Monday, July 14, 2008

Is It the Sky or Merely a Cloud That's Falling?

I read an interesting article this morning, The Cloud is Falling, by Vincent Laforet, for SportsShooter.com. (Hat tip to A Photo Editor for linking to the article.) While the article's title sounds fairly pessimistic--and parts of it certainly are--Laforet argues that it isn't the sky that's falling (for pro and would-be pro photographers) but merely a cloud: A cloud that is obscuring the blue skies that remain above it.

I'm certainly no sports photographer, unless you consider sex a sport. Neither am I a photojournalist, editorial or advertising photographer, or commercial photographer, all of whom being the people Laforet mostly targets with his incisive words. But still, I am a person who makes his living with cameras in his hands and, as such, I'm always interested in where the industry, as a whole, seems to be moving--positive directions as well as seemingly negative directions--and what new opportunities might be revealing themselves.

I've written before about the difficulties in making a living as a photographer in the digital age. Mostly, I've complained written about how the evolution of technology has put automated picture-taking skills into the hands of the masses and how that has negatively effected old school shooters. Laforet has identified many more trends (other than technology) that are impacting today's photographers and their abilities to carve a decent living out of today's photo-shooting industries... but he also offers hope!

It isn't that Laforet blueprints a design for success, he doesn't. But his analogy of a cloud, rather than the sky itself, being the thing that's falling--coupled with a bunch of pertinent and useful info--offers hope for those who wish to pursue (or continue pursuing) photography as a career. Assuming you're serious about photography as a vocation (or even an avocation) I think you'll find the time it takes to read Laforet's article will be time well spent.

The gratuitous eye-candy at the top is Brooke from a few months ago. (My bad if I've run this pic before. It's a bit difficult to keep track of which images I've already posted.) Anyway, as I recall, I used two lights to illuminate Brooke: The mainlight modified with a 3' diameter shoot-thru scrim and a small umbrella at the top of the stairway for some highlights. For various reasons, I've lately become a fan of using flat, shoot-thru modifiers (as opposed to softboxes or umbrellas) to diffuse and create a bigger aperture for my mainlight. It's a bit more in the style of film and video lighting. Besides it's softening qualities, this type of modifier adds a bit to the ambient (unlike the more controlled light of a softbox) without scattering a harder light everywhere, as umbrellas often do.

5 comments:

joshua said...

I actually read this awhile ago when 'A Photo Editor" posted it. Great article.

Anonymous said...

I guess my question is this: If everyone is working for "exposure" who is actually getting paid to work?

jimmyd said...

I guess my question is this: If everyone is working for "exposure" who is actually getting paid to work?

Good question. That's a big part of the problem: So many shooters willing to shoot for free in hopes of it leading to later "paid" work. In my experience, you set your rate the first time you work for someone. If it's "no charge," then that's the rate you've set for yourself. I long ago developed an immunity to dangling carrots. I'll admit, tho, I've still managed to get my self infected with Danglingcarrotitis a few times over the years, but the disease wasn't easily contracted.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, Vincent Laforet might be mistaken. I believe a single picture - if shot well - will most of the time outdo a video sequence in impact and retention. Image some of the shots of Henri Cartier-Bresson (just to name one) being shot as a video sequence. All would be lost. I do agree that a lot of mediocre photographers will have to turn elsewere, especially with new digital camera technology (ie face detection, currenly only in compacts) and software replacing part of a photographer's skill. But according to me, photography will stay, just as painting didn't go extint with the coming of photography.

jimmyd said...

Simona: I couldn't agree more in terms of impact and retention re: flm/video vs. a still image. I was at my daughter's home just the other night and they were watching the flick, Chicago. They have a video projector and we were watching it on the "big" screen out in the back yard. I wasn't too crazy about the movie in general but I couldn't help but admire the lighting and art direction. I sat there thinking how so much of the imagery in the flick would have even more impact as a still photo image.