Too committed?

BrianShaw · Aug 29, 2006

I'm a bit conflicted on this topic because I once did a job (even though I'm not a full-time photog) that I said I'd never do... a large formal "sweet-16" reception party. Weddings, etc. are not my interest and I swore I'd never get involved in that kind of photogaphy; but it was a friend, and they were desperate, and I'm a push-over. The job ended up being a PITA as I expected, but the resulting pictures exceeded even my own expectations. The problem (as others have already said): now I get calls from other families having such affairs. I like making some extra money but still turn down that kind of work... all the time wishing that I never took the first job bcause now everyone asks me to do what I hate to do! Congrats on knowing what you want to do, what you are good at (although I'm sure you are first rate in color also), and holding the line.

roteague · Aug 29, 2006

I think you made the right decision. Stay true to your vision. FWIW, I do the same thing when confronted with portraits, weddings, or anything digital.

bill schwab · Aug 29, 2006

You made a decision that your personal work is more important to you than making some money. And, to play devil's advocate here, it could have been A LOT of money. It is a matter of deciding how much you want the work. I know photographers who have been so devastated by the current state of things that they would have killed to get a job like that. As someone who made a living for many years doing jobs that went against my creative principles, I applaud your firm stance and dedication to your fine art. But, as a former commercial/editorial photographer who busted a$$ for a long time to make a living and feed my family, I say you could have blown a really big chance. Ad agency accounts just don't fall out of the sky that often and they can be VERY lucrative. One leads to another... one art director that loves your work moves to another agency and takes you with them... You get the picture.

A lot of the best images I made as a commercial photographer came as a result of me having to push myself and break new ground. Although your portraits are beautiful in B&W, color wouldn't be that big a leap and IMO wouldn't hurt your style in the least. I do not know where you are in your career, perhaps it is at a point where you can pick and choose your clients. If so, I applaud you even more. If not, and the commercial route is one you intend to follow, I would get back on the phone and say you changed your mind and talk $$.

Again... sorry to play devil's advocate. It took guts to turn that down and perhaps that will work in your favor. Either way, I admire you for sticking by your principles.

Bill

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Aug 29, 2006

I had a quick look at the portraits you have in your personnal gallery, and what you are doing is 100% B&W. These photos depend on tone and gradation. Color is about color (yes, it is!) and composition in relationship to color. So on the one hand, it's clear that this particular agency has no sense of what makes a color or a b&w picture.

The one way you would have been able to reproduce that look in color would be to use a low saturation film (portra NC maybe), or to go digital and desaturate more. But then you end up with a monochrome or a duotone. Which looks as good in B&W.

What it means in the end is accepting that job would have taken a lot of ramp-up for you. You are the judge as to whether this time could have been a good investment, but in the end I don't think you should feel bad for turning down a job. You're not to people's service, and so many people suffer from job Stockholm syndrome that taking a breath is a mark of basic sanity.

I have turned down an offer for a permanent job in a big software company to do my MA in English, of all things. Well guess what, my student job is a better one than the perm one I was offered!

terri · Aug 29, 2006

Bill makes an interesting point, and possibly that's part of the reason you are questioning your decision. With the decision made, you have closed the door on an opportunity that might have led to an assignment or job you DID want to do...and on your own terms. Now you will never know, and it seems to be giving you pause.

But many of us dread crossing that fine line, or even being put into a situation like yours, where we make the choice to turn our passion for our art into what can be seen as being a whore for money. That seems to have been the bottom line for you, and enabled you to turn down this offer. And it does take integrity to make such a choice. So in that light, I must join the others and salute you.

tim elder · Aug 29, 2006

I think you did the right thing. The fact of the matter is that if you had done it, they probably would have been unhappy, because what they really wanted was their idea of how your black & white work would have looked in color, and your work probably wouldn't have met what they had imagined.

They'll call you when they want black & white.

Tim

Early Riser · Aug 29, 2006

You did the right thing if you were uncomfortable shooting in color. Because if you were uncomfortable you most probably would not have done a job that you were happy with and odds are neither would the client. Looking at your work I can only guess that it was an inexperienced art director who decided that you were appropriate for a color project.

Shooting color portrait on assignment is very different than doing B&W. When you shoot color proper color balance is very important and difficult to acheive in many available light circumstances. That is why most of the time advertising oriented color portrait uses artificial light or light enhancement. And as most experienced art directors are quite literal in their choices of photographers, I can not imagine that an experienced art director would hire someone who does not show any color work for a color job. This is another good reason why your declining this project was a good move. Did you want to work in a medium you are not comfortable in, with an inexperienced art director as well? Some jobs aren't worth the money. So don't regret the loss of money and to be honest the vast majority of advertising assignments are not campaigns that would change your life in any significant way.
Do the photography that matters to you. If they love your work that much, they'll switch the campaign to B&W.

davetravis · Aug 29, 2006

Looks like I'm the outsider, but I think you cut yourself off at the creative knees. From a purely professional portrait photographers point of view, new business is new business. Why couldn't you treat this as a learning experience? They were willing to work with you right? Let you make some mistakes, until you got it right? This might have lead to more business from referrals. What's wrong with expanding your creative horizons? Maybe you would really enjoy the change...As an artist, you can do more than one thing.

Early Riser · Aug 29, 2006

davetravis said:
Looks like I'm the outsider, but I think you cut yourself off at the creative knees. From a purely professional portrait photographers point of view, new business is new business. Why couldn't you treat this as a learning experience? They were willing to work with you right? Let you make some mistakes, until you got it right? This might have lead to more business from referrals. What's wrong with expanding your creative horizons? Maybe you would really enjoy the change...As an artist, you can do more than one thing.

Dave, respectfully, you really don't know anything about ad agencies. There may be a few people not experienced enough making choices about talent, but I know of no ad agency in the world where they will let you treat an assignment as a "learning experience" or "let you make mistakes, until you got it right".

The art director would have been fired, and the photographer replaced long before the photographer learned how to do it. There's just too much money riding on these things. Clients fly in for the shoot, talent and crew are hired, locations booked and paid for, props and stylists, etc. Often the ad space has been purchased before the final ad is even shot, often at a cost of hundreds of thousands, even millions. And with the all too often short deadlines, if the photographer does not come through the ad agency has paid a fortune for a blank magazine page, a rehash of an old ad, or an all type ad done at the last minute. As for the photographer that fails to come through, they may be sued for those costs. Advertising photography is not a hobby or something you dabble in, it's a serious business with serious consequences for those who take it lightly.

bill schwab · Aug 29, 2006

Early Riser said:
Dave, respectfully, you really don't know anything about ad agencies.

Look back Brian, it was an editorial shoot for a magazine, not the new line from NIKE... hardly the type of thing a client is going to fly in for or for which there would be a huge budget. We're not talking New York photo district kind of stuff, at least that is not how I read it. I hardly think that if this is a big agency that we all know that they would have such an inexperienced art director calling the shots on any substantial job nor would they be picking someone at random from the Web. It is still my opinion that this could have been a good break. Very often for a shoot of this type they are simply looking for someone local that can do a decent job. I used to do them all the time. Do one good job and they come back again and again. Turn them down and I doubt they will ever call again.

Bill

Early Riser · Aug 29, 2006

Bill this is from the original post:

"We received a phone call from a very prominent ad agency (I'd rather not use their name as it may bite me on the butt later...I'm sure you all understand ). They said they found my work via my web site and contacted me based on the impact of my portraits and on the work they needed. They wanted to hire me for an editorial shoot for a national magazine."

I added the bold typeface. Sounds like an ad agency assignment to me. However I find the "editorial shoot for a national magazine" part a little confusing. Ad agencies don't give out editorial assignments, maybe what she's referring to are one of those advertising layouts that take several pages and look like editorial content, an advertorial. Anyway, that's an advertising assignment, and national, not a local editorial job.

Bill I can understand your POV about accepting assignments because you never know and because it's tough to make a living as a photographer, but it's also a disservice to the people hiring you, and yourself if you're really not the right person for the job. You have a commercial photography background so it's not a stretch for you to accept a range of assignments, but not many people here have your background and they can easily get in over their heads.

bill schwab · Aug 29, 2006

Early Riser said:
Anyway, that's an advertising assignment, and national, not a local editorial job.

You seem to have misunderstood me Brian. I know this is for a national magazine and not a local one. As I said... these type of assignments happen all the time. I did literally hundreds of them. TIME, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, SPIN, Money, Wired. You name it. Some jobs did come from ad agencies too.

Early Riser said:
You have a commercial photography background so it's not a stretch for you to accept a range of assignments, but not many people here have your background and they can easily get in over their heads

You have to start somewhere and if you take the time to look at Dorothy's work, she seems to have what it takes to do an editorial job. You know as well as I that a nationally known agency isn't going to give a big budget job to an unknown.

Bill

davetravis · Aug 29, 2006

Well Early,
What you say may be true.
I don't sell my images to ad agencies.
Thank's for the education.
But still, I think she could expand her horizons with a little experiment.
And who knows? Those southern folks are real flexible, and she might experience a new art form, and grow as an artist.

Early Riser · Aug 29, 2006

Bill, were you a self taught photographer or did you assist many photographers and get experience with a wide array of subject matter, film types, situations, and all of the issues of working on assignment? I know you assisted and had a commercial background, that's how we first met. From what I got from Dorothy's web site is that she's self taught and hasn't done much in the way of advertising or editorial assignment work. Sometimes it's better to back out of a project that you are not suited for and show potential clients that you are honest in your assessment of your abilities and not willing to take on a job at their expense that you may fail at. I think she has a far better chance of working with that agency in the future, because she was straight with them. They may come back at a later date with a job that mirrors what she actually does. If she takes on a job beyond her experience and blows it, she's poisoned her name with that agency, and as word tends to spread fast among the ad industry, with other agencies as well.

But you know Bill I may be the wrong person to ask about this situation as at age 44 I retired from advertising photography, closed my studio, walked away from a business I spent 25 years creating and now only shoot my personal work. I still have close friendships with many of my former clients, however I have been unavailable for any commercial assignments for the last 4 years and I haven't shot any color film in that time.

She said Prominent ad agency and national magazine, that doesn't sound like the Pennysaver to me and I got plenty of assignment work whilst still unknown, then again my portfolio reflected a certain level of experience and I got assignments that matched my portfolio.

I agree with you when you say you have to start somewhere. But the vast majority of people have done a certain amount of assisting of photographers on assignments before they took on advertising or editorial assignments. You know there is huge difference between working on assignment and just going out and shooting, there's a huge difference in pressure and consequence.

bill schwab · Aug 29, 2006

Early Riser said:
She said Prominent ad agency and national magazine, that doesn't sound like the Pennysaver to me...

Pennysaver??? I'm guessing you are not hearing me. Outside of NY where I think you have your experience, this is done all the time. You think they fly-in the heavy hitters for everything out here in the flyover? Not so.

Brian, I have no interest in arguing with you about this. You apparently have much more experience than most of the people here and who am I to challenge you. The fact you retired, as you say, at 44 makes that pretty obvious. There are not many well known photographers I know that can do that so you must have had a pretty shining career while still working.

However, I will say that not every person working out here cut their teeth doing assisting on big editorial or ad jobs. There just aren't that many. There comes a time when you have to jump in, trust your collective experience and sink or swim. I think Dorothy would swim just fine if she chose to do so.

Bill

Nicole · Aug 29, 2006

Hi Dorothy

I've been doing some thinking about where you're at and you know I love your B&W work. My work is 99% B&W but I don't disregard colour if "I" feel it's justified to my style of work. I'm happy to discuss what options there are but if I don't agree that colour will do justice, I don't accept the job. And then I shoot on transparency film for my colour portraits.

If you feel you can do a good job regardless of colour or B&W, here's an opportunity for you, give it a go. If you don"t enjoy the experience, leave it next time. The choice is yours.

Best wishes on your decision. It's not easy, but my own advice is always follow your heart.

Nicole

Early Riser · Aug 29, 2006

Bill, I didn't think we were arguing, I respect you and thought we were just having an intellectual discussion. Maybe I'm overly sensitive to what i consider professional ethics, and that being that you are actually qualified or capable to do a job before you agree to take the money. Sink or swim is fine if you are the only one who drowns, but if you sink on an assignment you take others with you.

You come from a similar background as I do, you assisted in NYC and in doing so got a certain level of competence and experience. While you may have felt more than comfortable in taking on any assignment offered to you, you had training and background to fall back on. Not everyone who accepts their first assignment has that. I felt that even if the AD was dumb enough to offer me a gig I was unqualified to do, it was a matter of honor on my part to only accept work I could handle. I also found that my honesty ultimately brought me great loyalty and trust from my clients, which would explain why I had kept so many clients for the duration of my career. The guy that I shot my first national magazine cover for when I was 19, was still a client of mine when I retired 25 years later. That is something that I am very proud of.

The bottom line though is that regardless of what you and I think, Dorothy, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable in accepting the job and turned it down. I think that's admirable on her part.

Alex Hawley · Aug 29, 2006

Congratulations Dorothy for a courageous decision.

RAP · Aug 29, 2006

Reshoots are a part of every assignment budget, whether they are actually needed or not. Screw ups do happen, unfortunately and they usually cost you the client, even if it is not your fault.

Still, my take is that b&w is really Dorothy's style for her work and that is that. I think there are plenty of photographers who only do B&W or mostly do b&w and are known for it. Avedon, Newman, Karsch, the masters; AA EW etc.

If the agency said that Dorothy has the look they wanted, why would they want to change it? Don't they realize that b&w is part of that look and that b&w as a whole, is a style all its own? Now that I think about it, just how big, or knowledgable is the agency or the rep handling the assignment? Maybe the agency should make the connection and call Dorothy back and let her do it her way.

bill schwab · Aug 29, 2006

Early Riser said:
The bottom line though is that regardless of what you and I think, Dorothy, for whatever reason, didn't feel comfortable in accepting the job and turned it down. I think that's admirable on her part.

Pretty much what I said 2 pages back while also playing devil's advocate.

billschwab said:
Again... sorry to play devil's advocate. It took guts to turn that down and perhaps that will work in your favor. Either way, I admire you for sticking by your principles.

Although I am glad we are not arguing, I still do not want it to seem like I was putting down DBC in any way. Quite the contrary. Unlike others here who seem to think she would automatically disappoint her client with substandard work, I believe she had every chance to shine. In my experience that is a way into the "club" so to speak. You know how hard it is to get your foot in the door. This didn't sound like a rocket science kind of job and it could have helped build some confidence in the process that might have been more valuable than the disadvantage of having to work with color.

As for your other points about professional ethics and such, I think it goes pretty much without saying. Perhaps I am the one being sensitive in thinking that your going on about the honor, education and experience needed to be a "professional" is somehow placing those of us that have made a living with our cameras in a position that others cannot understand or obtain. That somehow those that choose to take the leap are doing so without morals unless they have a certain number of hours doing grunt work like we and I am sure many others here have done. You are also appearing to assume that Dorothy is some green upstart which her portfolio seems to refute.

Again, I have the utmost respect for DBC's decision. It was very brave. But I stand by my belief that it could have been a nice entry into some pretty lucrative and satisfying work no matter how dishonorable that may seem to some. I also think we are all being a bit narrow in thinking that it was simply the tonality or lack of color in her work that was desired by these potential clients. Look at the work... the attitude... the style. THAT to me is the strength in these images. Not the fact they are monochromatic. It appears that the A-D or buyer also saw beyond this.

Bill

df cardwell · Aug 29, 2006

A-Ds aren't animals - although you should hear how they talk about photographers - and you CAN talk to them. If someone wanted ME to shoot a color job tomorrow, I'd level, and say, "Look, I haven't shot much color in the past few years, but I'd like to give this a try. What do you suggest ? How can we make this work ?"

There is a misconception that pros are hacks, and the clients are fools. The truth of it is that the partnership is creative, and lucrative.

Dorothy didn't burn a bridge, nor did she go against her instincts. Good.

A reasonable possibility would be, should she want, to contact the agency and have a talk. All things are possible.

.

bill schwab · Aug 29, 2006

df cardwell said:
A reasonable possibility would be, should she want, to contact the agency and have a talk. All things are possible.

There you go! Can you tell I want Dorothy to have this job?

Bill

copake_ham · Aug 29, 2006

It all seems pretty straight forward to me.

If you have enough to eat such that you don't need the work, then if it "violates" your "art" just walk away.

Otherwise, I'd grab the job in a New York minute.

You know your financial situation and your needs versus your "artistic" integrity.

The only thing I wonder - if you feel you made the correct choice - why are you asking about it here?

EDIT: Wise move not revealing the agency - elsewise half the responders here would have phoned them by now!

RAP · Aug 30, 2006

Well, if color balance is an issue, there is always Photo Shop. Which is probably where the images will end up anyway pre press.

Still, this would be a commercial job, seprate form personal work and should be treated as such. Most have to walk that tight rope and balance the two in just about all creative fields. AA used to get criticized for his commercial work by his contemporaries but he defended himself because he had a family to support and the money funded his personal work. It is much more then just a matter of having enough to eat. When it comes to money, more is always better.

For me, I have made more money from the publishing of my color work then b&w prints. My color work I consider commercial and the money helps pay the bills.

df cardwell · Aug 30, 2006

AA used to get criticized for his commercial work by his contemporaries but he defended himself because he had a family to support and the money funded his personal work.

By WHOM ?

By Weston ? No, Edw. had done his share of hard, commercial work.
By Strand ? No. By WHOM ?

By Halsman, by White, by Dorothea Lange ?

By WHOM ? BY WHOM ?
Maybe by strangers who had a safe 9-5 job,
that thought it would be nice to be able to go out in the woods every day and be artistic instead of having to go to meetings wearing a suit.

Not his 'contemporaries'.

Too committed?

BrianShaw

roteague

bill schwab

Advertiser

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

terri

tim elder

Early Riser

davetravis

Early Riser

bill schwab

Advertiser

Early Riser

bill schwab

Advertiser

davetravis

Early Riser

bill schwab

Advertiser

Nicole

Early Riser

Alex Hawley

RAP

bill schwab

Advertiser

df cardwell

bill schwab

Advertiser

copake_ham

RAP

df cardwell

Too committed?

Advertiser

Membership Council

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency