As of today I am no longer a photographer

[Bobobird]

http://www.prophotoshow.net/2013/07/...-photographer/

Saw this at another forum.

[tbob]

Seems like rather a clunky name he has chosen for his new profession. However I will follow his lead in renaming and hence forth I will be a 1.65-3.1eV Photon Wrangler.

[mknittle]

:d:d:d

[flashback]

Photonist
Photonnista
Photon Masseuse
Mid-Spectral Artiste

[xpatUSA]

Foveonista

[tao2]

should've called it "Emperor's new clothing boutique" (boutique oozes cachet...). Or mebbe "LOMO'S BACK !" but with "Ostentation!"
Hopefully, he's taking the piss...

[Manfred M]

Bobo - I want to have whatever he is drinking or smoking!

This is pure and simple drivel. A lot of "jobs" have virtually disappeared, from secretaries (replaced by word processers and voice mails), draftsmen (and women) replace by CAD/CAM, machinists replaced by CNC machines, etc. etc. Life's not fair and never has been. Just look at saddle makers and black smiths and shoe makers...

I understand the issues that professional photographers face today. They are being put out of busines by soccer moms or retirees who got a DSLR for Christmas and figure it would be nice to make some extra money by taking pictures. I know a number of successful pros (primarily wedding and portait photographers), but also some nature photographers and product photographers that are having a really tough time making a living as photographers.

[pnodrog]

Anyway I have always tried to avoid being called a photographer because the pay is so lousy as Manfred notes above.

[Colin Southern]

I think it's a prime example of the old adage "Just because someone understands the technical work of a business (ie is a great photographer), doesn't mean to say that they'll do well running a business that does that technical work (running a photography business).

Business requires skill in many other areas (client relations, accounting, compliance, sales, advertising, marketing); someone who excels only in the core technical function will fail miserably.

[Bobobird]

I think it's a prime example of the old adage "Just because someone understands the technical work of a business (ie is a great photographer), doesn't mean to say that they'll do well running a business that does that technical work (running a photography business).

Business requires skill in many other areas (client relations, accounting, compliance, sales, advertising, marketing); someone who excels only in the core technical function will fail miserably.

Thankfully I am none of that and love it.

[Shadowman]

Up Next: "I am no longer an oil painter". Or did that already happen decades ago?

[ajohnw]

I think there is a certain amount of truth in the link. Weekend and similar photographers have always been a problem for professionals. They haven't got the overheads so can be cheaper but usually produce technically poor shots and I don't mean composition I mean just the technical aspect of taking a photograph. Lots of pro's don't bother so as the link points out are selling snap shots and don't really offer anything better than the people they are photographing might even do with their iphone or what ever.

As to calling it something else I don't think that will help at all. A social photography business generally gains work via word of mouth or if lucky obtains school contracts etc. In either case to be successful the work needs to be of a high standard which in itself adds to the expense but at least people gain something for spending their money. Often these days they don't probably because the other way means they have to go after people who can afford it or make less profit.

It's not a profession I would be keen to get into. It's very difficult to establish a good business but given time it can be done. I know of 3. 2 very specialised who also make additional money giving tuition. The other died young but even then found that one single contract made more money than a much wider field which included a lot of commercial work. It also took up a lot of his time and it had much lower overheads. Fine but if he ever lost the contract he would be back to where he started again.

John
-

[Letrow]

He has some interesting points. Did anyone see that film he mentions, EXposed?

[AB26]

Photographer or not photographer? Golfer or not a golfer?
Does my golf make Tiger Woods anything but a golfer? He is just so much darn better than I am.

No matter what you like to be called or what you would not like to be called, if you are good at it you can be called anything you will stay good at it.

Of cause, there is that little word “professional” that makes the difference between those who can make a living from it and those who cannot. Only the very best will survive.

[chauncey]

It would appear that he is complaining about the "dumbing down" or "dilution" of the term "Photographer".

In times long past the word "Professional" meant so much more than it does today...it meant meeting a
litany of initial and ongoing educational/testing/memberships in professional organizations and other requirements. These days it merely means that you earn a livelihood from a given occupation. The term, Professional" has been diluted, just as the term "Photographer" has been diluted.

Gavin Seim is searching for a way to set himself apart from his peers...just as the janitor is now a custodian.
However, he should have been able to come up with a more catchy description of this new profession.

I have been accused of having a camera that takes good pictures, but never have been accused of being a photographer.

[ajohnw]

I have been accused of having a camera that takes good pictures, but never have been accused of being a photographer.

That is a common miss conception even when people are buying cameras. I often feel my 300D is the easiest camera to get good results from with minimal effort another interesting aspect.

I do think the guy may be moving the right way in terms of landscapes. I see the results of a couple of people who do that fairly regularly. I don't think they sell many prints. They look far too artificial to me maybe that's why. Some one might buy something like that if it really reminded them of the location. Maybe it would with just the right amount of augmentation. I also happened on a photo gallery with shots from some names in there. I'd guess the lack of sales reflects on the price and the only people who make a regular income are the people who run the gallery and not from sales either. Who made them names mostly other photographers. It's incestuous. All went wrong in my view when some one took a photo of a door and some one else hung it on the wall but there have been other fads in the past.

Didn't look at his portraits but Colin regularly shows what needs to be achieved in that direction. I'd guess he can even handle a novice model who wants a portfolio.

John
-

[HenkB]

The Artist Formerly Known as a Photographer? AFKAP? Sorry, that's been taken.

If all he's doing is changing his branding, then more power to him, I wish him well. Otherwise it's just more useless whining. The ultimate accrediting body for photographers is the customer. And, yes, as the technology makes it easier for the run-of-the-mill citizen to get a properly exposed, plausibly good-looking image, it becomes harder for those who have put real study into image-making to make it a paying job. It has been a long time since being a photographer would have been the equivalent of having a license to print money. I think the last time was shortly before the invention of photography. It's time to say "Game On", suck in the gut and cope.

[James G]

Interesting, I do feel that anyone who wants to make a living as an artist, photographic or otherwise, needs to be talented, determined, and very lucky. I could only ever claim to be determined, but.....

I have never referred to myself as a photographer or as an amateur photographer. I usually say something along the lines that "I'm keen/mad/passionate about photography".

In my late teens/early 20's, back in the 70's, I wanted to become, and did become a chemist and biochemist, and did, in polite company introduce myself as such i.e. "I am a chemist".
(I did once embarrass my mother by describing myself as a qualified Sh#*t Sirrer when I was working in the water industry and more specifically, water reclamation, and sampling at sewage works etc )

Later, through a natural series of professional developments I found myself in the IT industry. I did not self-label myself then as an IT professional. Again I tended to say "I work in IT".

This was not modesty, or self deprecation but more I suspect because the areas I worked in did not need to see me as individual, and unique in a way that is demanded of artists and 'creatives' in order to be taken seriously. (In the same vein, I did not need to keep 'reinventing myself, although keeping up with latest developments, accreditations etc was probably similar in some ways.)

[Manfred M]

I see one flaw in his “rebranding” exercise. It’s a bit the “new & improved” label that we see on so many products. We open it up and really see little or no difference; changing the packaging, logo or product name doesn’t change a darn thing that is meaningful to the end customer, in most cases.

Unless Gavin does more than rebranding, he can call himself whatever he wants to, it is not going to drive more business his way. In fact he may lose some of his existing customer base because his new branding is going to confuse things and they may not go to him because they don’t know what products and services he is offering. If he wants to be successful, he will have to come up with a service that sets himself apart from the others, and establish a brand that others can’t compete with. Peter Hurley makes a lot of money taking headshots of people against a white background; something that in theory just about anyone should be able to reproduce, but they still flock to his studios. Yousef Karsh was very much the same way; anyone who was anybody in the world would come to him to have their portrait done; actors, artists, kings, queens, presidents and popes. Both these photographers have / had (Karsh died in 2002) a very strong “brand presence”.

Colin is 100% right, being technically competent is only one of the attributes required to run a successful photography or any other business. Business acumen, business development, financial management of the business, etc. are all required to run a successful business. We’ve all heard about the outstanding doctor nobody wants to see because of their terrible “bedside manner”. It’s not just doctors that need to develop a good rapport with their customers.

The whole issue of being a “professional photographer” is also someone of a misnomer. I personal find that “commercial photographer” is far more accurate. A “Profession” generally means one has to have a formal education in a field (generally at least a bachelor’s level degree from an accredited university), a formal internship period after graduation, having to undergo a set of qualification exams run by a government approved accreditation body, which one has join and continue to be a member in good standing in order to continue to practice. Doctors, lawyers, architect, engineers, etc. fall into this level of being a professional. The public needs to be assured that the work by any one of these practitioners can demonstrate certain level of competence in their respective fields. We don’t want to see an abnormally high number of complications from medical treatments, airplanes should not be falling from the sky on a regular basis and buildings should not be collapsing at random. All a photographer has to hang out a sign or start a web page, no more, no less. Formal education is optional.

My final thought on this reminds me of a visit to a local fall fair with some friends. A local photographer was there selling his images and one of my friends asked me why I did not did not have a booth there, as my work was far better than what was for sale. Another friend works at a local store where they have a fairly decent business selling higher end goods to tourists. This friend suggested I should go into the post-card business, because I have so many great images of local attractions and the selection from the larger suppliers is pretty mediocre. My answer to both was that neither of these “business opportunities” were of any interest to me; too much work for minimal return on my time. Unfortunately, there are too many mediocre offerings out there, and they do tend to devalue the work of some really excellent and talented photographers.

[Adrian]

This is an interesting field. Probably worthy of a new thread. I think many pros have identified that their market has been attacked by the amateur with a camera (soccer mum, enthusiast etc) and that their pricing has been forced down by recessions (wedding photo income has dropped a lot on average apparently) ....but they have not reacted to this except by cutting prices.

We now use imagery in radically different ways: a lot of it is on-line content. Video and still skills are merging. There is a large corporate market out there that photographers have simply failed to wake up to as they continue to scrabble around for ever leaner wedding pickings.

The business model, except for those at the very top, is pretty badly fractured. But there are still opportunities for those who have smart marketing.

Adrian