Another sign of the changing times

[imagemaker46]

A very well respected photography school in Canada, the Western Academy of photography on Vancouver Island closed it's doors two weeks ago. At one time the school had limited space for students. Over the past few years the numbers dropped off every year until the end when on a dozen had enrolled. The school had some great photographers as teachers, the requirement to teach was being a full time working professional, at the end, the professionals were long gone. The school had produced some very talented photographers over the past 30 years.

My Dad, Ted Grant did an interview today for an awards program that is coming up in the near future, was asked the question, "What advice would you give to anyone that wants to go into photography as a career" His answer was "Be a doctor, or a lawyer or an accountant, but don't give up on wanting to be a photographer"

He was a guest teacher at the academy many times in the past, and has an exhibition opening at the Leica Gallery in New York later this month.

 

[SpikeyJohnson]

Sadly I see this as also a rebelling against the system most places have set in place. Many people are learning that education in an art isn't as valuable as getting out and doing it. I also saw what your father said and what he meant a little while ago. I haven't given up on becoming a full time photographer, I hope some day it will come, but I also see the need to do something else and I'm half way to my IT degree which is something that is a bit harder to learn than going out and doing photography.

Also I see a trend going on that the world doesn't see photographers for what they are worth. The people who realize the worth of quality time spent in photography are far and few between. Most large companies have at least one person they can rely on to bring this quality and sadly because of the "get more for less" attitude, they will work that one person to death or they will never need to hire another. The rest of the world see's the camera's on their phones and believes that it is easy, that time and effort don't need to be involved. They would see otherwise if they were pursue it. They do not understand the time it takes to learn to photoshop, to compose, to direct, or to learn. Because everyone has a camera in their phone, they think it is easy. Because it is so available they don't see the need for quality. It is the "give me this now for free" attitude. No one willing to pay for something unless they must rely on it completely such as companies must do with their designers and photographers, etc.

Some days I wish my local college offered a better degree in photography. I constantly gaze at it's requirements and see that it isn't as good as me learning on my own in my own interests. I don't believe I will ever use the dark room again (I have used it before). If my college would stop the art department from allowing it to have exclusive rights to the photography degree, the Digital Media Department would shine. They would offer the new world techniques that people really need these days. Not grip to the past, for art and histories sake.

Some day I hope because of this, there will be a shortage of photographers and hopefully it will help the ones survive who are in it for the long haul. Hopefully the community of photographers who truly invest their time will be given what they deserve then.

But sometimes I don't know if I'm right.

 

[pgriz]

The way images are used or consumed has changed, along with the way information is provided. This parallels what has happened to the music industry, the print industry, and is affecting the book industry. The way software is produced has dramatically changed over the past 30+ years, with much of the coding drudgery being hidden by the toolkits. These trends have moved the formerly-skilled areas into the commodity arena with pricing expectations following. The growing sophistication of the tool-kits means that skills needed before are now partly/mostly done by programs/machines, and therefore the fields are more accessible to more people. Quality is usually not the most important characteristic for "most" people, with price and speed usually trumping the former.

This is also seen in the manufacturing area where much of the production has moved off-shore, and the cost of production has fallen to the point where maintenance and repair is no longer a major part of the business case for many products. Planned obsolescence has now become THE way business moves products out to us.

The danger to us is what happens when the global supply chain gets disrupted, or the information backbone (the internet) stops working.

 

[bribrius]

The way images are used or consumed has changed, along with the way information is provided. This parallels what has happened to the music industry, the print industry, and is affecting the book industry. The way software is produced has dramatically changed over the past 30+ years, with much of the coding drudgery being hidden by the toolkits. These trends have moved the formerly-skilled areas into the commodity arena with pricing expectations following. The growing sophistication of the tool-kits means that skills needed before are now partly/mostly done by programs/machines, and therefore the fields are more accessible to more people. Quality is usually not the most important characteristic for "most" people, with price and speed usually trumping the former.

This is also seen in the manufacturing area where much of the production has moved off-shore, and the cost of production has fallen to the point where maintenance and repair is no longer a major part of the business case for many products. Planned obsolescence has now become THE way business moves products out to us.

The danger to us is what happens when the global supply chain gets disrupted, or the information backbone (the internet) stops working.

love this. DEEP. you are the kind of person I could play a game of chess with while having a long random chat over coffee.

 

[table1349]

Photography and cooking Meth are very similar these days. With both any idiot can do it. Not necessarily well, but they can do it.

 

[Derrel]

Back in the early 1990's I used to say, "Hell, everybody's a photographer!" That sentiment was based on the growing prevalence of autofocus 35mm cameras available at low prices. "Good camera" ownership really rocketed up in the late 1980's and early 1990's...it would be a little over a decade before digital picture-making almost entirely killed off the "develop and print" business and the common "minilab" businesses that used to easily clear $3,000 a day printing money....errr, I mean, souping rolls of C-41 color neg and printing 4x6 color prints at $7.99 per 24 and $10.99 per 36...

We are now a good 15 years into the "affordable, good digital camera" era. This is part of a looooooong, and totally natural and expected progression. Wet plate/dry plate/rollfilm/Graflex/Rolleiflex/flashbulbs/Speed Graphics/35mm aka miniature/electronic flash/35mm SLR/Instamatic/Disc/35mm Advanced Zoom P&S/APS-C Film System/Digital P&S/Digital SLR...the entire photography industry has moved from big, and clunky, and needs-training-and-skill and toward a goal where the equipment is smaller, and needs less and less training. Photography has moved from a black art that demanded extensive, specialized skills and training, to a state where pictures are SUPER-easy to make, common, and can be transmitted directly FROM a camera to a computer network.

We really have changed the way we "use" and "consume" photos. Fewer prints, more on-line viewing and sharing and sending. It's not surprising that photography schools have disappeared. Saddle makers used to be common too. Same with shoe repairmen, AKA "cobblers"...but that profession has basically gone from being a "ten in every town, a hundred in every city" to....almost nonexistent....we can BUY brand-new shoes these days cheaper than we can have expensive shoes re-soled or half-soled. Many of us in fact wear shoes that CAN NOT EVER BE "resoled" nor "half soled".

Ahhhh...I long for the days when livery stables lined American streets, and a man could ride into town, drop off his horse, and rent a good one for 50 cents, ride to the next town, conduct his business, and then ride back three days later, his OWN horse well-rested, fed, and his shoes checked, all for $1.

 

[table1349]

Heck Derrel, not only all that what you said but now days women folk can own property and shoot they can even VOTE! Never thought I would see the day. Society is surely on the decline now. Next thing you know women folk will want to have shoes, to go to college and even have jobs. :mrgreen:

Gone are the good ole days.:lmao:

Wonder if this one is gonna get any comments from the ladies.

 

[Designer]

The "good old days" had some very worthwhile values prevalent in society, and that is what I miss most.

 

[table1349]

The "good old days" had some very worthwhile values prevalent in society, and that is what I miss most.

Yep, those were the days when young folks knew their place and kept their mouth shut. Honesty and integrity meant something and hard work wasn't somthing to be avoided, but just something to do and get done.

 

[bribrius]

Heck Derrel, not only all that what you said but now days women folk can own property and shoot they can even VOTE! Never thought I would see the day. Society is surely on the decline now. Next thing you know women folk will want to have shoes, to go to college and even have jobs. :mrgreen:

Gone are the good ole days.:lmao:

Wonder if this one is gonna get any comments from the ladies.

I could make a good argument that womens lib was more about freeing men and corporate profits than the actual women. In fact womens lib might have made them worse off. Corporate America loved the idea of increasing the work force available and lowering pay scales. Men loved the idea of being free from supporting and being responsible for and too a woman. some places had laws requiring you to support a wife and against neglect (kind of like they do with children). Those have somewhat dissipated even though we still have alimony which women primarily get .

The myth of women ownership and chattel marriage neglects to inform people that owned wives and chattel marriage contracts were mostly for the higher ups of society. As it provided more rights to the owned woman than even women married out of chattel marriage didn't have. you were for the most part, better off being a wife considered property (and given more respect and guarantee of sustenance as such) than one not considered property.

The premise of womens lib "no one owns me" was a hilarious argument as for women historically it was a step DOWN not be be owned. More equivalent with "no one wants me". A woman who didn't have a husband that "owned her" was originally considered of lower class and have little value.

 

[table1349]

Heck Derrel, not only all that what you said but now days women folk can own property and shoot they can even VOTE! Never thought I would see the day. Society is surely on the decline now. Next thing you know women folk will want to have shoes, to go to college and even have jobs. :mrgreen:

Gone are the good ole days.:lmao:

Wonder if this one is gonna get any comments from the ladies.

I could make a good argument that womens lib was more about freeing men and corporate profits than the actual women. In fact womens lib might have made them worse off. Corporate America loved the idea of increasing the work force available and lowering pay scales. Men loved the idea of being free from supporting and being responsible for and too a woman. some places had laws requiring you to support a wife and against neglect (kind of like they do with children). Those have somewhat dissipated even though we still have alimony which women primarily get .

The myth of women ownership and chattel marriage neglects to inform people that owned wives and chattel marriage contracts were mostly for the higher ups of society. As it provided more rights to the owned woman than even women married out of chattel marriage didn't have. you were for the most part, better off being a wife considered property (and given more respect and guarantee of sustenance as such) than one not considered property.

The premise of womens lib "no one owns me" was a hilarious argument as for women historically it was a step DOWN not be be owned. More equivalent with "no one wants me". A woman who didn't have a husband that "owned her" was originally considered of lower class and have little value.

BUY A SENSE OF HUMOR