Photographers "About" pages

Ko.Fe. said:

OP might not know it, but until recently, don't know if current regime closed it, you where allowed to claim photography as business and write off your expensive gear.
One guy in know was very surprised what I have not made tax return claims for business I don't have. In his community he told me back then, everyone did.

Click to expand...

people write off hobby expenses too..

so they don't claim thousands of dollars on gear+chemistry+paper+film every year and not make 10¢ .. basically claim a LOSS every year ..
claiming a business that doesn't exist looks fishy .

MattKing said:

....
I don't know whether this is universal, but up our way there is a fairly rigorous, time consuming and moderately expensive certification process that results in a "Master Gardener" designation for anyone who completes the requirements.

Click to expand...

That is also the case down here.

I don't see anything remotely pretentious about the term 'fine art', given that it is kind of a term definition to distinguish things from other fields, and as far as I'm aware has been well established in English for centuries.

It isn't "Art which is of high quality", but rather "A craft carried out with care", and historically divided artistic efforts made for the art itself, vs artistic efforts to enhance an otherwise functional object. The line can at times get a tad fuzzy, as it can be argued that a pot or cup that was only intended for display rather than use would then be a fine art piece rather than an applied art piece.

For my photography I tend to break my work down into fine art, documentary, and technical, with some overlap between the groups. If I go looking for a photographer to buy a print from to give as a gift, then I'll most likely start looking around local fine art photographers. If I need a lab assistant to photograph, document, and catalogue sample materials, then I'm not going to start that search on a fine art forum. Different skills, different tools, and different labels.


As for gear lists, I think that comes down to the photographer and the clients they're dealing with. I feel that if you're going after a lower end, but not bottom dollar, photographer market, then clients seem to want some reassurance that you're not just another Bob with a Camera, and that you have gear that you'll be bringing with you is better than they or their friends are likely have themselves. If I show up to a mid tier wedding with my old canon T3, and half the guests are using models half as old or newer, then I'm probably going to have a rather annoyed bride on my hands if anyone points it out to her. Perceptions are important. The lowest tier is paying bottom of the barrel rates, and seem more willing to accept what they get, and higher tier clients are more likely to focus on end results and artist connection/experience where the gear is largely a non-factor.

And lets face it, with modern digital photography there isn't a lot to differentiate the work of a lot of mild level photographers as there is a wide body of visually good but not overly distinct photographers out there. So, when Photographers A, B, and C are all producing near identical images for their site/blog, with similar rates, then why not pick the photographer who is showing off the higher end gear? It is frequently the only metric that is readily judged and easy to measure or make clear.

I don't photograph weddings at all to be honest, but I still get lots of people asking me about the gear I use as it is, especially if I have any of the film gear out. If I ever put together a site for my work then I expect I'll be including some sections dedicated to the gear I work with, and why I've chosen to work with it, simply because people find it interesting and like to know about it.

Maybe listing one's equipment can be used to exclude potential troublesome and superficial clients.

I know one young female photographer whose work is only weddings and she is booked solid nearly every week for over a year in advance. I've seen her work and it's stunning. Her camera? A Nikon D50, which is an "ancient" 6 megapixel camera from 2005. She will use only D50's and nothing else. She says she is completely familiar with it, has no need for anything newer, and they are easy to find at low prices.

"Can photography be reckoned among the fine arts?"

For those who follow photography back to its early roots, you will recognize this question posed by the art critic, Charles Caffin. It is the opening line of his book, Photography As A Fine Art, published in 1901. It is a good read, some of his conclusions being relevant today. For these he singled out photographers who later became the Photo Secession, namely Steichen, Stieglitz, Kasebier, and Clarence White. Caffin died in 1918, but the debate of photography as a fine art was well under way.

Growing up, I recall Ansel referring to what is now sometimes referred to as "fine art photography", to be "creative photography". That was his term. Later, in the 1960's, Ivan Dmitri directed a number of exhibitions under the title, Photography in the Fine Arts. The photographs were chosen by museum directors and displayed at the Metropolitan Museum in New York before going on tour. The exhibitions were well attended and got good press, elevating photography to its place in the fine arts and paving the the way for its stature among collectors the following decades. Interestingly, the photographers who participated, never considered themselves as "fine art photographers".
They were content being, "photographers". And, they were a very distinguished group!

Those who feel a need to need to cloak themselves in labels exhibit a lack of confidence imho.

Eric Rose said:

Those who feel a need to need to cloak themselves in labels exhibit a lack of confidence imho.

Click to expand...

Not every application of labels is a "cloak". Nothing wrong with being descriptive. There are lots of different kinds of photographers.

jnanian said:

...
claiming a business that doesn't exist looks fishy .

Click to expand...

This is why they creating web sites with gear listed, making business cards and so on. I was told to do this. I didn't; even if I have cards and site.

A number of years ago the late Lucien Clergue photographed a model in my back yard. He was using a Minolta x370 and a 35 or 50 mm lens shooting over (double exposures) film he had previously used to photograph paintings in museums. He had no notes and used the camera built in light meter, no tripod, was not concerned about the lighting since he had never been to our house before and had some system to get accurate registration of the frames. I doubt that those who collected/collect his photographs and books cared about the equipment he used and probably not the technique either. He carried his camera in one of those bags airlines and travel agents used to give away.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

ReginaldSMith said:

David....this is only a SUGGESTION. Most people write about themselves in the first person, and I think it is far nicer to read than when written in the third person. "I dig hotdogs" is a better read than "Reggie Smith digs hotdogs."

Click to expand...

Perhaps a valid point, however, my preference for third person probably comes from:

My background as a musician. Bios in program notes are (almost) always in third person. They are "about" John Doe, not "by" John Doe;
The main reason I have a bio is that they are needed by the faculty page where I teach (3rd person) and often when I speak or present elsewhere (also 3rd person); and
I can only write "I" so many times before I become self-conscious.

Not to derail the thread, but what do others think about first person vs. third?

David,
Good point. In academic realms bios are generally written in the third person. Probably because it is assumed that a person is a part of an institution, and therefore totally appropriate. When I looked at your site, I see your name directly under The title heading, and as a general reader happening on the site, I assume it is not an institution, but simply you.

Don't get me wrong. It wasn't a criticism. I liked what you wrote in the about page. Thinking about it now, I should not have even said anything! Sometimes the urge to regurge is hard to resist! My bad.

David Brown said:

Not to derail the thread, but what do others think about first person vs. third?

Click to expand...

always 3rd person ... about page is like a resume / CV which is always in the 3rd person

jnanian always talks in the 3rd person.

Ko.Fe. said:

This is why they creating web sites with gear listed, making business cards and so on. I was told to do this. I didn't; even if I have cards and site.

Click to expand...

jnanian believes it !
people are kind of funny aren't they ?

makes him wonder what they say when the blues brothers show up
and ask them for their business records, and what they have to show for their 10,000.00 /year expense
is a website, photographs of their cats, flowers, exotic location landscapes, exotic gear, receipts for
vision workshops and retreats, and screen shots of "follwers" on instagram and utoobe
... no sales receipts of work sold or services rendered ..
sounds like a nightmare to him.

maybe it works for them ?
ymmv

I prefer to let others write about me in the third person (not that anyone is likely to). I write about myself in the first person. I like avoiding any semblance of the royal "we".

I am a fine art photographer -- just a simple lable that generally identifies the type of work I do. The IRS thinks I am a professional artist because I usually write down more income (sales and workshops) than expenses on my tax return. I do not put down all my expences in order to show a positive income. I do not make enough via photography to live on, but enough to buy more film and cover some of my travel expenses.

"Master" (of any kind of skill set) is an earned lable...always suspecious when self-applied.

jnanian said:

always 3rd person ... about page is like a resume / CV which is always in the 3rd person

jnanian always talks in the 3rd person.


jnanian believes it !
people are kind of funny aren't they ?

makes him wonder what they say when the blues brothers show up
and ask them for their business records, and what they have to show for their 10,000.00 /year expense
is a website, photographs of their cats, flowers, exotic location landscapes, exotic gear, receipts for
vision workshops and retreats, and screen shots of "follwers" on instagram and utoobe
... no sales receipts of work sold or services rendered ..
sounds like a nightmare to him.

maybe it works for them ?
ymmv

Click to expand...

You were allowed to write off expenses for three years without showing any profit made. Not only gear cost, but part of your house, car, gasoline, prints and even food, toilet paper.
Writing book was also popular writing off tax scheme.

There is a difference between a business loss (deductible) and a hobby loss (non-deductible). It is a factual determination. Some people were disingenuous about one being the other. Taxes being a self-reporting system, some people cheat and get away with it, mocking the honest citizen. Others do the right thing. Ultimately, you have to live with yourself.

faberryman said:

...Taxes being a self-reporting system, some people cheat and get away with it, mocking the honest citizen. Others do the right thing. Ultimately, you have to live with yourself.

Click to expand...

People who cheat on their taxes are cheaters, plain and simple. It is unfortunate than many cheaters justify their actions by demonizing government and/or are proud of their cheating.

With my last name, it is really important to avoid using the "Royal We" .
Up here above the 49th parallel, losses incurred for the purpose of earning a future profit are generally deductible against other income. The reasonableness of incurring them is a question of fact. Three year rules are essentially rules of thumb - the tax authorities are more likely to challenge four years of losses than they are two.
As long as there isn't too much emphasis on the "fine" part, I have no problem with people using "fine art" as a description of the type of photography they do.

David Brown said:

Not to derail the thread, but what do others think about first person vs. third?

Click to expand...

For the two examples you give, I'd agree that use of the third person is entirely appropriate and expected.
On one's own personal website however, (mmmm, how to say this?) I strongly prefer to see the 'about me' written in the first person.

faberryman said:

There is a difference between a business loss (deductible) and a hobby loss (non-deductible). It is a factual determination. Some people were disingenuous about one being the other. Taxes being a self-reporting system, some people cheat and get away with it, mocking the honest citizen. Others do the right thing. Ultimately, you have to live with yourself.

Click to expand...

People have been "taught" that cheating on taxes is ok. The business world cheats relentlessly on the hypothesis that any chance of penalty is cheaper than than the savings they are generating. In short, it's a simple operational profit motive. The business press is loaded with these stories such as GE getting endless massive refunds each year and never paying taxes. And BTW, if you watch CNBC, these execs are proud of theior tax avoidance strategies, some of which are marginally lergal based on legal interpretations of complex laws, some of which are simply cheating. And when caught, there is usually just harmless fines. Joe Public often quickly figures this out: Every dollar business cheats the government out of, is a dollar that Joe Public will have to make up in his taxes. It's the result of systemic corruption. It flows steadily from top to bottom.

ReginaldSMith said:

People have been "taught" that cheating on taxes is ok. The business world cheats relentlessly on the hypothesis that any chance of penalty is cheaper than than the savings they are generating. In short, it's a simple operational profit motive. The business press is loaded with these stories such as GE getting endless massive refunds each year and never paying taxes. And BTW, if you watch CNBC, these execs are proud of theior tax avoidance strategies, some of which are marginally lergal based on legal interpretations of complex laws, some of which are simply cheating. And when caught, there is usually just harmless fines. Joe Public often quickly figures this out: Every dollar business cheats the government out of, is a dollar that Joe Public will have to make up in his taxes. It's the result of systemic corruption. It flows steadily from top to bottom.

Click to expand...

Most corporate tax avoidance schemes are legal; they have been bought and paid for though lobbying, and are a fixture in the tax code. And corporate tax attorneys earn good livings making sure corporations are in compliance. I hope you are not suggesting that individuals should cheat on their taxes because "everybody does it".

Eric Rose said:

Hey why don't you guys start your own tax thread. Get off my lawn!

Click to expand...

We were talking specifically about photographers cheating on their taxes and got sidelined about the rationalizations for doing so. Sorry for the diversion. Back to the off-topic discussion about photography as fine art.

Eric Rose said:

Hey why don't you guys start your own tax thread. Get off my lawn!

Click to expand...

Quite right. My apolgies, Eric!

Eric Rose said:

I have to laugh when I read a photographers "about" page and their major claim to fame is the endless list of equipment he uses. I can see mentioning the printing process as that might be of some value to those that collect a certain kind of print. But really who is going to buy your print because you use xyz lens or abc camera system.

Click to expand...

And I laugh when people think they own a thread...