A few days ago, Rob Haggart (A Photo Editor) published an illuminating interview he titled, Interview with a *Big Shot* Art Buyer.Haggart's title pretty much says it all: He, Haggart, asks questions and she, the "*Big Shot* Art Buyer," answers them. BTW, the occupation of "Art Buyer" might be a bit misleading to some of you. To clarify, Haggart didn't interview someone who buys paintings and sculptures for the Louvre or the Getty museums. He spoke with someone from the world of advertising, i.e., an advertising art buyer who, simply put, buys or contracts for art to be used in advertising, in this case, photographers and their art.
One of the questions Haggart asks in the interview really set me to thinking. Leastwise, the *Big Shot* art buyer's answer got me thinking. Haggart asks, "How important is photo-compositing in advertising photography and do you hire photographers who shoot everything “in camera” to work on campaigns that will need load of retouching?"
The *Big Shot* art buyer responds, "You should ask a photographer this question... they are the ones that are becoming less of a photographer and more of a computer tech person."
Ouch!
But you know what? She's right. She's absolutely right.
Like the *Big Shot* art buyer, I also think that photographers of all skill levels (and all levels of success) are becoming, or have become, less a photographer and more of a computer tech person.
Some of you might ask, "Yeah. So what? Is that a bad thing?"
Honestly, I don't know.
From a photography purist's point-of-view -- and I'm not saying I'm a purist -- it probably is a bad thing. But for those who look at this as an evolutionary change, it's simply the way things are-- In fact, these days, it's a requirement that photographers become computer savvy whether they are professionals or serious hobbyists.
So what is the *Big Shot* art buyer's bias concerning this issue? Is she a purist with a bad attitude towards it or simply an observer commenting on change? Again, I don't know. But I do detect a 'tude that doesn't seem like it includes a whole lot of admiration for this photography trend. But, I could be wrong.
Anyway, I'm heading out to Vegas in the morning. I'll let you know how the WPPI show was.
The gratuitous eye candy at the top is Carly from this past week.
4 comments:
Oh the old argument slamming digital again.
Photography is evolving. It’s no longer just about purist photography, it’s about creating art. If this involves digital enhancement, then so what? Digital tools are just another medium, in the same way that modern matt painting uses both photographs and digital painting. It’s just a different form of art, and if the advertisers (the exhibitors of the modern world) buy it, then at least the artists get paid for doing something they love and are good at.
If this sounds like I’m slamming purists, then that’s not true. I appreciate the value of a good untouched photograph as much as the next person, and there will always be a place for that. But there is nothing wrong with learning to use different mediums to create better images.
Art evolves over the years, and so photography must evolve too, or risk becoming archaic. This doesn’t mean it’s any less “photography.”
Does it matter ?!
Traditionally there were two stages to a print. Take the picture on a negative, print the picture in the darkroom. There were photographers who didn't print, and there printers who didn't take photographs. Compositing was hard but not unusual.
I can imagine the arguments in the photographic world when people went from full frame contact prints to 35mm projection prints with people probably saying that is wasn't true photography because now you can manipulate the prints.
Until recently retouching was done by a professional retoucher, akin to the professional printer. As the costs of doing the retouch work has dropped so more and more photographers are doing it themselves.
The tools have changed, the results are the same. Its just a change in the times.
Not to forget costs. For some things it is just so much cheaper to take two photographs and merge them than to take one that not manipulates.
If the purpose of your photography is to capture reality then photo-manipulation is a bad thing. If the point of the photography is to realise some internal vision, then its the end result that matters not the path taken to reach it.
Two Thoughts
1st
In todays digital world, and as much as some people would like, we are not going back to film, how do you "not" become a computer tech?
It is one thing that holds me back even as a rank amateur. I am very intimidated by the tech and learning curve of the digital photography world.
I am in awe of the pros and high level amateurs when I read about the trials and tribulations of the fast moving digital photography world. See Rich's post on Fluffytek. This world changes at speed the film world never saw.
2nd
How is...."becoming less of a photographer and more of a computer tech person.", different from becoming less of a photographer and more of a darkroom tech. in the past? Did she feel the same buying from them?
Is it less or actually more?
Does being a computer or darkroom tech mean you are less a photographer? I don't think so. If so, you have to belittle a lot of outstanding photographers. It could mean a better photographer. I'm sure you have been on shoots that were less than ideal. Maybe because of the location or weather or the changing light or the stupiidity of the demands of idiot clients. But you knew because of the "tech art" part of photography you possess you could deliver the shot they desired.
I would have to think that every photograph used in the past, in a commercial application, was manipulated. Even in the Art world. It seems to me I saw the dodge and burn diagram for one of the most famous images in the black and white world, Ansel's Moonrise. What he recorded is not what you see. Ah..darkroom tech. I think the only photos that could be considered to be not suspect of post shot manipulation is the first daguerreotypes.
I think you have to ask Ms. Buyer. Does she not appreciate the ability to buy an image that she really needs that was "teched"?
To be able to buy just the image she needs because the tech photographer was able to record more detail and light than a film shot would have. To be able to buy the image that is actually a composite of multiple images that the Tech Photographer then combined into a single image that could not show the detail or have been made any other way. To be able to buy the perfect image for her client, that she doesn't know, in reality was pulled out of the crap file by the computer guru photographer. Instead of her client having to set up a multi thousand dollar shoot to "try" and get the shot... she bought it with a mouse click.
Just a couple of thoughts.
D.L. Wood
this might be more apt for one of your previous post, but I just found it interesting.
The 7 kinds of Photographers
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
Post a Comment