For Photographers, the Image of
a Shrinking Path
By the time Matt Eich entered photojournalism school in 2004, the magazine and newspaper business was already declining.
But Mr. Eich had been shooting photographs since he was a child, and when he married and had a baby during college, he stuck with photography as a career.
“I had to hit the ground running and try to make enough money to keep a roof over our heads,” he said.
Since graduation in 2008, Mr. Eich, 23, has gotten magazine assignments here and there, but “industrywide, the sentiment now, at least among my peers, is that this is not a sustainable thing,” he said. He has been supplementing magazine work with advertising and art projects, in a pastiche of ways to earn a living. “There was a path, and there isn’t anymore.”
Then there is D. Sharon Pruitt, a 40-year-old mother of six who lives on Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Ms. Pruitt’s husband is in the military, and their frequent moves meant a full-time job was not practical. But after a vacation to Hawaii in 2006, Ms. Pruitt uploaded some photos — taken with a $99 Kodak digital camera — to the site Flickr.
Since then, through her Flickr photos, she has received a contract with the stock-photography company Getty Images that gives her a monthly income when publishers or advertisers license the images. The checks are sometimes enough to take the family out to dinner, sometimes almost enough for a mortgage payment. “At the moment, it’s just great to have extra money,” she said.
Mr. Eich and Ms. Pruitt illustrate the huge shake-up in photography during the last decade.
Amateurs, happy to accept small checks for snapshots of children and sunsets, have increasing opportunities to make money on photos but are underpricing professional photographers and leaving them with limited career options. Professionals are also being hurt because magazines and newspapers are cutting pages or shutting altogether.
“There are very few professional photographers who, right now, are not hurting,” said Holly Stuart Hughes, editor of the magazine Photo District News.
That has left professional photographers with a bit of an identity crisis. Nine years ago, when Livia Corona was fresh out of art school, she got assignments from magazines like Travel and Leisure and Time. Then, she said, “three forces coincided.”
They were the advertising downturn, the popularity and accessibility of digital photography, and changes in the stock-photo market.
Magazines’ editorial pages tend to rise or fall depending on how many ad pages they have. In 2000, the magazines measured by Publishers Information Bureau, a trade group, had 286,932 ad pages. In 2009, there were 169,218 — a decline of 41 percent. That means less physical space in which to print photographs.
“Pages are at a premium, and there’s more competition to get anything into a magazine now, and the bar is just higher for excellent work,” said Bill Shapiro, the editor of Life.com, who ran the print revival of Life before Time Inc. shut it in 2007. And that is for the publications that survived — 428 magazines closed in 2009 alone, according to the publication database MediaFinder.com, including ones that regularly assigned original photography, like Gourmet, Portfolio and National Geographic Adventure.
And while magazines once sniffed at stock photographs, which are existing images, not original assignments, shrinking editorial budgets made them reconsider.
“When we began, stock photography or licensed images, preshot images being licensed, was perceived as the armpit of the photo industry,” said Jonathan Klein, the chief executive of Getty Images who helped found the agency in 1995. “No self-respecting art director or creative director would use a preshot image, because it wasn’t original, it hadn’t been commissioned by them, it wasn’t their creativity.”
At the same time, the Internet has made it easier for editors to find and license stock photos — they can do it in seconds with a search term and a few clicks, rather than spending seven weeks mailing film transparencies back and forth.
Concurrently, digital photography took off. “It used to be you really needed to know how to use a camera,” said Keith Marlowe, a photographer who has worked for Spin and Rolling Stone. “If you messed up a roll, you couldn’t redo the concert.” Now, though, any photographer can instantly see if a shot is good, or whether the light balances or other technical aspects need to be adjusted.
That meant a flood of pretty decent photographs, and that changed the stock-photography industry. In the last few years, stock agencies have created or acquired so-called microstock divisions. They charge $1 to $100, in most cases, for publishers or others to rerun a photo, often supplied by an amateur. And Getty made a deal with Flickr in 2008, permitting Getty’s photo editors to comb through customers’ images and strike license agreements with the amateur photographers.
“The quality of licensed imagery is virtually indistinguishable now from the quality of images they might commission,” Mr. Klein said. Yet “the price point that the client, or customer, is charged is a fraction of the price point which they would pay for a professional image.”
In 2005, Getty Images licensed 1.4 million preshot commercial photos. Last year, it licensed 22 million — and “all of the growth was through our user-generated business,” Mr. Klein said.
That is because amateurs are largely happy to be paid anything for their photos. “People that don’t have to make a living from photography and do it as a hobby don’t feel the need to charge a reasonable rate,” Mr. Eich said.
With stock-photography payments declining and magazines pulling back on original assignments, some Web sites like Life.com and BurnMagazine.org have popped up as homes for original photography. Life commissions about two projects a month — it sent Mr. Marlowe to Haiti after the earthquake, for instance, and the entertainment photographer Jeff Vespa to cover the European news media tour by the “Avatar” cast.
There seems to be an audience for professional photography on these sites. The average number of photos each visitor viewed for “Michael Jackson: The Memorial” at Life.com was 41, for example, and for “Oscars 2010: The Best Dresses,” it was 38 images.
Still, the pay, compared with print, is “less, for sure,” Mr. Shapiro of Life.com said, since some professional photographers “are really more excited for the exposure than they are to drive a hard bargain.”
But it is hard to live on exposure alone. And some professionals worry that with ways to make a salary in photography disappearing, the impact will be severe.
“The important thing that a photojournalist does is they know how to tell the story — they know they’re not there to skew, interpret or bias,” said Katrin Eismann, chairwoman of the Masters in Digital Photography program at the School of Visual Arts in New York. “A photographer can go to a rally or demonstration, and they can make it look as though 10 people showed up, or 1,000 people showed up, and that’s a big difference. I’m not sure I’m going to trust an amateur to understand how important that visual communication is.”
“Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure,” Ms. Eismann said. “Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?”
But amateurs like Ms. Pruitt do not particularly care.
“I never followed any traditional photography rules only because I didn’t know of any — I never went to photography school, never took any classes,” she said. “People don’t know the rules, so they just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.”
Response to the above article is due Sept 27th for A day and 28th for B day. Question below:
When the web became popular, from a designer's stand point, it gave anyone and everyone who was a programer and could upload a site, the rights to design. . .and it showed. Web pages looked poor, they were not visually pleasing. Traditional photographers feel the same about digital photo and now as mentioned in the article, digital stock photography has allowed anyone to take a photo and make money. Do you think this has hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo and what is consider quality? Look at the below and compare. Respond using examples from the article, as well as, your own opinion to support your answer.
By Annie Leibovitz - Traditional
Stock Photography
But Mr. Eich had been shooting photographs since he was a child, and when he married and had a baby during college, he stuck with photography as a career.
“I had to hit the ground running and try to make enough money to keep a roof over our heads,” he said.
Since graduation in 2008, Mr. Eich, 23, has gotten magazine assignments here and there, but “industrywide, the sentiment now, at least among my peers, is that this is not a sustainable thing,” he said. He has been supplementing magazine work with advertising and art projects, in a pastiche of ways to earn a living. “There was a path, and there isn’t anymore.”
Then there is D. Sharon Pruitt, a 40-year-old mother of six who lives on Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Ms. Pruitt’s husband is in the military, and their frequent moves meant a full-time job was not practical. But after a vacation to Hawaii in 2006, Ms. Pruitt uploaded some photos — taken with a $99 Kodak digital camera — to the site Flickr.
Since then, through her Flickr photos, she has received a contract with the stock-photography company Getty Images that gives her a monthly income when publishers or advertisers license the images. The checks are sometimes enough to take the family out to dinner, sometimes almost enough for a mortgage payment. “At the moment, it’s just great to have extra money,” she said.
Mr. Eich and Ms. Pruitt illustrate the huge shake-up in photography during the last decade.
Amateurs, happy to accept small checks for snapshots of children and sunsets, have increasing opportunities to make money on photos but are underpricing professional photographers and leaving them with limited career options. Professionals are also being hurt because magazines and newspapers are cutting pages or shutting altogether.
“There are very few professional photographers who, right now, are not hurting,” said Holly Stuart Hughes, editor of the magazine Photo District News.
That has left professional photographers with a bit of an identity crisis. Nine years ago, when Livia Corona was fresh out of art school, she got assignments from magazines like Travel and Leisure and Time. Then, she said, “three forces coincided.”
They were the advertising downturn, the popularity and accessibility of digital photography, and changes in the stock-photo market.
Magazines’ editorial pages tend to rise or fall depending on how many ad pages they have. In 2000, the magazines measured by Publishers Information Bureau, a trade group, had 286,932 ad pages. In 2009, there were 169,218 — a decline of 41 percent. That means less physical space in which to print photographs.
“Pages are at a premium, and there’s more competition to get anything into a magazine now, and the bar is just higher for excellent work,” said Bill Shapiro, the editor of Life.com, who ran the print revival of Life before Time Inc. shut it in 2007. And that is for the publications that survived — 428 magazines closed in 2009 alone, according to the publication database MediaFinder.com, including ones that regularly assigned original photography, like Gourmet, Portfolio and National Geographic Adventure.
And while magazines once sniffed at stock photographs, which are existing images, not original assignments, shrinking editorial budgets made them reconsider.
“When we began, stock photography or licensed images, preshot images being licensed, was perceived as the armpit of the photo industry,” said Jonathan Klein, the chief executive of Getty Images who helped found the agency in 1995. “No self-respecting art director or creative director would use a preshot image, because it wasn’t original, it hadn’t been commissioned by them, it wasn’t their creativity.”
At the same time, the Internet has made it easier for editors to find and license stock photos — they can do it in seconds with a search term and a few clicks, rather than spending seven weeks mailing film transparencies back and forth.
Concurrently, digital photography took off. “It used to be you really needed to know how to use a camera,” said Keith Marlowe, a photographer who has worked for Spin and Rolling Stone. “If you messed up a roll, you couldn’t redo the concert.” Now, though, any photographer can instantly see if a shot is good, or whether the light balances or other technical aspects need to be adjusted.
That meant a flood of pretty decent photographs, and that changed the stock-photography industry. In the last few years, stock agencies have created or acquired so-called microstock divisions. They charge $1 to $100, in most cases, for publishers or others to rerun a photo, often supplied by an amateur. And Getty made a deal with Flickr in 2008, permitting Getty’s photo editors to comb through customers’ images and strike license agreements with the amateur photographers.
“The quality of licensed imagery is virtually indistinguishable now from the quality of images they might commission,” Mr. Klein said. Yet “the price point that the client, or customer, is charged is a fraction of the price point which they would pay for a professional image.”
In 2005, Getty Images licensed 1.4 million preshot commercial photos. Last year, it licensed 22 million — and “all of the growth was through our user-generated business,” Mr. Klein said.
That is because amateurs are largely happy to be paid anything for their photos. “People that don’t have to make a living from photography and do it as a hobby don’t feel the need to charge a reasonable rate,” Mr. Eich said.
With stock-photography payments declining and magazines pulling back on original assignments, some Web sites like Life.com and BurnMagazine.org have popped up as homes for original photography. Life commissions about two projects a month — it sent Mr. Marlowe to Haiti after the earthquake, for instance, and the entertainment photographer Jeff Vespa to cover the European news media tour by the “Avatar” cast.
There seems to be an audience for professional photography on these sites. The average number of photos each visitor viewed for “Michael Jackson: The Memorial” at Life.com was 41, for example, and for “Oscars 2010: The Best Dresses,” it was 38 images.
Still, the pay, compared with print, is “less, for sure,” Mr. Shapiro of Life.com said, since some professional photographers “are really more excited for the exposure than they are to drive a hard bargain.”
But it is hard to live on exposure alone. And some professionals worry that with ways to make a salary in photography disappearing, the impact will be severe.
“The important thing that a photojournalist does is they know how to tell the story — they know they’re not there to skew, interpret or bias,” said Katrin Eismann, chairwoman of the Masters in Digital Photography program at the School of Visual Arts in New York. “A photographer can go to a rally or demonstration, and they can make it look as though 10 people showed up, or 1,000 people showed up, and that’s a big difference. I’m not sure I’m going to trust an amateur to understand how important that visual communication is.”
“Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure,” Ms. Eismann said. “Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?”
But amateurs like Ms. Pruitt do not particularly care.
“I never followed any traditional photography rules only because I didn’t know of any — I never went to photography school, never took any classes,” she said. “People don’t know the rules, so they just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.”
Response to the above article is due Sept 27th for A day and 28th for B day. Question below:
When the web became popular, from a designer's stand point, it gave anyone and everyone who was a programer and could upload a site, the rights to design. . .and it showed. Web pages looked poor, they were not visually pleasing. Traditional photographers feel the same about digital photo and now as mentioned in the article, digital stock photography has allowed anyone to take a photo and make money. Do you think this has hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo and what is consider quality? Look at the below and compare. Respond using examples from the article, as well as, your own opinion to support your answer.
By Annie Leibovitz - Traditional
Stock Photography
54 comments:
Rebecca Helstern
I think the availability of digital cameras to almost everyone has seriously hurt the integrity of a photo. People don’t appreciate the hard work and perfection involved in taking a beautiful picture, when they can simply press a button. The traditional Leibovitz picture is obviously very thought-out and done by an experienced photographer. The quality of this photograph is very high. If people are making money off of stock-photography, such as the second picture, it means that someone feels that those kinds of photographs have quality too. However, the difference in quality of the two photos is huge. This is hurting the entire photography industry. Amateurs are hurting the professional photographers because they are willing to take less money than professionals need to charge in order to run their businesses. As Holly Stuart Hughes said, “There are very few professional photographers who, right now, are not hurting.”
Erin Simon
The web becoming popular and giving anyone the opportunity to design and take photos in a way has affected the integrity of a beautiful photo. The programs on a computer can transform any photo to be perfect instead of keeping the natural beauty of the photo. Mr. kelin comments on this stating "The quality of licensed imagery is virtually indistinguishable now from the quality of images they might commission,” yet “the price point that the client, or customer, is charged is a fraction of the price point which they would pay for a professional image.” Photographers manipulate photos to the point where they shouldn't be worth as much as they are pricing them at.
According to the article, the photo industry isn't a safe way to make a living.
The professional phot looks like the photographer wanted you to focus on the queen's face and the window. The stock photo looks more natural, and there isn't any other emotion behind it other than, "This looks nice."
-Bill Terrarosa
Alexis Holiday 4A
I do believe that the ability for anyone to take a photograph and upload it in order to make money has hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo and what is considered quality. Due to the abundance of stock images when "In 2005, Getty Images licensed 1.4 million preshot commercial photos [and] Last year, it licensed 22 million" licensers charge around "$1 to $100" per photo, has made images cheap and easily accesible to magazines. The effect of the economy causes budget cuts that are necessary to keep the publication afloat; this in turn has hurt the way publishers view photographs and then in turn, how the public views photographs. The difference between a professional photograph and a stock image show the difference that publications have turned to. Annie Leibovitz, a professional photographer, shows the difference in contrast, shadows and artistry while the stock photogrpah is generic and could be replicated by anyone.
Stephen Skop 4A
The photo industry is not a great industry to be a part of during the economy. I believe that it is disappointing that these people do not have opportunities like other types of jobs do in America. They should be able to do what they want, that they love and make some decent money, but it just shows people do not need photographers as much as they used to.
A photo is a photo no matter how beautiful or dis-satisfying. The traditional photographers find their work to be more beautiful and natural, while photographers who use programs such as photoshop find their work to be just as beautiful. Most magazines have photos that have been edited by the web or photoshop rather than naturally. Technology enhances everyday, and the saying "out with the old in with the new" really comes into play in this article. “If you messed up a roll, you couldn’t redo the concert.” Because of our new technology, we can see what we just shot, rather than wait until the film developes and be dissapointed. In my opinion, it is easier to use the web to edit your photos, and also more vibrant, than to edit your photos naturally. The two photos included in the blog both look professional. The first photo of the queen looks like it was edited traditionally. While the photo on the bottom says it was from freedigitalphotos.net. Both photos have great quality and are both beautiful, which goes to show a photo is a photo no matter how beautiful or dis-satisfying.
Mike Malley
I believe that the art of photography and the overall quality of photographs has taken a serious hit from the rise of unproffesional photography. photos from professionals are being used less and aren't being considered as valuable as they really are. photography is being viewed less as an art form and more as a pretty picture. this is because, as Ms. Pruitt said "[People] just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.” so while this is good for individuals seeing a higher amount of pictures and they may see more that they like, i feel that with works of art it should be quality over quantity
Nolan Mendoza
It angers me when people pick up a digital camera take a shot so easily and are so proud of it. I absolutly believe this is hurting and mocking the talent and beauty for a photogragher and his or her work. Yes using the web and technology makes editing easy and it looks good BUT the hard work and hand editing of film cameras or others should be much more art appreciated i think.
After reading the article and comparing the pictures below, I feel that digital photography and the ability for any amateur to utilize it has affected the quality of a photo. You can look at a photo and think it's beautiful and not even know who it was taken by. The article explains how professionals can more than likely create a picture of this standard time after time where as an amateur was lucky that one time. Because of this, anyone can make a buck off of photography. Educated photographers are getting the short end of the bargain and because of this, their salaries are suffering. However visually appealing a random picture may be, the beauty has been lost in some way due to the lack of conceptual understanding and skill behind it.
^ Ana Mastropiero
Coco Faiella B3
Yes, I do believe that the emergenence and popularity of digital photography has hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo and what is considered quality. When any individuals are given the opportunity to take a "good" photo, the uniqueness of a genuinely great photo is lost. Based on these two images one is able to immediately tell the difference between the traditional photo and the stock photo. THe traditional photo has a much richer, natural look, while the stock photo is visibly unnatural and artificial looking. In addition, the article explains the point that yes, an unprofessional, untrained photographer can very well take a good picture; however, the possibility that this untrained individual can do this again, and understand the techinques as well as a professional is very low. It is clear that with the availability and popularity of digital cameras the prestige and power of a professional photographer's work is sadly lost and undermined.
Lauren Faherty B3
I believe this has hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo and what is considered quality. It is true that anyone can take a good photo; however, an untrained person could never redo the picture they took. On the other hand, a trained perosn could take the exact same photo over and over becaause they understand the techniques that were used. Because so many people are available to digital cameras and other technology, I feel untrained people sort of take advantage and take credit for photos that they shouldn't be. It is upsetting that people can do this.
I suppose I'll just put the block number on everything.
Stardards are variable; I can't objectively measure integrity and what is considered quality. It does sound from the article, e.g. Klein and Eismann's statements, that the quality of stock images is generally inferior (it certinaly seems so), but since I can't say how this relates to anyone's mindsets regarding that of professional (traditional?) photography, I'll just evaluate the two examples provided.
The first is moody, dramatic, appears carefully engineered. The second is garish and ugly.
- Ross Riordan, 3B
Also your blog seems to operate on Pacific Standard Time. Any way to fix that?
Jacob
I honestly think that it isn't hurting the photographers as much as this article says. The more available cameras become the more photographers we have. Yeah there will be some amateurs getting paid for an easy picture which wont be as good as the professionals. Though quite frankly everyone has to start somewhere, and no ones first attempt is perfect. In doing the menial jobs for photography, someone can get better and better and become a professional as well.
Austin Lloyd 3B
I don't like the fact that anyone can just pick up a digital camera and be able to see it in no time. It's hurting the actual meaning of photography and not making it as fun as it used to be. Using film, I think, is a much better way of taking photos because it is a nicer photo and it's a better experience than just shooting a photo and getting to see it a second after you take it
well, I think yes this has hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo and what is consider quality because the pictures in the past were beautiful they included lots of details which make the picture more beautiful. Also the pictures were taken from different sections which made the picture look nice. Now pictures are taken with only focusing on one thing and in one direction.For example,traditional photo they know how to tell the story.
I think it has hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo and what is considering quality. In the article Ms. Pruitt tells us that she does not follow any of the traditional rules in photography because she does not any and many people also do the same. They take picture of anything they want and without know rules, they end up liking it. Technology has helped in photography but at the same it ruined the beauty and the significances of what a true photo is.
Linda Garcia 3B
Ana Kudless 4B
There have been many benefits of the digital age, as more and more information is made available to us by easier and faster ways. The downside of this increase in the quantity of information made available to us is the decrease in its overall quality. Almost anyone who takes enough pictures can now be a “published” photographer. The artistic ability once required for success in this field has been greatly reduced. The popularity and success of digital photography, the stock-photo market, and the downturn in newspaper and magazine advertising caused by economic reasons have all contributed to the reduced number of quality photos being published. Stock photos, like the one of the woman holding a sunflower, in which the photographer communicates so little to the viewer, dominate the publishing world.
Shannon Pace A2
I think it is really great that now a lot of people can take good pictures and be proud of them by simply using a digital camera, even if they are ametures. I also think its great that with the riht tools and knowledge about photoshop, they can make their pictures art-like. However, old fashioned film photography is art. I think that when people use photoshop and other tecnologies to fix their pictures it makes it less of an art and more of a technology project. Proffesional photography needs to be appreciated through for what its worth and for the effort that goes into it.
Sam Marascio 3B
I do believe that this new age method took put the integrity of the old style of photography because the new age photography virtually has no feeling and its only goal is to be vibrant and stand out. When old photography took more talent and when you looked at a photograph it made you feel a certain emotion and that is the beauty about the old style of photography.
salvador Tecalero 3b
the new age is makeing it harder for the old age from standing out. The old age way it shows more feeling not everyone can do old age. and the new age pictures dont have the charactoristics that the old age has. its one of those things new vs. old. but clearly the new age is better. the new is jus a trend and won't replace the old style of photography...
Chloe Johnson 2A
I think it is great that anyone can have the experience of taking photographs and editing them. Photography is a great hobby to have and really allows people to express themselves. I do think it is sad that people that have worked for years and years to become great photographers are having their jobs taken away by people that have little to no professional experience or education in the world of photography. This has also taken away from the integrity of photography because now anyone can take a terrible photo and make it look perfect and all they had to do was mess around with a computer program for a little while or change the settings on their camera. Don't get me wrong, these utilities are great, but it seems like they are starting to be a bit overused.
Kaila Van Fossan 2A
I like the idea of allowing anyone to be able to take a picture and it turn out pretty decent. I, in particular, cannot take a photograph like a professional and therefore depend on my camera. But then again, I am not trying to make a living off of photography so I do not have anything to complain about. I do think these new cameras for amateurs are hurting professional photographers and their careers. In all honesty, the future of real photographer talent will eventually disappear and the market of photography will probably diminish. Everything will be digital and anyone will be able to do it. But everything happens for a reason, positive or not.
Zack Cusack 2A
It is certainly difficult to draw the line between a professional and an amateur photograph in various cases. Just because a person is considered amateur does not mean that they are lackluster in artistic talent. I'm sure that a handful of amateurs who practice photography as a hobby might exceed far beyond what some professionals are capable of. However, the flooding of stock photographs from people who have very little experience with photography should not be acceptable in the economical world of photography. Too much true talent is being wasted because it is increasingly difficult to make a high income as a photographer.
Kyle Mulholland 3B
I think the integrity of photography is being hurt. Today people don't truly appreciate the effort and work that goes into producing a great photo. I think quality is defined not only by how the photo looks, but how it was done. The fact that anyone can just pick up a camera, take a shot and consider it a good photo, is mocking traditional photography. The first photo of the queen is much more interesting to me because it looks simple. The second photo looks amateur and overdone
Matthew Tuomenoksa A2
After reading this article, everyone has the chance of becoming a well know photographer; just by using their own camera and uploading their photos to a website. I believe that if you understand the basics of photography you can become a professional in just a couple of hours or days. The first photo is professional because the contrast of the darkness and the light brings emotion to the photo. The second photo is amateur because there is to much light in the photo and there is no real balance between the colors in the photo.
Gunnar Wainwright 4a
As technology becomes increasingly available, so does the fundamental understanding of technology. This fact can be applied to modern photography. I believe there is a difference between a photographer and a person with a camera. As the general public gets hold of photograph technology, photos taken by professional photographers looses their uniqueness. The main difference between a photographer and an amateur with digital camera is that a photographer creates art, while the person with the camera simply takes another picture.
Gerry Mollo 4A
I think that it is great that anyone can pick up a digital camera and be able to use it and edit it to make it look nice. I do not think it is wrong that many digital photographer amateurs are taking jobs from trained professionals because everyone should have a chance to express themselves. However, I do think the integrity and quality can be lost from amateurs using digital cameras and editing them too much. The tradition of photo is being lost in today"s age and the professional talent is becoming less important.
Nick Krajewski 2A
I feel the article is right in many regards as photography really doesn't seem to be an economically viable job. Many artists whether they are photographers, painter, musicians, etc. are stumbling to find work in our economy. It seems as if almost anyone can do it these days with the fancy cameras and new programs, the art seems lost. However there are still many who work hard at what they do, they are the masters of their craft and their attention to detail shows in the quality of their work. Although the differences are subtle now to the crutches the amateurs have to stand on, they are still there and they separate an amateurs photo, from a masters.
Andrei Rjedkin 2A
As technology further progress, I believe the integrity of a beautiful photo has been hurt. Now, with photoshop and other photography editing sites anyone can change a part of the original photo. This in my opinion hurts photography in a sense of originality, though photoshop is fun to mess around in. I believe a good quality photo should be a original one. Back when there were no programs to enhance the photo, photographers had to take all aspects of the surroundings into order. Now if something does not look right, one can just take it out and make it look good.
Mary Kate McGuire 4A
Digital cameras and different editing websites have hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo. Many people do not realize that when they edit a picture to a certain extent, they are really taking away the natural beauty of a photo. People think that using different settings on a camera or editing on the computer makes the photo more beautiful, but in reality, they are wrong. This also lowers the quality of a photo because sometimes editing makes pictures look fake. Many magazines and advertising companies take other peoples picture for their own business which also lowers the value of a photograph. The more it is used, the less interest people have on it. Editing a picture too much can take away the true affect and mood of the photo. The traditional picture above shows the true darkness of the photograph, giving it more contrast, while the generic and edited photo might look good, but can be used or done the same way by someone else.
A2
It is good that more people want to make a little money on the side by becoming an amateur photographer but as there is a major influx of these people the market is over-saturated. The talented photographers are being cast aside and overshadowed by the sheer number of people who have no real sense of what they are doing. An artist who knows what they are doing can create an image that speaks thousands of words and ideas through its presence and once this talent is lost than the true meaning of photography is lost as well.
Aubrey Robinson 2A
I do think it's great that digital photography has given amateurs a chance to take a picture that they can be proud of, I don't think it's fair that their work is being used and recognized more than a professional photographer's work is. I think it's hurting the integrity of the individual photo's as well as the industry as a whole. Photography was once an art that had to be mastered, and now just about anyone can take a great photo without having the practice, or real, raw talent for it. It feels as though the industry has become much more superficial. Photographers who use their pictures to convey a feeling or message are now being set aside for the photographs taken by people who do it as a mere hobby.
I don't think that old fashion photography will be ousted by the development of technology. Although it is relatively easy to design a web layout photos of generic creation will continue to maintain their richness. Photography is a long lived profession and hobby that remains and will continue to remain present through future generations.
Terence scanlon 3b
Michael Harran 3B
I think that that it's great that anyone can take a picture and edit it. The photo industry has become more advance and allows people to take a picture and make it look great. There is a big difference in traditional and stock photography. People who do not truly know what they're doing can ruin a photo. I think it ruins the integrity of a photo because a photographer can really create an interesting photo.
Frankie Juliano 3B
I think that this does hurt the integrity of a beautiful photo. The picture of the woman looking out the windows means so much more than a picture that went through Photoshop. Digital photography takes away the fun of actually developing your own photos. You would have to use black and white film and make grain on your own, no Photoshop. Anybody can take a picture, put it through Photoshop and make it look beautiful. That is not fair to the people that didn't use editing software to get there pictures how they look in the end. They did that all from the camera and that takes a lot hard work to do. It not fair for people to compare there picture to traditional old pictures then they didn't do that much work.
Francesca Veney 2A
After reading this article, it’s obvious that the photo industry isn't a secure way to make a living. The web becoming popular has giving anyone the opportunity to design and take photos. For example there are sites like picnik.com and etc, that don't really give you right perspective of editing. I feel as though that the art of photography and generally the quality of photographs has taken a serious decrease due to low quality editing.
Eric Sibrian
I think that there should be more demand for profetionals that have dedicated their life to their work rather then just taking a picture that looks good. i am not saying that there shouldnt be oppurtunity for novice to present their work and get started on their career choice, but they shouldnt be taking the professionals job away either. There should be more concern with the quality of the picture rather then the price its asking for.
Dequanne Gibson
I think that using photos to make money is risky because it will be more competative and also hurts the business. I feel like it also has a postive affect because the more money the better the photo will be it will try to push other people to do better on the photo and edit it more good. The photos looks nice because it makes you focus on what they want you to focus on like in the first picture it makes you focus on the queen and window. Also its different today because we use technology to make photos good as it was back in the day when you needed to do more to make the photo unique.
Brittany Somol A2
With the invention of photo editing software and since almost everyone owns a digital camera, its become very easy for amateurs to manipulate images and make them appear as though they are well-taken photographs. Amateurs are able to take jobs from seasoned professionals because they're willing to do the same job for less money. They offer less quality and they don't know how to properly compose an image that a photographer who knows the ins and outs of a photograph. They just take whatever looks cool at first glance. Quality is going down with the economy because people are cutting corners and relying on amateurs for a professional's job.
I think that the companies made a smart decision by hiring amatuers to take photos. Some pictures require no talent at all to take. Although this process takes away jobs from people, it also may help people discover thier true talent and passion. Some pictures can easily be taken but the inexperience can show in some.
^^^ Jack Ketner
Its amazing how the photography industry has grown quickly over time. And how it has grown almost as if it were a fashion craze.
-Alex Perez
Michelle Reyes 4A
In my opinion this article is about posers effecting the economy. Especailly professional photographers. There are many people who take this as a game or just like pretending they have the actual talent to create a beautiful picture without any clicks to beautify it. To be in this industry you must love taking pictures have the creativy to take different and interesting pictures that way there is more room for the people who actually takes photography seriously then those who just want to prentend
Ayana Spina 4A
Like any painting, drawing, sculpture, etc., photography is a piece of art requiring hardwork and dedication. Digital cameras are slowly, but surely, changing the worth of photography as an art and profession. Stock photography is the perfect example of taking away the integrity of a well, thought out, beautiful photo. Stock photography gives anyone with a camera the opportunity to make money off of any photos. This is hurting the professional world of photography because they most professionals have spent years and put in unlimited amounts of hardwork to the create the work they do and make money off of what they love. It is unfair for amateur work to tamper with this.
Oscar Garcia 4A
Photo industry its like a way to steal money from other peoples because its really impresive how you manimpulate the image and make it look beautiful but it doesn't meean that the pictures are that expensive as they i paying for.
Therefore i am against that way to get easy money .
Kyle Reinhardt
I do not think that digital stock photography has hurt the integrity of photos. With its availability there may be many scenes that we would have never seen because only a select group would be taking photos. However, viewing a picture taken and altered in the traditional form can still be easily set apart and can be appreciated for the work put in to capture the moment.
Max Paris 3B
I feel that phooshop doesn't effect the integrity of a photo. If people pick up a camera and take a photo it is to easy to get paid for it. I think that there should be some type of editing to make the photo look more apealing. I am not saying that traditional photo's are easy to take, you need a good eye for photography to get paid for it though. Editing a photo definatly adds to the art of a photo.
After reading this i feel that people take advantaG OF digital photography just to make money. and i only have one word SAVITRY! it make the old fashion way harder bc there iss feeling in those photo but Now its baicly lik oh hy lt me pick up a digital camera and jut hot anything and cell it. that not what art is about. thiss jut anger me.
Deion martin 4a
ALANA ROOLAART 2A
i feel as though film photographs go unnoticed when it is compared to digital photographs. yes, digital photographs are useful and beautiful because you can manipulate the photo just the way you want it BUT i feel like film photography takes more skill. you can't rotate the photo or enhance the color with film. you have to know the right angles and lighting to get the picture just right. technology today makes photography easier. you dont have to worry about anything other than getting a decent, easily manipulated shot. in my opinion film photographs are more valueable than digital ones because it takes a true skill to capture a beautiful image that makes you think.
Tahi Tomaino
The professional phot looks like the photographer wanted you to focus on the queen's face and the window. The stock photo looks more natural, and there isn't any other emotion behind it. However visually appealing a random picture may be, the beauty has been lost in some way due to the lack of conceptual understanding.
In the world we live in today, it is incredibly easy to take a beautiful photo and transform it into a masterpiece with just one press of a button. However, old style editing turns out to look far more natural than editing on photoshop. The fact that we have programs such as photoshop is simply stating that we are progressing in the world of technology. The are some advantages in the new editing and also new cameras. For instance, on the newer models of cameras we can look at what we captured on film. We can also upload the pictures instead of processing the film. There are advantages for older editing as well. Older editing looks more professional and more realistic. Many photographers are having trouble adjusting to the newer technology in my opinion.
-Katelyn Guarino A4
Jake Cullinane 4A
The internet and computer technology has immensely affected traditional photography's integrity. With the ease and user-friendly software of digital cameras comes amateurs who believe that they are professionals. Consumers who purchase digital photographs from amateurs do not know what they are truly purchasing. There is a lot more that one can do with all of the new technology with digital photos, but it takes the actual skill and integrity from the traditional photographs.
Post a Comment