Round Up
Some interesting things from the last couple of weeks:
A disheartening (although a little overdramatic I think) article from the Globe last week about the aging Creative Class and the difficulty they are having staying employed.
The same Internet revolution that’s shaking up the world of print has devastated other fields, too. One is commercial photography. Not long ago, original, high-quality photography was in demand for hundreds of uses, from advertising to corporate brochures. Today, companies put all the latest product information on their websites, and the corporate brochure is all but extinct. Cameras and software have become much better, so that even amateurs can do work that used to require professionals. And why hire a photographer at all when an art director can get almost any image she wants in minutes on the Internet? “I know some very talented people who’ve just given up,” says Sid Tabak, one experienced photographer who hasn’t.
Mr. Tabak, who’s 59 - and still skis the black diamonds - has grown used to working with (and for) people who are 30 years younger than he is. He relies on their recommendations. They like him because he’s relaxed and flexible. But he knows his age is not exactly his greatest asset. “Who wants to work with their father or mother?” he says.
Because Sid mentions smoking pot later in the article, let’s give him a little love:
© Sid Tabak
- - - - - - - - - -
Here’s a story about a Flickr photograph being picked up for use by the Maple Leafs. I’m not sure what’s worse- discovering someone’s used your photograph for commercial purposes without paying for it or being associated with the Maple Leaf’s 2009 season.
Nathan Philips Square (background) © Greg Washington
It’s a little unclear to me whether Greg actually got paid for the shot. I hope he did. I like his blog very much, especially this behind the scenes post.
Thanks for the link Finn.
5 comments
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!
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.
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.
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.
In 2009 ‘Good’ is the new ‘Great’…right Kathi? What a year.
Jus sayin……
Leave a Comment