The Devaluing of Professional Photography

By Patrick Rice

     As a veteran photographer with almost 30 years in the business, it saddens me to see that professional photography is not held in as high esteem that it once was.  First and foremost, professional photography was seen as both an art and a science.  Professional photographers the world over were respected for their artistic ability and their prowess as a technician.  The ability to create a high-quality portrait was something that young photographers like myself worked hard to obtain all those years ago.  The great portrait artists like Monte Zucker, Joe Zeltzman, Don Blair, Frank Cricchio, Tibor Horvath and others showed all of us how to create exceptional portraits.  The care that these photographers took in creating a perfect portrait or wedding image was unmatched.  These industry giants influenced the development of a new generation of artisans.  Photographers David Ziser, Hanson Fong, Jeff Lubin and others picked up the torch and took high-quality wedding and portrait work to another level.  These are my mentors, the people I look up to and tried to emulate.  Their work is breathtaking and I am eternally grateful for everything they taught me.  The quality of the photography by these greats not only influenced hundreds of thousands of photographers the world over, but it set the standard that consumers demanded.  So what happened?  When did photography start to lose value in the eyes of consumers?  Of course there is no one answer and it didn’t happen over night.

    The first trend that has led to the devaluing of professional photography is wedding photojournalism.  Before you begin throwing rocks at me, let me explain.  First of all, real photojournalists get a bad rap.  A photojournalist is simply a reporter with a camera.  If you do not have the luxury of being able to interact with the subject you are photographing, you must take pictures as the situation presents itself and document everything you can.  This makes sense if you are photographing politicians, actors and other celebrities.  In many cases, these people do not want to take the time to ‘pose’ for pictures on a wedding day.  Photographers who cater to this clientele do the very best they can with the circumstances presented to them.  I have no problem with them or how they photograph these weddings.  However, this type of ‘celebrity’ wedding is less than 1/100th of 1% of the weddings that take place in this country.  Last year, there were 2.6 million weddings in the United States.  A handful of these were true ‘celebrity’ weddings. While not posing Brides and Grooms is necessary for celebrity weddings, it never should have become the norm for the everyday Bride and Groom.  For 99.9% of the weddings in this country, the photographer can interact with the Bride and Groom and create the best quality image of them on their wedding day. Wedding photojournalism has not only replaced traditional photography in many instances, it has made high-quality ‘posed’ photographs undesirable.  Here is where the devaluing of professional photography begins.  Today’s wedding photojournalist clones hardly pose a picture and takes several hundred if not thousands of pictures on the wedding day.  I refer to this style as the ‘shotgun’ approach to wedding photography – shoot enough pictures and your bound to get some good ones.  Don’t for a minute think that this is lost on the consumer.  That part-time wedding photographer in your neighborhood no longer has to learn proper posing or lighting in order to be considered a professional wedding photographer.  Just take a bunch of pictures and let them all be ‘natural’.  I can give literally ANYONE a camera and get this type of wedding photography.  How can we be respected as professional photographers if anybody can do the same thing that we are doing?  I am sorry but wedding photojournalism looks like wedding photojournalism.  You will get some great photos once in a while so long as you have a good camera and your finger glued to the shutter.  And don’t think this is a problem isolated to the wedding photography market alone.  I have recently heard two different platform speakers professing that they are shooting 250 – 350 images of high school seniors.  Another speaker does all of his senior photography on location. Let me be the first to coin the phrase “senior photojournalism”.  If this trend catches on, studio portraits of high school seniors could become a thing of the past!

     Another example of how professional photography has been devalued is where some photographers meet with potential customers – coffee shops.  I like Starbucks coffee as much as the next guy, but I am not going to meet a Bride and Groom at one of their establishments.  Where is the professionalism in meeting someone in a coffee shop?  For years, professional photographers worked to create studios and galleries that made an impression when you walked through the door.  Your studio, showroom, office, etc. is your opportunity to showcase the quality of your photography.  In addition, association memberships, degrees and awards can be prominently displayed.  Professional photographers work very hard to reach these achievements, why would they not want to showcase them?  Of course, if you are a ‘weekend warrior’ part-time photographer this may be your only choice.  My problem is when established professional photographers meet with clients in coffee shops.  They give this practice a level of credibility and acceptance.  This acceptance further diminishes the value of professional wedding photography.

     The last example of how professional photography has been devalued is the practice of many photographers of selling the Hi-Res CD to clients.  Don’t get me wrong, for the right price, the Hi-Res files should be available.  The problem is that many photographers have the Hi-Res CD at the bottom of their pricing structure. Selling this CD cheaply to clients cheapens what we do.  When a client only receives a CD from a photographer, they are not getting the full level of service that they deserve.  The last statistic that I heard stated that over 80% of wedding clients that only received a CD from their photographer never ended up creating a wedding album.  These clients will not have the heirloom their parents and grandparents had in the form of a high-quality wedding album from their special day.  Again, it is easy to understand why the part-time photographer would do this. He doesn’t want to bother with album design and layout. He is only interested in the quick buck.  I am, however, dismayed to hear about established professional photographers doing this same thing.  In fact, at a major convention of high school senior photographers,  I heard a speaker state they were going to offer a Hi-Res CD of the senior’s session for only $250!  Their reasoning – the part-time senior photographer in their market was already doing that. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.  We are selling out our own profession when we act like the part-timers.

     The bottom line is this – if we all act like part-time photographers, don’t expect to get paid any better than they do.  What was once an honorable profession is quickly becoming diminished and devalued.  It is time to go back to creating quality portraits.  It is time to light a subject correctly.  It is time to again convince our clients they should receive beautiful wedding albums and framed portraits.  It is time to act professionally and create professional photographs. It is time to again make professional photography an honorable and respected profession.

From Paul Foreman|
 www.captivatingimagesphotography.com:

WOW! that was a great article your wrote for "Lens". I made similar comments on Monte Zucker's Forum and I got blasted into the next country!

Everything you said is VERY true, in spite of what the wannabe Denis Regie's and Gary Fong's say.  There are a lot of brides & grooms and their families that hired a photojournalist, and they will not know it now, BUT 20 years from now they will wonder why they do not have any portraits from their wedding.  I have all but "GIVEN UP" weddings.  There are so many PJ shooters who give away the CD here you practically have to crawl over them to get inside a church or reception area. 
 
GREAT ARTICLE!

From Anne Almasy, Atlanta, GA
info@almasyvisualarts.com

Hello Mr. Rice!

I recently read your article on www.ImagingInfo.com, "Devaluing Professional Photography."   In it, you criticize photographers who practice reportage photography, as well as photographers who choose not to operate out of a studio.

As a young (I'm 25) professional photographer, it was disheartening to see a well-known professional like yourself make such universal statements about photographers and new photography trends.  I studied photography at the Hallmark Institute of Photography in Massachusetts, and was awarded the honor of having one of the top 10 portfolios in my class.  After graduating, I honed my style and have developed a love for the documentary approach to photographing people.

Over the past four years, I've built a clientele throughout the Southeast who love my work.  Every image I take is carefully composed and thought-out -- even the "candid" images.  I spend a lot of time learning to read people and anticipate moments.  I've also stopped carrying a lease on a studio; rather, I meet my clients in their homes or at a local coffee shop if they're more comfortable.  Because I work with clients in several states, they feel pampered by my willingness to meet them in their neighborhood rather than being forced to drive to me.

Is this what everyone should do?  Absolutely not!  Each artist is unique and will blend into his or her community in a special way.  That is why I felt so taken aback by your comments.  I feel that the article was one-sided, and made many assumptions about what clients want and what "wedding photojournalists" provide.

I have a great deal of respect for your work and your expertise.  You are certainly a fixture in your field, and I would never dare to suggest that your business ethic is the cause of an entire industry's downfall!  Please give some respect to those of us who are succeeding in a new era of photography.  We have so much to learn from you, and I would rather see you as an ally than an opponent.  Thank you so much for your time.

Anne Almasy

From David Roberts,

Dear Mr. Rice,

I just read your article on Imaging Info. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the following article:

http://www.wedpix.com/july-2006/articles/wedding-photojournalism-fad.html

David Roberts
Founder - Wedding Photojournalist Association
http://www.WPJA.com

Response from Patrick Rice to David Roberts

Hello, David -

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my article.  I enjoyed reading the article that you hot-linked to me.  The author made some very good points.  Although I do not agree with everything she wrote, there is a lot of truth in her remarks.

I personally do not agree that a photojournalistic approach would make photos from the 70's or 80's seem less dated.  As the author herself pointed out, the hairstyles and tacky clothing are what dates those photos.

I commend the author for pointing out the "canned" pictures that many photographers pass off as photojournalism.  Many so-called photojournalistic images are just as set up as any posed photograph.  "Crooked" pictures were started by the Australians and now everyone does this too.  Detail images seem very contrived in many cases.  I believe Denis Reggie called this pho-journalism as in fake photojournalism.  However, you must concede that this is exactly what some Brides expect in their wedding coverage.

Of course, true emotions will never be trendy or dated.  Photographers used to just call these 'candid' moments.  I will concede that a good photojournalist photographer is watching for these moments more closely than many of the traditional photographers do.  The really good photojournalist photographers position themselves to achieve the most dramatic lighting of these pictures.

I commend the work of really good photojournalist photographers.  However, many part-timers have adopted this style because they feel it gives them permission to shoot a couple of thousand pictures without regard for quality or style and call it photojournalism.  They give photojournalism a bad name.

I appreciate the efforts of your organization to educate Brides in what to look for in a true photojournalist photographer.  Your members are just as talented as photographers that are very adept at traditional posing and lighting.  If we could both educate Brides of the no-talent wanna-bees that are poorly attempting to photograph weddings in either style, real professional photographers will all be better off.

Again, thanks for sharing that article and feel free to share my response with your membership.

Respectfully,
Patrick Rice

From Rob Annis of Robert Charles Photography
rcharlesphoto@tds.net

Patrick,

Every once in a while I hear a voice which echoes mine concerning the plight of Professional Wedding Photography and (what I call) the "de-evolution" of the state of Photography, in general.

For example, there was a time when "washed out" highlights in a print used to be considered an error; it is now part and parcel of contemporary photography.

More often than not, the acceptance of loose Photojournalism techniques has led to Wedding Photography which closely resembles those snapshots brought home from a family reunion. It seems that at every turn the media has gotten on board extolling the virtues of sloppily shot, poorly produced images which require nothing more than tipping one's camera at a silly angle, framing for the headless torso of the Bride, and perhaps introducing a certain amount of camera movement to give the illusion of being on the "cutting edge". Deplorable.

And even trade magazines have bought into this "emperor-with-no-clothes" train of thought. Last month (June 2006), Professional Photographer featured the work of an individual which can only be described as lacking. When I can no longer differentiate between those images produced by my untrained 9 year old son and the featured Professional on the cover of a nationally recognized magazine, I can only shudder (pardon the pun).

Should we wonder why Professional Photography has been devalued? If we
Professionals do not delineate between good quality professional work (with good composition, posing, lighting, exposure, etc.) and junk photography, we should not expect the general public to seek out the services of Professionals.

Comments are welcome. Thank-you for caring.

Rob Annis
Robert Charles Photography
From Chuck Humbert
cwhumbert@cox.net

Pat, I commend your interpretation on the movement in Professional Photography.

I remember in the mid fifties the trend to have 'Formal Portraits' done on location at out door settings began. This led to photographers working out of their homes being able to book weddings without having an 'In Studio Shooting Room'.  That was the start of the movement for anyone with a camera to be able to cover weddings.

Now with the advent of digital photography and quality inkjet printing I noticed another change.  Last month at the SONOPP meeting the speaker mentioned that he sold 8x10's for $10.00 each.  Wow!  When I closed Humbert Studio three years ago I was selling 8x10's for $59.00.  Times apparently have changed.  Where it will lead I do not know.

Your thoughts as published in the SONOPP newsletter are very appropriate. It is something that we all must be aware of.

Where have all the shoemakers and TV repairman gone?

Can we innovate and create a new market?

We must come up with a new product that requires our professional skills.

Bringing this up at the National Level will not help.  Our once-professional organizations now consist of anyone with a camera who is willing to pay the dues.  The professional organizations have become 'Large Businesses' in themselves with big money going to its upper echelon.  They even publish magazines, again for big bucks.  In addition, many of our fine photographers have joined the speakers circuit putting on seminars for large fees.

Now, here I am just rambling on and not really adding anything to your eloquent epistle.  I just had to let you know that you have been heard and that your thoughts are timely.

Chuck . . .
From Vondel Stevens, Canyon, TX
Photography by Vondel, vstevens@amaonline.com

Patrick,
I want to thank you for your recent viewpoint article in Studio Photography
Magazine. You have helped me to clarify my goals as a professional
photographer. If you have any suggestions on how to convince clients that they need an album of wedding images, I would certainly welcome them.

Sincerely,
Vondel Stevens
From Al Satterwhite

Patrick,

I read your viewpoint in 'Studio Photography'....good for you...similar to what
I wrote in ASMP magazine a couple years ago...unfortunately, most photographers can't read.

all best,

Al Satterwhite
From Myron Bursell, Ph.F., Spokane, WA
Green Gables Photography, myron@greengablesphotography.com

Patrick, I just wanted to say thank you for your article in the PPA June issue.
it was well thought out, to the point, and it was a good point. My wife and I
have been in photography for 29 years this year and know all the same
instructors and photographers. We need to let the public know that we are
worth our talent!

Thank you again,

Myron

From Pitrice Sanford, Henderson, NV
foreverimages2000@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Rice,

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the article about the
devaluing of photographers for GP Albums. I think it is an article that the
public needs to read. Please send it to magazines like Shutterbug and see if
somone will publish it. Thanks again for your article!!!!

Sincerely,
Pitrice Sanford
Forever Images
From Steve Bedell
steve@stevebedell.com

Hi Patrick,

We've briefly met before. I agree totally with your sentiments in PPANE newsletter, wrote similar views 2 years ago in Shutterbug article. I'd like to publish the article in EPhoto, my online magazine, goes to 16,000 photographers. Send me your email and I'll send you sample issue, latest has article by Fuzzy.

Thanks,
Steve

From Paul Foreman, Fort Myers, FL
captureman@foremanfoto.com

WoW! that was a great article your wrote for "Lens".  I made similiar comeents on Monte Zucker's Forum and I got blasted into the next country! 

Every thing you said is VERY true, in spite of what the wannabe Denis Regie's and Gary Fong's say. There are a lot of brides & Grooms and their families that hired a photojournalist and they will not know it, BUT 20 years from now they will wonder why they do not have any portraits from their wedding. I have all but "GIVEN UP" weddings. There are so many PJ shooters who give away the CD here you practically have to crawl over them to get in side a church or rcetion area. 
 
GREAT ARTICLE ! 
 
Paul Foreman 
www.captivatingimagesphotography.com
From Steve Klinger, West Warwick, RI
Ultima Photography & Video, ultimastudio@cox.net

Hi Patrick.

Well I bet you are getting some emails after the "Business Matters" article that was in Studio Photography. I want to say that "It is about time someone said all of that".

I swear that it is a competition to see who can shoot the most body parts and not include a face.  The photojournalistic wedding approach has gotten carried away.  I really wonder how the couple will feel 5 years from now when the trend has passed and we get back to good basic story telling photography and a mix of great portraits on a wedding day, which I hope happens soon.

WAY TO GO!  I enjoyed your article and hope others realize that there are lots of us out here who feel the same.

Steve

From Pete Cardello
www.albumsinc.com

Hi Patrick,

Ron Hassay sent me a copy of your article that appeared in Studio Photography.  My compliments for stating your thoughts on what is happening in our industry!  I, like you, learned from the same masters and still cling to the values I was taught as a professional photographer.  What we offered our clients stood head and shoulders above "Uncle Harry".

Our industry has taken a turn for the worse and many are experiencing the negative impact as a result photographers, and I use the term loosely, giving their client sub standard work and handing them a CD.  Most album suppliers are feeling the pain.  Likewise, there are companies out there producing sub standard albums at low prices that are not built to last and quite frankly, if I were still doing portraits and weddings, I would not use.  Companies like Art Leather, Leather Craftsmen and many others (including Albums Inc.) have supported the industry faithfully for so many years are now starting to feel the pain.

I agree with you thoughts completely.  I have come to a point of not underwriting speakers or associations who promote speakers who send messages to aspiring "professionals" that will do nothing but doom the profession as we once knew it.

Sincerely,

Pete Cardello
Albums Inc.

Response from Patrick to Pete Cardello
Hi Pete,

Thanks for the kind words.  I hope that this message continues to reach photographers across the country. The article you read has been published in more that 20 PPA Affiliate newsletters and I am still getting feedback from it.

I feel that there needs to be a re-education of the Brides and Grooms.  This needs to happen through wedding sections of newspapers, local and national bridal publications and web sites like the Knot.  Everyone in the industry needs to work to change the perception of professional photography.  I would like to see some of the album companies and color labs pool their resources to get the right messages placed in these forums.  A few months back, I stopped in and spoke to Bill DeMarco at length about this.  I am seeing many of my friends in this business struggling for their survival and I feel many will not make it.  If photographers and suppliers work together, I think this can be turned around.  Right now, bridal planners encourage Brides to rent chair covers (at $4 - $15 per chair) but skimp on their photographer.  One national bridal publication that has both a Cleveland and Columbus edition advises the Bride to "...ask if the photographer will surrender the high-res files or wedding negatives".   SURRENDER!  Implying the photographer has no right to retain the wedding negatives be it electronic or film.  When Brides read information like this, naturally their expectation is to ask for the high-res CD.  This misinformation is helping to destroy our wonderful profession.  We need to do something.  This article was meant to raise awareness and open discussion on the state of the industry, but it can't stop here.  We must work to take the next step and implement changes in the perceptions of both photographers and Brides.

Thanks for listening.  Let me know if you have any ideas how we can make this happen.

Sincerely,
Patrick

Patrick,

I read your article in Studio Photography, "Devaluing Professional Photography".  As a 22 year wedding photography veteran I couldn't agree with you more.  I learned the old school way and earned my PPA Master's and Craftsman degrees along the way.  A part of the blame also goes to our "professional" organizations that routinely feature mediocre or poor work and hype the "new photographers" as flavor-of-the-month for others to aspire to....and even puts them on speaking platforms at a national level!

As the director of photography for Edward Fox, I oversee 90 photographers in 3 cities and I can tell you that today's generation are a different breed.  Thankfully, I already have noticed the pendulum start to swing back toward clients wanting quality, not just hype and CD's.

Thanks for speaking your mind for all of us who don't take the time to write - we agree!

best wishes,
Andre

Andre LaCour
Director of Photography
Edward Fox Photography

Hi, Patrick,

I just want to say I really enjoyed (and agree with) your article in the June PPPANE newsletter.  And did you see the cover of the latest PPA magazine - I nearly fell over!

Well, I may write a letter myself to PPA.  If you were not a PPA member and you saw that cover on a news stand, would you buy the magazine?  Yikes!

Keep up the good work.

Gillian
Gillian Randall Photography

Hey Patrick, The article you wrote (and was publicized in Studio Photography a couple of months ago) that has led to a lot of controversy recently was right on. You called it like it is and I applaud you for it.

Those who are berating you for alerting photographers that they are giving their work away won't be around for long. I'm just concerned, like you, that these people will do significant damage to our profession before they go on to be plumbers or some other hourly type worker.

Dwayne Lee, M.Photog., Cr.-API
Southern Flair Photography
President, Texas Professional Photographers Assn. President, Association of Wedding Professionals (DFW)

Dear Patrick,

Normally I allocate no more than 5 minutes per month on the insipid fluff found between the pages of "Studio Photography" magazine.  It roils me to read any publication which routinely highlights "photographers" possessing no more technical ability than does my 8 year old son with a point-and-shoot camera.

And that is why I found the June 2006 issue, which featured an article written by you, to be such a curiosity.   Having been familiar with your work in Ed
Pierce's "PhotoVision", I personally couldn't fathom why you would want to submit an article to a forum which advocates against the very qualitative
approach to photography which you stand for.  And why "Studio Photography" would even print an article condemning their holy grail (Photojournalism) is, perhaps, just as curious.

Your article hits the nail right on the head, of course.  Professional Wedding Photography has seen a great de-elevation in status - and de-evolution in skills - over the past 6 or 8 years.  And one need not have to look far to prove your point.  Following your article was a typical feature on another "snapshot artist".  Your article may have been more instructive had it included a directive to view the following article as a case on point.

My only hope is that, at some point, consumers will awaken from their desire for and acceptance of mediocrity and once again embrace a style of photography which has a greater substantive value.  Perhaps, just like we had to suffer through a few years of "A Flock of Seagulls" inundating our radio waves, so must we put up with the clamoring of trite individuals breathlessly following after "The King's New Clothes".  At some point, someone will have to stand up and say, "Enough of this "family reunion" style wedding photography!  The Bride and Groom deserve something better, and I'm gonna give it to them - whether or not it runs counter to the "style" of the day.  And maybe you just did.

Thanks.

"So let it be written. So let it be done"

Rob Annis
Robert Charles Photography
www.robertcharlesphotography.com
From Jean Golden
jcg60@charter.net

Just wanted to comment on the article you wrote about devaluing
photography.

I used to shoot wedding, portraits, sports, school photography.  For several
reasons I am not currently doing so, but wanted to point out that not only are
these new photographers not creating ART anymore, but I feel that the majority
that are shooting digi, have sacrificed so much in the way of the finished
result.

I look at these portrait photographers web sites and shake my head...images (i
refuse to call them photos) are blurry, lack definition and color!  Whatever
happened to capturing the vibrant breath-taking color?

I do have to say I am impressed by the work on your site.  But so many of this
new generation of shooters just seem to think if they get the subject in the
image, they have done their job.

I hate this new photo attitude and refuse to be a part of it.
I shoot most of my own photos on my 35mm Nikon and only use the digi 35 for some
work I do for the school yearbook.

Thanks for your time.
An exchange between Patrick Rice and Sara Frances (studio@photomirage.com)
 
Patrick, The August article was called Prices, Averages & Profit by Jeff Smith, www.jeffsmithphoto.com. The images shown seem good, except for the one where the girl looks like she is crawling out of a fireplace or from under a bannister. The text gives me many concerns. The other article I thought was in the current convention issue of PPA, and I'm sorry to say I threw it out. It was about a young woman photographer in the Chicago area and her associated team who have branched into a wide variety of products for events. 
 
Of course business and professionalism are cyclical, but I don't think I can remember a time when quality dropped this low, what with the influx of new practitioners and the outsourcing of retouching, design, print and presentation. It would be easy to call these photographers "undocumented workers", except that the label would do injustice to the hard laboring immigrants who are responsible in great measure for the success of Colorado's resort and farming industries.
 
Consumers must take a share of the blame for low quality. They don't do their homework when selecting a photographer, yet in all fairness, there are so many cookie cutter snap shooters, that clients simply don't often come across art when searching the immense haystack of imagery. Of the photographers who are talented, an even smaller number of those know anything about postproduction. Current skills after the shutter clicks are just too difficult for the majority, and they abdicate their responsibility to finish their job with a beautiful, lasting presentation. I feel that every step of the way is creative time we owe our clients.
 
This all makes it very hard for the client to educate herself and make an informed choice. She just does not know what is possible. Of course, fast and cheap drive the market right now, with people simply not looking toward total price/performance or future value. Government policies, education concerns and social nervousness seem to me to be engendering this shallowness.
 
Yes, I'll admit that I do consider locations just as much my studio as my real studio room. For us, lighting on location is close to a hollywood affair with assistants and light modifiers. I do also like action and series portraiture, perhaps somewhat similar to the silly scenario you mention, but with lighting, set and postproduction - not 300 snaps that are printed at Walmart, the lab of choice for so many of our pros.
 
You are totally correct about the majority of speakers. My teaching partner, Fabian Krajmalnik, just retuned from PPA convention. He reports that the programs he attended were simply terrible, and cited specifics, in all areas of business, traditional art and new technical skills. Last year my husband and I actually walked out of a number of programs at WPPI which were so bad that we simply couldn't listen any more.  Karl is the videography part of our family business. Today he was working for an advertising and pr firm, which he could only describe as "new age", whatever that is. It appears they propose ideas, but don't really do any of the work. One young creative who was being interviewed stated that he ..."doesn't listen to new songs all the way through anymore. (I) just break off and go looking for a better one."  Does this tell you the amazing attention deficit disorder suffered by the general public?
 
I assume you mean Bill Hurter when you say that Rangefinder rejected your article. I walk very carefully by this man, because he has said that so many people recommend me to him, that he finds it hard to trust my articles. Naturally I would like to be on good terms with everyone, and would like to change his mind simply by continuing to offer real information carefully presented. Since Studio Photography declines to pay authors, Alice sometimes has to take what she can get, and you're right about how all these magazines edit the copy. One of Jane Ziser's articles was recently edited into a completely wrong retouch recipe.  The current issue about studio lighting (pg 14) which has good intent but inaccuracies, and the survey on pg 12 never mentions artistic design or innovative styling as a reason to select a particular album company. Inaccuracies and improper/incomplete research are, however, no more prevalent in that publication than the others.
 
I feel soap boxy too! But that is the only way to get things changed - just keep at it both gently and sometimes with a bit more vehemence. Most days I just try to produce the very best I can to keep my few clients happy and with genuine art in their homes. I have thoroughly enjoyed writing details and thoughts back to you.
 
We've never really sat down and talked. I am impressed with how much philosophy we have in common, and perhaps some heritage, as I am an Ohioan by birth. Should you come to WPPI, I'd like to propose that we have a little lunch or perhaps a snack and drink together. Do let us know if plan to come and if you could find time to spend a half hour getting further acquainted.
Best regards, Sara Frances
 
On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:52 PM, prfisheye@aol.com wrote:

 
Hello Sara
 
Nice to hear from you. Thank you for the kind words about my article.  
 
Which Rangefinder and Professional Photographer articles were you referring to? I would like to read it. FYI - that article was originally submitted to Rangefinder magazine and the editor refused to print. He did not feel it had any merit and felt it was completely inaccurate. After a couple of phone calls and emails, I simply chose to move on and submit it to Studio Photography.
 
I am personally very dismayed by the complete lies being spoken by some platform speakers. Apparently the photographic studio business model has been to open a photo business, struggle and watch profits dwindle, then become a platform speaker to tell other photographers what they should do. So many of the speakers out there have virtually no business and yet we hear them at major conventions across the country.  They all claim to be business gurus when they can't even make in their own businesses.
 
My Studio Photography article was slightly edited from its original form. The end of my article focused on the senior photography market and trends that I have identified. While the magazine included my disappointment with a platform speaker selling the high-res images files to the senior for $250 (a female photographer from Northern Ohio) they edited out a couple of other examples. I cited a very talented senior photographer who does all of his senior photography on location - primarily at the senior's home and surrounding areas. Although this person is really good at what he does, if we convince the public that having senior pictures taken in a studio environment is no longer necessary or undesirable, many established senior studios will suffer and every Uncle harry and soccer mom will be able to encroach on the market. An elderly wedding photographer told me the beginning of the end in wedding photography was when Brides no longer felt it was necessary to go to the professional portrait studio on the wedding day for classic images. He told me that was when amateurs, hobbiest and photo wanna-bees were empowered to enter the market. Another example that was edited from the article was a new high-profile senior platform speaker who tells the audience that she shoots 200 - 300 images at a senior session. From having the senior toss their head to rolling across the floor, she has her finger on the powerdrive clicking exposures. To me this could be called senior photojournalism. Shoot bunches of photos and hope to get enough good ones to satisfy the client. Obviously lighting is of no value at all to this photographer. She does not take the time to properly create a light ratio on the senior so she just flat lights the senior and shoots away. Again, any Uncle Harry or soccer mom can achieve flat lighting. Where is the artistry?
 
I'll get down from my soap box now. Thanks for your encouragement. I hope these trends reverse before too many of our friends in the business are put out of business
 
Patrick