Comments on: Round Up

By: Brendan Meadows

Brendan Meadows — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:53:24 +0000

In 2009 ‘Good’ is the new ‘Great’…right Kathi? What a year.

Jus sayin……

By: Never Good Enough

Never Good Enough — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:04:00 +0000

The problem isn’t that “amateurs” now have access to inexpensive good equipment. If you’re talented, you’re talented and should be getting the work. The problem is “amateurs” give things away just because they’re happy to see their picture in a magazine… thus making it harder to make a living being a photographer no matter how talented you are.

The other problem is, these days good enough is good enough. So, clients would rather use the good enough free image than the great image from the talented photographer that actually wants to get paid for their work.

So in the world of good enough, it’s not the most talented that succeed. It’s the ones that are the most willing to do it for less.

By: J.S.

J.S. — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:06:04 +0000

I rarely post negative comments, but I have to say, I am really sick of the sulking position of the Globe piece by Margaret Wente.

Being a professional cannot ride on protectionism. There was a time, shortly before I came of age, where professionals in the world of photography dominated the industry mainly because of barriers to entry – the equipment and chemicals were expensive and difficult to come by. Did that make those who had access to them more talented than those who didn’t? I don’t think so.

Many many many creative individuals were blocked from an industry which protected it’s monopoly due to difficult barriers to entry. And now that those barriers are broken, the few who were inside are understandably upset.

Their is a difference between talent and technology. What exactly does Margaret mean here – “Cameras and software have become much better, so that even amateurs can do work that used to require professionals.”

What implies that those using new technology are amateurs? Sure, the technology now is much much more democratically spread. Sure, the negative side is that everyone has access to it. But that’s the positive side, too. The concept of amateur vs. professional is about the use of technology, not access to it. That is what is different now. There are no longer the barriers to entry that propped up the “professional” class of the last generation.

If you keep your eyes open and you’re willing to work with the times instead of lamenting what will never be again, you’ll see that there are as many new opportunities for creatives as there are difficulties.

But keeping your focus on the past will never allow you to see the potential for the future.

I’m glad the barriers are broken. I see so much more diverse work being created all around the world by people who would not have had access to the technology 20 years ago, or even 10.

By: Jt

Jt — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:00:48 +0000

Sadly the Globe piece seemed to miss the fact that it’s not just boomers it’s a large part of the creative class that’s being faced with change. Richard Florida must be pissed.

By: Greg Wahington

Greg Wahington — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:08:56 +0000

I thought I was being clear on my site, but I just want to clear the air and say that YES, I was paid for the photos. Thanks for caring.

P.S. Finn, I see you!