Sidebar to the Internet.

Is it just me or does anyone else out there feel like what you see in
print, on the web or even on the TV seems passe? I guess the instant
exposure has finally killed everyone else's sense of the creative.

Maybe this $40 a month bill just ain't worth it.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Greg "_" wrote:


Is it just me or does anyone else out there feel like what you see in
print, on the web or even on the TV seems passe? I guess the instant
exposure has finally killed everyone else's sense of the creative.

Everything is worse than it was when we were younger. Of course,
Xenophon (IIRC) made the same observation about the Athenian republic ...

In article , Mike Kent
wrote:

Greg "_" wrote:


Is it just me or does anyone else out there feel like what you see in
print, on the web or even on the TV seems passe? I guess the instant
exposure has finally killed everyone else's sense of the creative.

Everything is worse than it was when we were younger. Of course,
Xenophon (IIRC) made the same observation about the Athenian republic ...

Oh I don't know- actually aside from bills, crime worries, and future
old age issues I think my life is far more interesting and complete than
when I was young. I like listening to Cspan and thinking about how
screwed I could be compared to others,....and how the Quote UNquote wise
people are going to correct all this

Once upon a time it bothered me I didn't have a lot of
close friends but now I really like my available solitude.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:51:55 -0400, "Greg
\"_\"" wrote:



Is it just me or does anyone else out there feel like what you see in
print, on the web or even on the TV seems passe? I guess the instant
exposure has finally killed everyone else's sense of the creative.

Maybe this $40 a month bill just ain't worth it.



July 28, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Maybe not "killed" everyone else's sense of
the creative — but diluted it.

Also, I would not limit your remarks to
print, TV and web. The ability of the
individual to "create" has advanced
enormously. Digital cameras have made the
ordinary user free to create as many images
as desired, for next to no cost. Until
recently, film was a slight impediment to
this, although user-friendly cheap cameras
certainly moved this process along nicely.
But where people used to say they had a
camera, so they could make the pictures, too,
thank you mister professional photog, now
they say it and do produce piles of images,
instead of one or two rolls' worth.

I think a facet of what you are saying is
that the value of any single image (I'm sure
this applies to all creative output;
certainly the music industry has been an
example recently) has declined along with the
decline in scarcity. People can not be
expected to appreciate the 'value' of an
image when the world is awash in them — when
a single family can be awash in them, and
personal images of their own family, at that.

And maybe the personal aspect is significant,
too. A parent with a shirt pocket digital
camera can generate thousands of pictures of
the kids in short order. Some of them are
bound to be good, or at least satisfy the
family. The low cost certainly makes them
seem, um, low cost. So the reason to actually
hire and pay a photog becomes more and more
remote and theoretical. A mentality grows,
and has come to underlie (and undermine...)
public attitudes toward artistic output. With
so many images and so much music out there,
why should it be paid for?

We've seen a big change due to this attitude.
The stock photography business has been
changed radically. Getting a customer to pay
a significant amount of money for an image is
more and more difficult. Getting a picture
for free is pretty easy, and making it do the
job in hand is not exactly difficult, either.
Paying a photog to create a suitable image is
a very unattractive proposition by
comparison. Even browsing a collection of
pay-for-rights images must seem like a bore
to a prospective image user.

But we've seen this process at work for
decades. Digital is not the culprit. It only
speeds up the process. One could say George
Eastman started it with 'you press the
button, we do the rest'. People made their
own pictures, and now we see the results.

In 1971 I got a job with an importer of cheap
gift ware, ashtrays and the like. I
photographed the stuff and oversaw the
production of a number of color prints in
5x7. Each sales person got copies. I had a
little room with lights and shelves to hold
the stuff in front of the camera (which was
mine! great deal for the cheapskate
employer...). But the boss wanted to pick my
brain. He had a point and shoot and was
banging away with it taking pictures of his
goods under showroom fluorescent light. He
wanted me to tell him how to get good
pictures so he could eliminate my piddling
salary from his life.

We're seeing a manifestation of what McLuhan
called the 'speedup' of media or
communications. Things can happen faster,
sooner and in greater quantity, which means
they do so. The effects are on us, on our
psychology and attitudes. People now grow up
with pictures (and music) all over the place,
like blades of grass. Why choose one particle
of sand over another? Is one crack in the
sidewalk worth more money than another?

And if an artist comes along and makes a
superb portrait of your family, why should it
be worth more than any of the thousands
you've made yourself? Who can see the
difference any more??

There is a TV commercial playing these days.
A dad is sitting at his computer expounding
on his kids and his picture collection. He
says — "I am my son's paparazzi". Wouldn't
McLuhan and Warhol have loved that? Not only
does everyone get fifteen minutes of fame,
but everyone gets photographed fifteen
thousand times, famous or not.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--

In article ,
Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:51:55 -0400, "Greg
\"_\"" wrote:



Is it just me or does anyone else out there feel like what you see in
print, on the web or even on the TV seems passe? I guess the instant
exposure has finally killed everyone else's sense of the creative.

Maybe this $40 a month bill just ain't worth it.



July 28, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Maybe not "killed" everyone else's sense of
the creative — but diluted it.

Also, I would not limit your remarks to
print, TV and web. The ability of the
individual to "create" has advanced
enormously. Digital cameras have made the
ordinary user free to create as many images
as desired, for next to no cost. Until
recently, film was a slight impediment to
this, although user-friendly cheap cameras
certainly moved this process along nicely.
But where people used to say they had a
camera, so they could make the pictures, too,
thank you mister professional photog, now
they say it and do produce piles of images,
instead of one or two rolls' worth.

I think a facet of what you are saying is
that the value of any single image (I'm sure
this applies to all creative output;
certainly the music industry has been an
example recently) has declined along with the
decline in scarcity. People can not be
expected to appreciate the 'value' of an
image when the world is awash in them — when
a single family can be awash in them, and
personal images of their own family, at that.

And maybe the personal aspect is significant,
too. A parent with a shirt pocket digital
camera can generate thousands of pictures of
the kids in short order. Some of them are
bound to be good, or at least satisfy the
family. The low cost certainly makes them
seem, um, low cost. So the reason to actually
hire and pay a photog becomes more and more
remote and theoretical. A mentality grows,
and has come to underlie (and undermine...)
public attitudes toward artistic output. With
so many images and so much music out there,
why should it be paid for?

We've seen a big change due to this attitude.
The stock photography business has been
changed radically. Getting a customer to pay
a significant amount of money for an image is
more and more difficult. Getting a picture
for free is pretty easy, and making it do the
job in hand is not exactly difficult, either.
Paying a photog to create a suitable image is
a very unattractive proposition by
comparison. Even browsing a collection of
pay-for-rights images must seem like a bore
to a prospective image user.

But we've seen this process at work for
decades. Digital is not the culprit. It only
speeds up the process. One could say George
Eastman started it with 'you press the
button, we do the rest'. People made their
own pictures, and now we see the results.

In 1971 I got a job with an importer of cheap
gift ware, ashtrays and the like. I
photographed the stuff and oversaw the
production of a number of color prints in
5x7. Each sales person got copies. I had a
little room with lights and shelves to hold
the stuff in front of the camera (which was
mine! great deal for the cheapskate
employer...). But the boss wanted to pick my
brain. He had a point and shoot and was
banging away with it taking pictures of his
goods under showroom fluorescent light. He
wanted me to tell him how to get good
pictures so he could eliminate my piddling
salary from his life.

We're seeing a manifestation of what McLuhan
called the 'speedup' of media or
communications. Things can happen faster,
sooner and in greater quantity, which means
they do so. The effects are on us, on our
psychology and attitudes. People now grow up
with pictures (and music) all over the place,
like blades of grass. Why choose one particle
of sand over another? Is one crack in the
sidewalk worth more money than another?

And if an artist comes along and makes a
superb portrait of your family, why should it
be worth more than any of the thousands
you've made yourself? Who can see the
difference any more??

There is a TV commercial playing these days.
A dad is sitting at his computer expounding
on his kids and his picture collection. He
says — "I am my son's paparazzi". Wouldn't
McLuhan and Warhol have loved that? Not only
does everyone get fifteen minutes of fame,
but everyone gets photographed fifteen
thousand times, famous or not.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________

That's it in a larger nut shell
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 08:27:59 -0400, "Greg
\"_\"" wrote:

That's it in a larger nut shell


July 29, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

No restriction on number of words used ...
that's what I love about the Internet ...

regards,
--le

There's an interesting article about the devaluing of professional
photography in the current issue of "Rangefinder".

While I tend to agree with most of the author's conclusions, I think he's
failing to see the whole picture, no pun intended.

The simple facts are that people simply aren't willing to spend the kind of
money for professional photography that they were once willing to.
Ironically the people who think that simply buying a camera makes them a
photographer are the ones who still actually need a professional, they just
aren't willing to pay for one.

I had a boss much like Lloyd did, he hired me to shoot products for a while,
watched what I did, and then he went out and bought a cheap set of strobes
and voila, he became a product photographer. The work looks like crap and
he's perfectly happy with it. I moved on.

Now I shoot youth sports for money, same thing, parents go to the camera
store and buy the latest Nikon and Canon digital SLR's with huge lenses and
they shoot thousands of images of little Justin and Brittany playing soccer,
then they come to our booth and buy images that they somehow aren't able to
take themselves...for now anyway, I have no doubt that some of them will
take enough so that they get an occasionally nice image, and they'll ask
themselves why they should buy a picture when they're just as capable as the
"professional" who's standing downfield.

Arnold Newman is dead and there won't ever be another Beethoven, no amount
of file sharing is gonna change that.

So it goes...

John E.


"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message
...

July 28, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Maybe not "killed" everyone else's sense of
the creative - but diluted it.

rest snipped for brevity...

Correction to my earlier post, it was the June issue of "Studio Photography"
not "Rangefinder" that ran the article about the devaluation of professional
photography.

Sorry bout that...

John

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
There's an interesting article about the devaluing of professional
photography in the current issue of "Rangefinder".

While I tend to agree with most of the author's conclusions, I think he's
failing to see the whole picture, no pun intended.

The simple facts are that people simply aren't willing to spend the kind
of
money for professional photography that they were once willing to.
Ironically the people who think that simply buying a camera makes them a
photographer are the ones who still actually need a professional, they
just
aren't willing to pay for one.

I had a boss much like Lloyd did, he hired me to shoot products for a
while,
watched what I did, and then he went out and bought a cheap set of strobes
and voila, he became a product photographer. The work looks like crap and
he's perfectly happy with it. I moved on.

Now I shoot youth sports for money, same thing, parents go to the camera
store and buy the latest Nikon and Canon digital SLR's with huge lenses
and
they shoot thousands of images of little Justin and Brittany playing
soccer,
then they come to our booth and buy images that they somehow aren't able
to
take themselves...for now anyway, I have no doubt that some of them will
take enough so that they get an occasionally nice image, and they'll ask
themselves why they should buy a picture when they're just as capable as
the
"professional" who's standing downfield.

Arnold Newman is dead and there won't ever be another Beethoven, no amount
of file sharing is gonna change that.

So it goes...

John E.


"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message
...

July 28, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Maybe not "killed" everyone else's sense of
the creative - but diluted it.

rest snipped for brevity...

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
There's an interesting article about the devaluing of professional
photography in the current issue of "Rangefinder".

While I tend to agree with most of the author's conclusions, I think he's
failing to see the whole picture, no pun intended.

The simple facts are that people simply aren't willing to spend the kind
of
money for professional photography that they were once willing to.
Ironically the people who think that simply buying a camera makes them a
photographer are the ones who still actually need a professional, they
just
aren't willing to pay for one.

I had a boss much like Lloyd did, he hired me to shoot products for a
while,
watched what I did, and then he went out and bought a cheap set of strobes
and voila, he became a product photographer. The work looks like crap and
he's perfectly happy with it. I moved on.

Now I shoot youth sports for money, same thing, parents go to the camera
store and buy the latest Nikon and Canon digital SLR's with huge lenses
and
they shoot thousands of images of little Justin and Brittany playing
soccer,
then they come to our booth and buy images that they somehow aren't able
to
take themselves...for now anyway, I have no doubt that some of them will
take enough so that they get an occasionally nice image, and they'll ask
themselves why they should buy a picture when they're just as capable as
the
"professional" who's standing downfield.

Arnold Newman is dead and there won't ever be another Beethoven, no amount
of file sharing is gonna change that.

So it goes...

John E.



And some of them will learn to be good photographers, and that's how it's
done, by getting out there and doing it. This despite all the pros who want
to gripe about it. ;-)

Wasn't griping so much as making an observation of what I see happening. The
few parenal units that will become good photographers weren't our clients
anyway.

I would argue that there's more to becoming a professional photographer than
"getting out there and doing it", some basic training would be a good start
for instance. Other than that gotten from the frustrated "pro" standing
behind the counter at the local camera store or at big box electronics
store.

The simple reality is that I'm better at photography than the average
person, as are most professionals working in the field, and there are more
than enough people that realise that to keep me busy enough along with all
the many thousands of other pros. The guy writing the article was the one
griping about something he can't change which is the other simple reality,
that photography has become devalued and I don't see it increasing in value
in the pro market. Hope I'm wrong.

Just to be safe, I'm going back to school and I've gotten other income
streams to keep the funds coming in...;^)

John E.

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
There's an interesting article about the devaluing of professional
photography in the current issue of "Rangefinder".

While I tend to agree with most of the author's conclusions, I think
he's
failing to see the whole picture, no pun intended.

The simple facts are that people simply aren't willing to spend the kind
of
money for professional photography that they were once willing to.
Ironically the people who think that simply buying a camera makes them a
photographer are the ones who still actually need a professional, they
just
aren't willing to pay for one.

I had a boss much like Lloyd did, he hired me to shoot products for a
while,
watched what I did, and then he went out and bought a cheap set of
strobes
and voila, he became a product photographer. The work looks like crap
and
he's perfectly happy with it. I moved on.

Now I shoot youth sports for money, same thing, parents go to the
camera
store and buy the latest Nikon and Canon digital SLR's with huge lenses
and
they shoot thousands of images of little Justin and Brittany playing
soccer,
then they come to our booth and buy images that they somehow aren't able
to
take themselves...for now anyway, I have no doubt that some of them will
take enough so that they get an occasionally nice image, and they'll ask
themselves why they should buy a picture when they're just as capable as
the
"professional" who's standing downfield.

Arnold Newman is dead and there won't ever be another Beethoven, no
amount
of file sharing is gonna change that.

So it goes...

John E.



And some of them will learn to be good photographers, and that's how it's
done, by getting out there and doing it. This despite all the pros who
want
to gripe about it. ;-)