. Sad but true.

Much of what is going on today in the real world out there is depressing. Photography is no exception.

 

[urnem57]

Dry plates killed it. Celluloid film base killed it. Roll film killed it. Autofocus killed it. Digital cameras killed it. Photoshop killed it. Cell phones killed it. Instagram killed it. Now AI software is killing it. Photography as a business is dead. Long live the photography business.

 

[removed account4]

But we have to accept that the good times in professional photography were mortally damaged from about 2003-2004 when the flow of online digicrap by by amateurs with $20,000 camera kits desperate for attention after having swallowed the makers' marketing guff of "you buy our gear, you too can be a pro" turned into a deluge. Sad but true.

noting is new, this has been going on for 130 years.

 

[Pieter12]

For me, the advent of quality stock photography is when the business started to decline. Stock photography had been cheesy, cliché images that only the most desperate clients would use. Suddenly, instead of commissioning a pro to photograph a couple on a bicycle ride in an idyllic countryside, there were hundreds of beautiful shots to choose from at 1/10th the price and no commitment. Clients loved it because they could actually see the photo before spending gobs of money. Nothing left to chance--weather day, lighting, etc. No travel expenses to exotic locations for a scenic shot. After a few years, stock agencies even waived or cut research fees. Many pros, faced with declining assignment income, started shooting stock images for pennies compared to what they had made previously. Photographers set up the shoot, traveled to locations, hired models and crew, all on their own dime, all for the chance at the meager income from a stock photo. Of course, products and personality photos had to be commissioned, but the writing was on the wall. And then came computers, the internet, and a glut of digital photography. Crash!

 

[wiltw]

I believe there used to be a GREATER LEVEL of SKILL involved in photography.

• Pros understood Guide Numbers, and color temperature vs. film emulsion to use, and could rapidly shoot at events without focusing with a rangefinder or relying upon autoflash
• Pros often understood what took place in the darkroom and manual manipulation of photos and retouching of negatives (even if someone else did the work).
• Pros understood that there was not 'one solution' to the issue of correcting fluorescent lighting
• Pros understood portrait lighting and posing, a mostly lost art to today's amateurs-turned-'pro', who can 'illuminate' but do not understand how to flatter the presentation of a portrait sitter

...the technology of today's equipment allows so many to successfully shoot without understanding all of the aforementioned topics. Few understand the use of a Guide Number, or have any idea of how posing can flatter a face or slenderize a body, or make even the hand look more attractive.
Only 25 years ago,so many photographers understood the value of a flash bracket which kept the flashhead high above the lens axis, and would select brackets that did that well..almost no one uses flash brackets today or ever asks about selection criteria!

Similar 'dumbing down' has taken place in driving...so many have no idea about selecting the best gear for different circumstances, so many have no idea there is even such a thing as 'proper oil level'.

The 'craft' in photography and driving are both increasingly lost knowledge.

 

[Pieter12]

I believe there used to be a GREATER LEVEL of SKILL involved in photography.

• Pros understood Guide Numbers, and color temperature vs. film emulsion to use, and could rapidly shoot at events without focusing with a rangefinder or relying upon autoflash
• Pros often understood what took place in the darkroom and manual manipulation of photos and retouching of negatives (even if someone else did the work).
• Pros understood that there was not 'one solution' to the issue of correcting fluorescent lighting
• Pros understood portrait lighting and posing, a mostly lost art to today's amateurs-turned-'pro', who can 'illuminate' but do not understand how to flatter the presentation of a portrait sitter

...the technology of today's equipment allows so many to successfully shoot without understanding all of the aforementioned topics. Few understand the use of a Guide Number, or have any idea of how posing can flatter a face or slenderize a body, or make even the hand look more attractive.
Only 25 years ago,so many photographers understood the value of a flash bracket which kept the flashhead high above the lens axis, and would select brackets that did that well..almost no one uses flash brackets today or ever asks about selection criteria!

Similar 'dumbing down' has taken place in driving...so many have no idea about selecting the best gear for different circumstances, so many have no idea there is even such a thing as 'proper oil level'.

The 'craft' in photography and driving are both increasingly lost knowledge.

The fact is what matters is the final product, not the process. Who cares if the photographer knows anything about guide numbers, color temperature or any of the things mentioned above. The final photo is what is important. Many pros who work today (and in the recent past) are not experts about the technology they use--digital or analog--they hire specialized assistants for that. If the result is a stunning photo, everyone is pleased.

 

[foc]

Pros understood that there was not 'one solution' to the issue of correcting fluorescent lighting

Fuji Reala.

 

[Pieter12]

Pros understood that there was not 'one solution' to the issue of correcting fluorescent lighting

In many areas now, T12 fluorescent tubes are being phased out, plus most pros today don't shoot film...color temperature is easily corrected for in RAW files...

 

[wiltw]

The fact is what matters is the final product, not the process. Who cares if the photographer knows anything about guide numbers, color temperature or any of the things mentioned above. The final photo is what is important. Many pros who work today (and in the recent past) are not experts about the technology they use--digital or analog--they hire specialized assistants for that. If the result is a stunning photo, everyone is pleased.

IOW, "I don't know about that, and I do not need to know about that any more", says the guy with the perfectly engined supercar who seizes the engine because the idiot light did not light, and he did not ever check the oil. BTW my best man's son did exactly that, about 20 years ago!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Anyone who thinks all color issues can be corrected after the fact in PS doesn't have much of an understanding of the issues with color film and lighting in the first place. Garbage in, garbage out, even if you have a fancy trash compactor. "All that counts is the final photo"..... yeah, no wonder so much of that kind of mentality ends up looking so hokey.

 

[Pieter12]

Anyone who thinks all color issues can be corrected after the fact in PS doesn't have much of an understanding of the issues with color film and lighting in the first place. Garbage in, garbage out, even if you have a fancy trash compactor. "All that counts is the final photo"..... yeah, no wonder so much of that kind of mentality ends up looking so hokey.

But whatever you do, whether it is filters for the lens or over the light source, or in post (either analog or digital) is IS the final image that counts. And if it looks hokey, you've failed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Color involves the specific distribution of the spectrum, not just the nominal color temperature. Some light sources are hell to deal with. Much of the junky e-lighting encountered today is every bit as miserable with respect to a discontinuous spectrum as early cool white fluorescent tubes. In that respect, digital photography might think it can forget all the lessons of previous pro photographers, but it can't without a significant qualitative penalty. Putting Band-Aids and layer after layer of duct tape over a squirrelly shot using PS layers themselves is an awfully convoluted way to attempt to mop up the mess. That's why every really good digital photographer or printmaker I know was darn good with real color film and printing paper first.

 

[Down Under]

An interesting aside.

Back in the 1980s, a commercial photographer I had some dealings with, gave me one bit of advice I have always remembered.

As he told me, "professionals have the right gear, turn up on time, work quietly, bill the client after the work - and always get their exposures right. Amateurs use cheap gear, always talk big, want the fee upfront, often turn up late - and almost always underexpose everything."

In my several careers I have found this to be true about 80% of the time. To sum this up with an oft-quoted disclaimer, "just sayin...'"

 

[Pieter12]

Color involves the specific distribution of the spectrum, not just the nominal color temperature. Some light sources are hell to deal with. Much of the junky e-lighting encountered today is every bit as miserable with respect to a discontinuous spectrum as early cool white fluorescent tubes. In that respect, digital photography might think it can forget all the lessons of previous pro photographers, but it can't without a significant qualitative penalty. Putting Band-Aids and layer after layer of duct tape over a squirrelly shot using PS layers themselves is an awfully convoluted way to attempt to mop up the mess. That's why every really good digital photographer or printmaker I know was darn good with real color film and printing paper first.

One of the reasons I only shoot black and white. But you do agree. The issue is not digital, it is the lighting. Bad light=bad photo, no matter what the medium.

 

[removed account4]

In my several careers I have found this to be true about 80% of the time. To sum this up with an oft-quoted disclaimer, "just sayin...'"

yea. this is true what you have said, but there are exceptions to every rule ( as you have so eloquently stated ).. I know of plenty of pros who do not act professionally ( what you have described is professional demeanor ) but have done all sorts of things that are rather unbecoming.
I don't think it has ever been easy to be a photographer, except for in the 1840s as a daguerreotypist, and the hard part was not being poisoned by mercury.

 

[DREW WILEY]

At one time, plenty of studios were trying to compete with one another by going deep into debt for redundant amenities, or the newest and very most expensive equipment, hence themselves in obligated to painfully pay off equipment and sustain service contracts on it. A recipe for inevitable financial disaster.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Location, location, location also applies. Would Ansel have been as famous if he lived and photographed in a mountain park that didn't have over 1,000,000 visitors each summer?

Yes, and even while he is dead, he has done better than any of us will.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Yes, and even while he is dead, he has done better than any of us will.

This is all porch whittling stuff, but I'm not so sure he would have reached the level of fame he did without a 'ready made audience' familiar with his subject matter, who get all warm and fuzzy over past Yosemite visits. Not saying this was the sole reason, just a contributing factor whereby momentum from those print sales gave him a leg up.

Marketing was good as well, like saying no new prints made after a certain retirement date resulting in his making the cover of Time.

...he has done better than any of us will...

...is a weird comment. It can be argued the most profound work of art to ever be put on a wall was the first person to spit/spray red ochre over their spread hand on a cave wall. There will be many who do as well or "better"...in their own way!

 

[removed account4]

Yes, and even while he is dead, he has done better than any of us will.

which work do you mean his commercial calendar and poster art ? his portraits ? his color work ?

how does one define "done better than any of us". selling a single photograph for 10,000$ or 4 million? having posters and calendars of work sold world wide ?
or the countless forgotten people who documented the daily lives or special moments had with friends and family or someone with IDK 1.8million "likes" on instagram?

 

[Mike Lopez]

Yes, and even while he is dead, he has done better than any of us will.

Careful...your myopia is showing again.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Stereotypes. AA mainly lived and worked in San Francisco as a commercial photographer, then later on elsewhere; but Yosemite was just intermittent, depending on circumstances. Besides, that's just a tiny slice of the greater Sierra Nevada; and he took lots of shots of the high country when leading early Sierra Club convoys on horseback up there (which we locals referred to as an invasion "hooved locusts" because so many horses and people were involved at a time, just like John Muir criticized sprawling sheep herds earlier). He also traveled widely in relation to the budding Natl Parks expansion; and that's why a particular generation of Americans regard his images as almost synonymous with the nostalgia they hold for that same era with its new Interstate highway system, with many many families traveling every summer to car camp in various national parks. John Burns' excellent PBS series on the National Parks tells the story well. I too remember all that, right down to the foolish feeding of garbage to bears by rangers in front of tourists in grandstands each evening. But I'm much more attached to the Parks which are predominantly wilderness, like Kings Canyon, which was almost literally my back yard growing up, and which AA's imagery was highly influential in establishing in the first place.

So there are all kinds of cultural implications involved with respect to AA's work, and not just the pictorial skills per se. But no, I'm not a clone of his, and have my own style, or range of styles. And don't confuse current marketing success in the present with what life was like back then, when AA's prints sold for comparatively little; or long before, when Van Gogh couldn't sell a single painting except to his own brother. Even fame as an artist doesn't necessarily equate into financial success. Yet quite a few artistic zeros have become excellent marketers and art "investment" con men.

 

[removed account4]

Stereotypes

what stereotypes are you referring to.. the idea that no one will have ever done better than AA ?

or his commercial work (it was all commercial work)