The 100 most influential people in the photography industry

[Alex Benjamin]

From Blind Magazine:

https://www.blind-magazine.com/stories/the-100-most-influential-people-in-the-photography-industry/

A good list. But that there's no one from the film industry—Ilford being the obvious example—is a bit perplexing, to say the least.

Film is clearly their....blind spot (sorry about that). As is diversity.

And no, there's no one from Photrio.

 

[retina_restoration]

From Blind Magazine:

https://www.blind-magazine.com/stories/the-100-most-influential-people-in-the-photography-industry/

A good list. But that there's no one from the film industry—Ilford being the obvious example—is a bit perplexing, to say the least.

Film is clearly their....blind spot (sorry about that). As is diversity.

And no, there's no one from Photrio.

It’s a list of people who work in the industry of curating and presenting photography to the public, not the making of photographs - a list compiled by a magazine that is in the business of curating and presenting. It should come as no surprise that their list omits the people directly involved in the business of making photographs.
They’ve compiled a list that demonstrates the nature of the lens through which they see the industry of photography. No surprise there, imo.

 

[koraks]

But that there's no one from the film industry—Ilford being the obvious example

Ilford is not a person.

What's more interesting is that the list is presented as an ordered list, suggesting hierarchy, but that it's at the same time sectioned into a sectoral pattern. The implication is that 'Publishing & Editing' is deemed to be by definition the most influential. I doubt we should really interpret the list as such, but in any case it does emphasize the problem of criteria used for ranking - and the question whether a ranking is so feasible in the first place.

Overall, if you look who's on that list - and even more importantly, who's not on it, it's bleeding obvious that there's a massive bias underlying this compilation.

They’ve compiled a list that demonstrates the nature of the lens through which they see the industry of photography.

That's a nice way of putting it. The list as such says very little about the world of photography. It says a lot about Blind Magazine.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It’s a list of people who work in the industry of curating and presenting photography to the public, not the making of photographs

Well, I don't have access anymore — paywall just popped up —, but if memory serves me, they had someone from Adobe on there, and another person from the photo tech industry, so not just curating and presenting photography.

Ilford is not a person.

No kidding!

(I'm sure it was pretty clear that "someone from Ilford" was implied but that I didn't think necessary to state the obvious, but maybe I should next time...)

 

[Don_ih]

Ilford is not a person.

You're gonna hurt Ilford's feelings....

"Lists" have been a plague that just becomes worse as time passes and I hate to imagine how many AI-generated lists will pop up as on-the-fly webpages in the near future. Magazines should just stay away from lists.

As a further aside, someone need to apply a micro-payment scheme to individual items that exist behind all these paywalls. Who can pay subscriptions to all these newspapers and magazines? I'd pay the magazine a quarter to read an article.

 

[koraks]

(I'm sure it was pretty clear that "someone from Ilford" was implied but that I didn't think necessary to state the obvious, but maybe I should next time...)

My remark wasn't as vacuous as it may have seen. Placing the emphasis on people, the logical consequence when applying this to Ilford (actually Harman) would be that you'd have to pick a person from the organization and put them on the list. And it seems that there's just not that many people within Harman who have had any substantial media exposure and thus direct influence over the years.

Arguably, the same could be said perhaps for a company like Adobe (whose CEO is indeed on the list), but that company is probably just too big to avoid altogether. Let's not forget that as photography goes, film is a tiny niche, so that would sensibly cut back specific film-related places to the list to perhaps 1% or so, max. So there would be place for maybe one person on the list who is specifically film-associated. And in that case, I would argue that someone like ADOX' Mirko Bödecker or ex-Impossible/Polaroid's Florian Kaps are much more likely candidates. Or perhaps someone associated with Kodak, for that matter. Btw, also missing from the list are representatives from Canon, Nikon, Sony - companies with their strong foothold in the camera industry would arguably be even more entitled to a spot on the list to begin with.

So yeah, film is their blind spot. With good reason if you look at it rationally. Film is fun, but when it comes to how society at large interacts with the field of photography, it's pretty insignificant.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Good list if you want to find out who are the top contacts. If you want to sell your stuff

 

[koraks]

Very few people on that list would be potential clients or even buyers for photographers to sell their work to.

 

[retina_restoration]

My remark wasn't as vacuous as it may have seen. Placing the emphasis on people, the logical consequence when applying this to Ilford (actually Harman) would be that you'd have to pick a person from the organization and put them on the list. And it seems that there's just not that many people within Harman who have had any substantial media exposure and thus direct influence over the years.

Arguably, the same could be said perhaps for a company like Adobe (whose CEO is indeed on the list), but that company is probably just too big to avoid altogether. Let's not forget that as photography goes, film is a tiny niche, so that would sensibly cut back specific film-related places to the list to perhaps 1% or so, max. So there would be place for maybe one person on the list who is specifically film-associated. And in that case, I would argue that someone like ADOX' Mirko Bödecker or ex-Impossible/Polaroid's Florian Kaps are much more likely candidates. Or perhaps someone associated with Kodak, for that matter. Btw, also missing from the list are representatives from Canon, Nikon, Sony - companies with their strong foothold in the camera industry would arguably be even more entitled to a spot on the list to begin with.

So yeah, film is their blind spot. With good reason if you look at it rationally. Film is fun, but when it comes to how society at large interacts with the field of photography, it's pretty insignificant.

I totally expected Mirko Bödecker to be on that list somewhere, until I realized what that list actually was. If the list included film industry people, I would also have expected to see Maxim Grew included. And Nejc Urankar from Zebra.

 

[koraks]

We could compile a list of "100 most relevant people in analog and hybrid photography."

 

[retina_restoration]

We could compile a list of "100 most relevant people in analog and hybrid photography."

I think we should. I gave you three names to start

 

[FredK]

If the list does not have Dr. Jeff Hansen near the top, then the list is a faux. It would be obvious that those who created the list did not watch the "Smarter Every Day" series on how Kodak manufactures films if he did not make the list.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I went through the entire list. I am not familiar with anyone on that list, but I'm not surprised, nor do I care. If there were a list of 100 most influential people in the art industry, it would be the same...

 

[AERO]

Does it really matter???

 

[Tel]

Why does it not surprise me that we (the greater “we” rather than us here on Photrio) celebrate those who profit from the creative work of others rather than those who create?

 

[MattKing]

Why does it not surprise me that we (the greater “we” rather than us here on Photrio) celebrate those who profit from the creative work of others rather than those who create?

Perhaps because those others are the ones that, more often than not, make it possible for the creative people to actually make some money from what they do?
And if they are good, they often end up collaborating with and inspiring the creators.
Just ask any financially successful writer how important their editors and publishers are.

 

[koraks]

Why does it not surprise me that we (the greater “we” rather than us here on Photrio) celebrate those who profit from the creative work of others rather than those who create?

I'm not sure if 'we' do that. Andreas Gursky we know, but I bet virtually nobody knows Monika Sprüth.

As to this list - I think any given Photrian can rattle off a list of at least 15 well-known photographers. But they'd be hard pressed to list as many as two names on the top-100 linked to in #1.

 

[chuckroast]

From Blind Magazine:

https://www.blind-magazine.com/stories/the-100-most-influential-people-in-the-photography-industry/

A good list. But that there's no one from the film industry—Ilford being the obvious example—is a bit perplexing, to say the least.

Film is clearly their....blind spot (sorry about that). As is diversity.

And no, there's no one from Photrio.

Diversity is irrelevant. Outcomes are what matter.

Any list is going to the built in biases of the collator, but adding diversity as a goal unto itself just makes that bias even worse, albeit obvious.

 

[MattKing]

Photography is actually quite wondrous in its diversity - so much variety, so much celebration of a myriad of thoughts, experiences and perceptions.
Because of photography, we get to see the world through eyes that are very different than ours, and we are so much better for it.
If it wasn't for diversity, almost no one would care about photography. And if the influential people weren't diverse, we wouldn't care about what most of them contribute, because it would just mean more of the same.

 

[chuckroast]

Photography is actually quite wondrous in its diversity - so much variety, so much celebration of a myriad of thoughts, experiences and perceptions.
Because of photography, we get to see the world through eyes that are very different than ours, and we are so much better for it.
If it wasn't for diversity, almost no one would care about photography. And if the influential people weren't diverse, we wouldn't care about what most of them contribute, because it would just mean more of the same.

I have no quarrel with any of that. It is when diversity itself is made the prime purpose of the work - whether diversity of subject or of creators - that the work falters. I want to see the best possible work, and when we do, diversity is emergent rather than a concious intent glued onto the work.

 

[koraks]

I want to see the best possible work, and when we do, diversity is emergent rather than a concious intent glued onto the work.

Not always - and perhaps even 'always not'. the problem is in determining what's 'best', and that all too often boils down to some variant of "something we're kind of used to and that's not too far out of the box". Diversity helps in pushing the boundaries of that box. Diversity in itself is not a guarantee for quality, but limiting diversity is a hard guarantee of not getting optimal quality. This is true in virtually any social context.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Diversity is irrelevant. Outcomes are what matter.

Any list is going to the built in biases of the collator, but adding diversity as a goal unto itself just makes that bias even worse, albeit obvious.

Well gee, maybe people who add diversity aren't doing it "as a goal unto itself" but simply because there are also people who aren't white and aren't from either Europe or the US that matter, don't ya think ?

I'm not talking about the politics of diversity. I'm talking about opening one's eyes and seing beyond one's little corner of the world.

 

[chuckroast]

Not always - and perhaps even 'always not'. the problem is in determining what's 'best', and that all too often boils down to some variant of "something we're kind of used to and that's not too far out of the box". Diversity helps in pushing the boundaries of that box. Diversity in itself is not a guarantee for quality, but limiting diversity is a hard guarantee of not getting optimal quality. This is true in virtually any social context.

Limiting diversity and having enforced diversity are two sides of the same terrible coin. Both are acts of bias.

Diversity of thought, participation, and human output should be emergent consequences from striving for excellence and nothing more.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Limiting diversity and having enforced diversity are two sides of the same terrible coin.

OK, but nobody's talking about enforcing diversity. That's politics.

The choice is between limiting diversity and having diversity. Having diversity is looking out the window and seeing what's out there, instead of looking inside and just seeing people that look like you.

But since I'm one of the few — if not only — Black person here, maybe I shouldn't be commenting on this.

 

[MattKing]

OK, but nobody's talking about enforcing diversity. That's politics.

The choice is between limiting diversity and having diversity. Having diversity is looking out the window and seeing what's out there, instead of looking inside and just seeing people that look like you.

But since I'm one of the few — if not only — Black person here, maybe I shouldn't be commenting on this.

Comment away Alex - within reason.
I'm confident there are all sorts of people here who can provide a perspective that differs greatly from anything that some might consider to be a "norm".
Does being left handed count?