The comeback?

Berkeley Mike · Jun 22, 2019

It is in this context that we are all trying to appreciate the present and future of analogue processes. An old Kodak agent once told me that 80-85% of the film used at its peak were by Mom/Dad/Sis/Bubba/Aunt Betty capturing Kodak Moments, so-to-speak. So who's left using film; who are the keepers of the flame? What does that say about the future of analogue? Does criticism of images, as compared to just having fun, support or inhibit analogue?

jamesaz · Jun 23, 2019

Mike, I'm curious as to what types of jobs/careers in photography your students hope to find? Is there an industry to work in? Please don't think I'm being negative as I'm serious. I've not been involved in the commercial photography business since retiring from it several years ago. I do know from some photo friends that the work landscape has changed dramatically and the monetary value of having photographic skills has been lessened. Perhaps it's not a stand alone profession any longer but only a complement to something else.
Of course film will never be sold or used in the quantity it was 20 or 30 years ago but there was a time when wet plate photography was declared to signal the demise of painting and before that painting on canvas instead of walls was scorned. All survived.
A personal note, I don't do much digital photography now (though equipped to do so) for a couple of reasons. My backup hd died. (Yes, I know multiple back ups in different places and all that but it doesn't matter after the fact, est cost of retrieval $700.) and just this past week my 24-70 f2.8l got a repair estimate of $400 as it would not talk or shake hands with the body. So from where I stand, film and film cameras are way cheaper. If I didn't have my own darkroom though, I'd probably reconsider.
All that said and to answer your questions somewhat, I guess I'm sort of typical of the past, present and (I hope for a good while longer) future of analog, exploring a medium to see what I can make with it. And critiquing has been a part of photography at least as long as I've been involved in it and well before. It still is. Has it not been put forth in this discussion that checking a histogram is the same as putting a negative on a light box? I think technique is important and it's possible that some of us oldsters fail to see how logarithms allow for that development. Neural pathways and such perhaps.

Berkeley Mike · Jun 23, 2019

jamesaz said:
Mike, I'm curious as to what types of jobs/careers in photography your students hope to find? Is there an industry to work in? Please don't think I'm being negative as I'm serious. I've not been involved in the commercial photography business since retiring from it several years ago. I do know from some photo friends that the work landscape has changed dramatically and the monetary value of having photographic skills has been lessened. Perhaps it's not a stand alone profession any longer but only a complement to something else.
Of course film will never be sold or used in the quantity it was 20 or 30 years ago but there was a time when wet plate photography was declared to signal the demise of painting and before that painting on canvas instead of walls was scorned. All survived.
A personal note, I don't do much digital photography now (though equipped to do so) for a couple of reasons. My backup hd died. (Yes, I know multiple back ups in different places and all that but it doesn't matter after the fact, est cost of retrieval $700.) and just this past week my 24-70 f2.8l got a repair estimate of $400 as it would not talk or shake hands with the body. So from where I stand, film and film cameras are way cheaper. If I didn't have my own darkroom though, I'd probably reconsider.
All that said and to answer your questions somewhat, I guess I'm sort of typical of the past, present and (I hope for a good while longer) future of analog, exploring a medium to see what I can make with it. And critiquing has been a part of photography at least as long as I've been involved in it and well before. It still is. Has it not been put forth in this discussion that checking a histogram is the same as putting a negative on a light box? I think technique is important and it's possible that some of us oldsters fail to see how logarithms allow for that development. Neural pathways and such perhaps.

Jobs? Yeah. Back in the day I got jobs pounding the pavement and surfing the Yellow Pages. There were a certain number of jobs at studios with Levi, Emporium, Macy's, Sharper Image, then stuff with Smith's I Magnin, J Magnin, Aca Joe, Target, Mervin's that we brought into the studio...but mostly it was a matter of finding clients who needed photo episodically and maintaining relationships. Agencies were like that. Not 9-5 jobs though. So what else is new?

Our degree is not purposed to attract employment, though it can do that. In a very real sense it simply gives students and faculty a designed focus; first this, then that, so-to-speak. Now? We are developing CIS, still plying places like Levi, Auction houses, School Photography concerns, online catalogues and "personal services" like events, weddings and such.

Actual these sorts of jobs paid about $1500/day in the 80s. Magazine/periodical was way less. that said, fees n those areas have not increased to this day, so it is a sum total loss. And now, with the advent of phone cameras and entrepreneurs who can establish themselves online, acceptable quality has gone down and "real" photographers are not seen as necessary.

jamesaz · Jun 23, 2019

Are the students aware of the dismal employment landscape prior to entering the program? What do they give as reasons for taking your classes? Is there a possible tie in with, say medical imaging or some other such application where basic digital imaging, as opposed to commercial photography, is helpful? Again, just curious. Thanks.

P.S. $1500/2000 a day plus expenses so lab/film/studio costs, would be inflated first 10-15% by the photographer then another 20% by the ad agency as I recall. I for certain remember that it could take a long time to get paid though.

Berkeley Mike · Jun 24, 2019

The program has suffered from a lack of vision and commercial experience by leadership since 2002. It has been undermined in both Pro and Digital orientation.

It had been mired in some general photographic mission offering Photojournalism, Art & Design, BW & /color processes, "Pro" level skills, and special projects within those parameters. It failed to evolve and, when it did finally allow Intro to Digital in 2009 (after tabling the digital class for 2 years) it was only 1 section against 6 Analogue classes. In 2010, leadership actively delayed the purchase of and blocked the installation of iMac computers.

As old friends, the most senior Instructor and the FT Chair were former military photographers (read: institutional), had no sense of what it took to succeed out in the real world as pro photographers. The "Pro" program existed in name but not in fact. Classes had few sequential connections and little continuity and a nodding reference to a real pro culture in all of it factions. As such, the identity of the department was vague and diffused, instructors balkanized and working at cross purposes with a regressive cadre in control. While our former FT Chair retired as I took the Chair, the regressive cohort still has strength and confound efforts to move forward to this day. The student body one attracts with such a disposition, therefore, has been extremely diverse in its motivations.

There is a curious trepidation for our students to see themselves as potential pros. Personally understanding that, for those, I simply lead them into being better shooters. As we advance and small commercial opportunities avail themselves from student community interaction, properly proportioned instructor references, and opportunities brought to the department, the more aggressive and confident may start to take up jobs. Some have no interest in working at all. At the same time, shooters who have a variety of levels of commercial experience come to us to enrich their shooting skills and engage our individual counsel to manage commercial behaviors.

So, do they understand the job situation? What does that even mean to our students? As these aspirants come to us with so many different motivations, perhaps yes, perhaps no. Going forward, that will depend upon the department's ability to properly create, develop, and implement a "Pro" program.

I have been working to move us forward as chair 2015-2017, prominent successful instructor 2017-2019, and now, as we finally shed a non-pro and poorly performing MFA instructor, chair again. It is the reason I am so acutely oriented to resistance to moving forward and developing.

PS. Inflated? No; marked up.

jtk · Jun 24, 2019

I never had trouble with payments after I stopped dealing with architects: architects believe they are superior to photographers therefore don't mind dragging their feet.

I occasionally dealt with art directors of minor advertising agencies because I believed they had potential...but we always discussed my payment expectations in advance...mutually respectful. No doubts ever with big agencies (e.g. Young & Rubicam). I intentionally priced my work mid-market San Francisco, shot several days of every week through the 70s.

Often used food stylists and other stylists who always billed on their own (I think that was the norm). That was always approved in advance by client When unique retouching was required that was approved by client and retouch artist billed on their own.

Times have changed bigtime, but I know several mostly commercial photographers in my little city who are buying houses with their very fine DSLR work. They aren't hurt by "dismal employment landscape".

"employment" has always been a very small source of work for successful photographers. Successful photographers have always mostly worked for themselves.

Berkeley Mike · Jun 24, 2019

jtk said:
I never had trouble with payments after I stopped dealing with architects: architects believe they are superior to photographers therefore don't mind dragging their feet.

I occasionally dealt with art directors of minor advertising agencies because I believed they had potential...but we always discussed my payment expectations in advance...mutually respectful. No doubts ever with big agencies (e.g. Young & Rubicam). I intentionally priced my work mid-market San Francisco, shot several days of every week through the 70s.

Often used food stylists and other stylists who always billed on their own (I think that was the norm). That was always approved in advance by client When unique retouching was required that was approved by client and retouch artist billed on their own.

Times have changed bigtime, but I know several mostly commercial photographers in my little city who are buying houses with their very fine DSLR work. They aren't hurt by "dismal employment landscape".

"employment" has always been a very small source of work for successful photographers. Successful photographers have always mostly worked for themselves.

Word.

jamesaz · Jun 24, 2019

At one point, the photographic industry had room for a lot of people to find livable wage jobs to work on their craft. There was a lot of room between say, Dean Collins and the guy going door to door with a pony, not to mention the industrial jobs in support of manufacturing. And I totally get that owning the means of production now means having a dslr and an internet connection. I had a plumber come do some work at my house and he was showing me on his phone some photos his wife took. Told me she had a show at a gallery in Indio or some place. (Her aunt owned a Hallmark store there. That was the gallery) The photos were not to my taste but that doesn't matter. What mattered, to me at least, was that she didn't seem to know how to light anything. My opinion only, she could have used some time well spent in an environment where she learned of more possibilities in both shooting and post processing under the direction of someone who would teach her how to get a satisfactory product (before she started losing money.)

Getting back to the premise of the thread: I see some anecdotal evidence of analog photography evolving into being accepted as another medium for artistic expression, on a par with ceramics, sculpture, drawing and painting, instead of the redheaded stepchild of the art world that it has been.

After all, It's not the medium that matters as much as what one does with it.

jtk · Jun 25, 2019

I see some anecdotal evidence of analog photography evolving into being accepted as another medium for artistic expression said:
That is a sweet, wistful thought.

Reality bites: the "art world" sees no technical or aesthetic justification for film in contemporary photography, and has no bias against digital printing.
Of course, that's just my understanding, based on what I see in galleries and museums.

However...it would be good if you'd share your "evidence" about "evolution" of analog photography.

rayonline_nz · Jun 26, 2019

BMbikerider said:
Even 20 years ago when floppy discs were all the rage, how many computers now can read a floppy disc?

How many people still have machines to play a VCR tape and while audio cassette tapes are available many of the affordable ones are lower quality or else they would bit more expensive. Tape media can also fade over time ...

moose10101 said:
$3 per shot? Do you mean "per exposure" or "per print"?

You're exaggerating all of the expenses:

Most people who can afford to be a photographer already have a computer that they use for other things. Worst case, they'd have to add a bigger disk drive and backup drive (total < $200)

Editing software is inexpensive.

Camera and lenses are much less expensive (50-80% less), adjusted for inflation, than film gear was.

There's absolutely no need to "constantly update it all"; that's just another myth.

Printer, ink, and paper are no more expensive than enlarger, chemicals, and paper.

Yep many people already have computers. FWIW. From 2006 I got my Epson scanner and then soon after a second hand Nikon scanner for 35mm format. From 2006 I got a second hand Nikon F100 and a FM2N. From 2017 I got a second hand RB67 (2 lens) and a Hasselblad 500 (1 lens). Add the film and lab costs and cost re: b/w chemistry for home DIY. The developing tanks and measuring cylinders, thermometers I was fortunately to be given to me at my camera club. Just related to my film (photography) expenditure I spent $5,000US.

Very few people at my club shoots film. They might go out and shoot film 2 or 3x a year kinda thing. There is one old timer there who does only b/w film and doesn't own a digital camera himself but his wife does. No one I know still shoots slides, well considering our film cost here in NZ cost over 2x to the USA per roll and the labs are 2x for E6 development.

I have a few rolls of slides left and I use a USA lab I import my film and I export them to the USA for development. Perhaps other than the occasional time I'll probably be leaving slide film.

warden · Jun 26, 2019

rayonline_nz said:
How many people still have machines to play a VCR tape and while audio cassette tapes are available many of the affordable ones are lower quality or else they would bit more expensive. Tape media can also fade over time ...

Yep many people already have computers. FWIW. From 2006 I got my Epson scanner and then soon after a second hand Nikon scanner for 35mm format. From 2006 I got a second hand Nikon F100 and a FM2N. From 2017 I got a second hand RB67 (2 lens) and a Hasselblad 500 (1 lens). Add the film and lab costs and cost re: b/w chemistry for home DIY. The developing tanks and measuring cylinders, thermometers I was fortunately to be given to me at my camera club. Just related to my film expenditure I spent $5,000US.

Very few people at my club shoots film. They might go out and shoot film 2 or 3x a year kinda thing. There is one old timer there who does only b/w film and doesn't own a digital camera himself but his wife does. No one I know still shoots slides, well considering our film cost here in NZ cost over 2x to the USA per roll and the labs are 2x for E6 development.

I have a few rolls of slides left and I use a USA lab I import my film and I export them to the USA for development. Perhaps other than the occasional time I'll probably be leaving slide film.

Considering your location and price, I don't think anyone would blame you for abandoning slide film, or film in general.

rayonline_nz · Jun 26, 2019

jawarden said:
Considering your location and price, I don't think anyone would blame you for abandoning slide film, or film in general.

Black and white powder packs and esp liquids even if they are allowed to be imported they weigh a bit so costly postal. The stores like Freestyle and B/H you guys even with b/w chemistry are half the price to us. Fortunately these 2 stores charge a modest $10US for 10-15 rolls of film delivery. Adorama instead charges the usual $36US (minimum ie even for 1 roll of film). E6 chemistry are not available to be exported outside the USA due to courier policies. Germanyc can but v expensive, plus they only ship 4x a year.

Berkeley Mike · Jun 27, 2019

Psssst...hey....Kiwi...over here. I got some of the good stuff...D-76....just 20% over the American price. We smuggle it into Christchurch. Yeah, it's rebagged but it's the same stuff. Tell your friends.

jamesaz · Jun 28, 2019

I don't know if this example qualifies as evidence but I have a neighbor who sells photography through a reputable gallery in Scottsdale, among other places. She gets a higher price for her hand printed silver prints than digitally printed prints. Same image, same size. She refers to them as "original prints", the supposition being the digital prints are copies of the silver prints. It would seem there is some sort of market, however small, for photos that are done start to finish by one persons hand.
The time she used to spend in the darkroom is now spent marketing on social media and the digital prints are done on demand. I know a painter in Taos who does the same. Original paintings sell for a few thousand and glicee prints are sold for a couple hundred. I doubt they are the only people following this path.

Berkeley Mike · Jun 28, 2019

jamesaz said:
I don't know if this example qualifies as evidence but I have a neighbor who sells photography through a reputable gallery in Scottsdale, among other places. She gets a higher price for her hand printed silver prints than digitally printed prints. Same image, same size. She refers to them as "original prints", the supposition being the digital prints are copies of the silver prints. It would seem there is some sort of market, however small, for photos that are done start to finish by one persons hand.
The time she used to spend in the darkroom is now spent marketing on social media and the digital prints are done on demand. I know a painter in Taos who does the same. Original paintings sell for a few thousand and glicee prints are sold for a couple hundred. I doubt they are the only people following this path.

This speaks more broadly to markets than a prevalence of silver over glicee. Galleries used to rely on foot traffic and catalogues. I shot lots of that stuff. Direct contact with the client by photographers used to be the norm along with portfolios and source books (remember the Blackbook?) The internet has changed all of that. It has put the possibility of control of marketing into the hands of the shooter creating a new market for photos.

faberryman · Jun 28, 2019

jamesaz said:
She refers to them as "original prints", the supposition being the digital prints are copies of the silver prints. It would seem there is some sort of market, however small, for photos that are done start to finish by one persons hand.

I am not sure what an "original print" is. You can knock out gelatin silver prints by the dozens too. Presumably she's editioning both her gelatin silver and inkjet prints.

jamesaz · Jun 28, 2019

faberryman said:
I am not sure what an "original print" is. You can knock out gelatin silver prints by the dozens too. Presumably she's editioning both her gelatin silver and inkjet prints.

The concept is like you can go to a jazz club and hear live music or you can listen to a recording. The recording is the same every time, nothing wrong with that of course, but the same song played live by the same musicians will be reinterpreted every gig. (Also, the musicians make a greater percentage from the door than from recordings.) My guess is, and we have never discussed it, that an original print is the few she's happy with from the darkroom before scanning and applying the profiles from the place that makes her prints. Anyway, if it's working for her I say "good"

warden · Jun 29, 2019

jamesaz said:
The concept is like you can go to a jazz club and hear live music or you can listen to a recording. The recording is the same every time, nothing wrong with that of course, but the same song played live by the same musicians will be reinterpreted every gig. (Also, the musicians make a greater percentage from the door than from recordings.) My guess is, and we have never discussed it, that an original print is the few she's happy with from the darkroom before scanning and applying the profiles from the place that makes her prints. Anyway, if it's working for her I say "good"

Hallelujah

jtk · Jul 3, 2019

jamesaz said:
The concept is like you can go to a jazz club and hear live music or you can listen to a recording. The recording is the same every time, nothing wrong with that of course, but the same song played live by the same musicians will be reinterpreted every gig. (Also, the musicians make a greater percentage from the door than from recordings.) My guess is, and we have never discussed it, that an original print is the few she's happy with from the darkroom before scanning and applying the profiles from the place that makes her prints. Anyway, if it's working for her I say "good"

jtk · Jul 3, 2019

Sometimes darkroom printers, to hype price, cite the print number and edition size.(eg 12:25)..sometimes even claiming to destroy the negative after those prints have been made.

Seems bogus to me because hardly anybody buys prints with resale in mind. I think people almost exclusively buy prints for their imagery.

Luckless · Jul 3, 2019

jtk said:
Sometimes darkroom printers, to hype price, cite the print number and edition size.(eg 12:25)..sometimes even claiming to destroy the negative after those prints have been made.

Seems bogus to me because hardly anybody buys prints with resale in mind. I think people almost exclusively buy prints for their imagery.

People buy comic books with the resale value in mind. I think most people willing to pay serious money for photographic prints are doing so with at least some thought to their value, which includes long term resale value.

Arklatexian · Jul 4, 2019

Luckless said:
People buy comic books with the resale value in mind. I think most people willing to pay serious money for photographic prints are doing so with at least some thought to their value, which includes long term resale value.

Only people who actually "buy" prints can answer whether or not they buy them for the imagery or long term resale value. Methinks if they buy for any reason other that the imagery they are going, in most cases, to be disappointed. The person who makes the imagery is not the person to ask about this........Regards!

awty · Jul 4, 2019

Arklatexian said:
Only people who actually "buy" prints can answer whether or not they buy them for the imagery or long term resale value. Methinks if they buy for any reason other that the imagery they are going, in most cases, to be disappointed. The person who makes the imagery is not the person to ask about this........Regards!

You only need to visit a charity store to see the resale value of a photographic print. I buy them all the time for a couple of bucks to repurpose the frames.

jamesaz · Jul 4, 2019

jtk said:
Sometimes darkroom printers, to hype price, cite the print number and edition size.(eg 12:25)..sometimes even claiming to destroy the negative after those prints have been made.

Seems bogus to me because hardly anybody buys prints with resale in mind. I think people almost exclusively buy prints for their imagery.

I don't believe it has to do with the resale value but rather an acknowledgement and appreciation of the fact that it was hand made. Non-musical analogy: A serving from the soup pot will taste the same if served in a bowl thrown, glazed and fired by a potter or in a plastic bowl from walmart. One just provides a more elegant dining experience.

jtk · Jul 5, 2019

jamesaz said:
I don't believe it has to do with the resale value but rather an acknowledgement and appreciation of the fact that it was hand made. Non-musical analogy: A serving from the soup pot will taste the same if served in a bowl thrown, glazed and fired by a potter or in a plastic bowl from walmart. One just provides a more elegant dining experience.

If a buyer can be sold on the idea that resale is a potential I can offer him a great deal on a bridge in New York.

The comeback?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency