The Fauxtographer and the Daguerreotypist

[amolitor]

Ok give it a rest you two - take it to private messages if you've anything further to say to each other - otherwise move along back to the topic at hand.

Sorry, you're dead right. I am edited my stupid remarks out.

 

[12sndsgood]

I blame the cell phone. As soon as cell phones got cameras, that became the go to for phototaking. they were eveywhere, id sit there at car shows and see 10 people in front of my car with cell phones, and then a few point and shoots. and maybe 1 dslr. people started immedietly passing around millions of crap photos and it became the accepted norm. Kind of like society being dumbed down to the lowest common denominater. the country became about lowering itslef to the lowest common denominater instead of raising itself to the highest point. mediocrity is not only accepted, its applauded. It's about what is easiest, not about what is best. When societies standards are set so low it doesn't take someone much effort to shoot photos that people love.

I'd say the biggest diffrence between the Daguerreotypist and a MWAC is that the Daguerreotypist was working for a profit while most MWAC is working for a loss, Unemployment could have had a slight impact on people picking up the proffession. It was the reason I took the leap. Nor for monetary pourposes. but for the fact I wasn't working so I had the time to learn (well try to) learn the business side and tax and legal side while I had free time on my hands. Most people I see doing it are just merely doing it because the seem to think it's easy money.Not even knowing there are working for a loss.

At this point i'm problaby rambling having gotten way off topic, i'm tired lol.

 

[Derrel]

The downward pressure however isn't sustainable for a working photographer. As I said the market for the amateur "pro" is big because you've got large unemployment. Only whilst that remains will you have a regular supply of unemployed "fauxographers" willing to jump into the gap. Once you reduce that potential pool of people you'll fast find that all those small time companies close up and you won't get people rushing to fill the gap. The product price will increase yet again for the regular small time photographer company.

Of course this is ignoring the effects of big time companies who might well push into the market, using mass marketing and mass sales to generate a low price product with a high turnover of cheap workers. However I would argue that whilst their product is generally fairly cheap and cheerful they do tend to set a standard way above the bad "fauxographer".

In addition you're ignoring the facts regarding time; as said painters were delivering a totally different product in a totally different timescale. You really can't compare the rise of photography to the "rise of the fauxographer".


Now at the big company level (ergo your journalists and stock photographers) there is a massive downward trend there; but its totally unsustainable. Even the big stock market company bosses admit that its basically just a ticking time bomb before that market collapses in on itself because it simply can't sustain itself having driven its own product down so far in price that its almost worthless to the point where photographers are nearly if not actually paying more than they get out of stock (if you factor in their costs to get each shot).

Smart move, bringing the macroeconomics analysis into this discussion, Overread! I agree--the widespread level of unemployment, and underemployement, and economic pressures due to rising costs for all types of commodities like food, gasoline,diesel,heating oil clothing, etc.. is causing MANY people to look for photographic services that, from an economics term, are "acceptable substitutes" for the former era's "Professional Photography". If the economies of the G-8 countries and the US, etc.etc., and indeed the "world" were to suddenly be relieved of this huge,widespread unemployment and all these ever-escalating prices on basic necessities, I feel confident that a MAJORITY of the MWAC and "daguerrotypist"-level sellers of photography products and services would simply VANISH, into the larger economy. Right now, in terms of marginal utility analysis, a HELL of a lot of people look at the most-affordable way to get the photography services they think they need and can AFFORD. And with the price of gasoline being $4.00 a gallon across the majority of the USA, a lot of parents are looking for $150-$300 "senior portrait" packages...fifteen years ago, an established professional right here in MY little town had $800-$1100 BASE-line pricing! And she did well! Of course, this was ALL "before" digital, and flatbed scanners back then were still $500, basically, and computers were nowhere NEAR what they are today, and so, she was operating under the "old" paradigm, of FILM-and-PAPER based image production, and reproduction. Times have changed markedly since then; the economy is worse. Commodity prices are sky-high. Gasoline costs are KILLING casual travel and day-trip tourism. Something's gotta give.

I used to make my living shooting portraiture; what REALLY CHANGED the paradigm was NOT the MWAC. Oh, no, no, no,no; it was the invention of film-less, and paper-less image creation and reproduction. The computer and the SCANNER are what killed photography as a lucrative business. The SCANNER, and the ability to easily make a COPY of an image, and then to be able to handle/display/share that image on a COMPUTER...THAT is what brought the house down. THAT was the dry-rot that brought the house down...NOT the "MWAC"...

 

[amolitor]

Derrel, could you expand on how the scanner and film-less/paper-less killed portraiture? I'm not sure entirely what you're driving at here, but it sounds interesting.

I'm surprised that everyone seems interested in how "fauxtographers" affect the economics of the situation, but nobody seems terribly interested in my far far more radical claim that the aesthetic of the fauxtographer/MWAC work is likely to be an influence on whatever the aesthetic(s) are in play for weddings, babies, and so on in 20 years (or whatever). At least, I think it's a much more radical claim..

 

[Overread]

Well its certainly a more bold claim. But the thing is if it were true, if it was really really true then you wouldn't have seen fine portraiture rise up ever. People would have stuck to stick men drawings because, well, eh its "good enough I guess and its pretty quick to get".

Ok a bit extreme, maybe not stickmen; but if quality was not something people desired then you simply wouldn't see quality ever being produced, nor becoming a whole industry. But we do - time and time again you see quality products rise to the top. Yes there are other products that rise up and in todays world with mass marketing some rather cheap and rubbishy stuff can float nearly to the top too - but honestly people who can afford to want to pay for quality.

Those who cannot afford to might still want the same product, but if they can't afford the quality they might make do with a cheaper "eh its ok" version. If you pitted two photographers, same prices, same operation methods, same time to get the product and same marketing and one was better than the other - the better one would always land more work and be more in demand.

Now of course styles might shift a little, what is "hot" might change around, but I seriously doubt that many of the basic mistakes and errors that beginners make will become fashionable desirable features of photos for the masses. Yes the "heart of the tummy" baby photo will; yes many of those cliche shots will remain popular with new clients - but they'll still want quality if they can get it (heck just look at people who sue because they don't get quality!)


Also don't forget - just because I call myself a "pro" and have a website with loads of photos on it does not mean that I got paid for any of them - heck many "fauxographers" have very little actual work material to share, most of what they put up is "training" or "freebies" or stuff done of their friends for no cost. So its not always a representation of their "work" as such - its the product they offer yes, but it doesn't mean anyone paid them for it in the first place.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, could you expand on how the scanner and film-less/paper-less killed portraiture? I'm not sure entirely what you're driving at here, but it sounds interesting.

I'm surprised that everyone seems interested in how "fauxtographers" affect the economics of the situation, but nobody seems terribly interested in my far far more radical claim that the aesthetic of the fauxtographer/MWAC work is likely to be an influence on whatever the aesthetic(s) are in play for weddings, babies, and so on in 20 years (or whatever). At least, I think it's a much more radical claim..

Pretty simple. In the early 1990's, we were selling $17,000 to $24,000 of family portraiture PER WEEK, in a small town of about 35,000 people. Lots of canvases, busy,busy studio, images were shot on film, proofed, and PROJECTION-proofed and sold with the images NEVER LEAVING the studio!!! With 4 experienced, trained sales women, a $350-$385 per customer,per-sale average was normal. At that time, scanners were NOT in homes, and NEITHER were computers--of ANY kind. Sure, there were $4,000 Macintoshes, but for the most part, even crude computer graphics were NON-existent. "Desktop publishing" was NOT a reality....my wife and I used to get $4,000 an issue for a large industry newsletter we put out, because we had a Macintosh, and I knew graphics, layout, and paste-up. Printing was almost all done on web presses, and PHOTOS had to be screen-printed for printing. Photographs were printed from negatives, or slides, on photographic paper, and there was NO WAY for the "average person" to make a copy of ANY image....unless that person had a macro lens, lights, skill, AND a contact who would violate copyright laws. Now, as soon as the flatbed scanner was on the market, along with computers that could display in color, there was an entirely NEW way to steal photos.

"Proofs" that left the studio would be scanned, and the images printed "somehow, somewhere". Once inkjet printing became even halfway decent, there was no turning back. Again...$17,000 to $24,000 a WEEK on sales in the PRE-digital, pre-scanner, pre-computer era, in a PODUNK, working-class town of 35,000 people, perhaps 5,000 or more who were poor university students... Selling images as "enlargements" and "canvases" was lucrative. VERY LUCRATIVE. A canvas is a status symbol, a lasting memory, a "thing" to display in the home, for decades. It's like a painting, in many tangible ways. If it is shot on an old master's backdrop and lighted right, it looks like...what it is..a fine portrait. As in many, many areas of modern life, the old ways have been supplanted, and people more and more want their entertainment and pastimes brought INTO THE HOME...we want music in-home, not at concerts; we want comedy, and drama, on TV or DVD, not in comedy clubs or theatres. We now want immediacy, and ultimate ease, and we want control over our "things"...

The computer and the scanner took away the over a century of Darkroom Magic that photography HAD BEEN predicated upon, and it brought image copying, and manipulation, and delivery, into the realm of almost anybody with a modicum of intelligence. Having been working during this era in the photo field, I am fully, 100 percent aware of what the arrival of the computer and scanner meant to creating,SELLING, and delivering IMAGES. The scanner was a simply HUGE development in the professional, for-money photographic work. The scanner and personal computer revolutionized the entire photography industry.

 

[amolitor]

The thing about "fine portraiture" is that it's very much a product of the times. "Quality professional photography" includes a couple of objective measures (stuff is in focus, there's enough light so I can recognize Aunt Sally, a few other things) and then a vast array of stuff that comes under the head of "adherence to contemporary style" particularly in the matters of lighting, and posing.

I am definitely NOT claiming that "fauxtographers" are going to usher in a new era of out-of-focus bridal photography. They may well usher in a brave new world that involves on-camera flash (we see this in fashion right now, from time to time). They might push the work toward different poses and different looks. You can't really predict what will get pulled out of the popular/common work and taken up by the next generation of "professionals" but you can pretty much rely on them picking up some things. And, I think you can rely on some professionals gnashing their teeth and wailing "BUT IT'S AWFUL!"

Maybe we'll see a whole new intensely technical and difficult to pull off set of techniques that produce images that are highly reminiscent of Facebook "I'M SOOOO DRUNK" snaps, while still getting everything in focus, and hitting all those objective "quality" marks, still looking "good" (whatever that means) but also capturing that Facebooky feel.

Think of how American Apparel co-opted the webcam/avatar "look" and made it into fashion. It wasn't crummy at all, it was pretty high grade stuff, but it got that "look" down pat. Imagine the same sort of thing, only stealing looks from MWACs for baby pictures, or weddings.

 

[Derrel]

To me, "professional photography" means photography executed with high standards, in several areas. Of course, as times change, so does professional photography and there are trends, styles, fads, gimmicks, and conventions--all of which tend to "mark the era" in which professionally made photographs are made. We would not expect professional photographs of the 1880's to look like those made in the 1950's. The working methods and tools of each era mark the work created with a subtle form of time stamp, as it were. Again, to me, "professional photography" means photography that is executed with high standards, meaning if the image is supposed to appear "down-market", that it looks down-market. If the image is supposed to look "on-camera-flashy", it looks "on-camera-flashy". If the buyer wants and image that's shot with a ringlight, that's what the buyer gets. If they want location shots, that's what they get. AND...what they buy is done to high standards--no matter WHAT THE STYLE of the image.

Now, the thing that the scanner and computer did, is to remove image creation, delivery, and distribution from under the control of "photographers", and people who worked in the "photography industry", and gave the control over to people who were outside of the photography industry, to people who were removed from photography as a way of life. Quite simply, the computer, and the scanner, ushered in "digital imaging", which has since REPLACED "photography". Silver-based photography was one thing; digitally-created images are another thing entirely.

 

[Overread]

"Throw enough against the wall something has to stick" - Zack Arias from his film Transform


Honestly yeah some of those millions of styles of beginner photographers might make it into mainstream as a "look" clients ask for. Heck they generate enough material and not all of them are "bad" (a majority are but some are very talented). So yeah some of it might stick - some of it might be a short term or long term fad.
But - eh - I get the feeling that the end result is still going to be more in the hands of those who know what they are doing over those who haven't got a single clue.

Of course that view excludes marketing campaigns with regard to style - but that is a totally separate ballgame and operates under its own rules. In general its more about "who" than "what" and its also about copy-pasting something simple and marketing it big. In general they will be very short term fads - maybe darned rich making ones for those who make them and those in the right position, but in the end still very short term

 

[amolitor]

Pretty simple. In the early 1990's, we were selling $17,000 to $24,000 of family portraiture PER WEEK ...

Thanks, Derrel. I have to say, you surprise me pretty often since you're not just one of the rantiest guys on TPF, you're ALSO one of the most articulate and thoughtful Every time it's like 'oh there goes De.. wait, no, this is.. huh. I never thought of it like that.'

 

[amolitor]

But - eh - I get the feeling that the end result is still going to be more in the hands of those who know what they are doing over those who haven't got a single clue.

Oh, absolutely. The Daguerreotypists were supplanted by people who took some visual ideas from them, and some visual ideas from painters, and some visual ideas of their own, and created a new thing. THOSE guys knew what they were doing, and they delivered a thing that was not a painting, and not a Daguerreotype, but was fully professional. Their work (Derrel's work, for instance, just to nail it down to specifics) was informed by the Daguerreotypists, by the painters, by an intervening 100 years of invention and thought, until it arrived at modern portraiture, where it was definitely in the hands of those who know what they are doing.

 

[Derrel]

I'm surprised that everyone seems interested in how "fauxtographers" affect the economics of the situation, but nobody seems terribly interested in my far far more radical claim that the aesthetic of the fauxtographer/MWAC work is likely to be an influence on whatever the aesthetic(s) are in play for weddings, babies, and so on in 20 years (or whatever). At least, I think it's a much more radical claim..

Influences in art, and photography, can be difficult to pin down as to origin. In some ways, "everything" has already been done, and "done to death". I dunno...the "fauxtographer" concept is so undefined, so broad, so all-encompassing, ans also at the same time, so broad as to be almost meaningless. I'm not sure I know how to differentiate between a "fauxtographer" and simply a poorly-trained "pro". I know what a MWAC is, at some level. But still...not every person is working in the same style, even though she might fall into the "mom with a camera" category by virtue of being a mom, and shooting primarily baby and child pics, with a mostly mom-centric clientele list...this is the 2007, New York Times definition of MWAC that I am working from here. I dunno...the "aesthetic" you mention being particular to the fauxtographer/MWAC groups...WHAT is that aesthetic? Is it Dutch tilt? EVERYTHING shot horizontal? TONS of unneeded top space left above heads in vertical shots? Excessively saturated images? HOT, almost-purely specular, almost-raw flash leaving hot highlights on both sides of the subject? Because, if the aesthetic you speak of involves those kinds of things--they have all been done before....and not by fauxtographers or MWACS necessarily, but by fashion shooters working for high-end clients looking for that edgy, offbeat, funky vibe.

I dunno a.m.--I think your so-called radical claim that the aesthetic of the fauxtographer/MWAC is likely to influence wedding, baby, and "so-on" photography in the 20 years is not really all that "radical" a claim. Why? Because almost any influence, good OR bad, elegant or gauche, can creep into the mainstream through sheer number of visual impressions. Once a person sees 1,000 chitty head-lopped-off, full-of-useless-dead-space shots, the fact that the overall visual impression is mediocre is somewhat muted. People are amazingly adaptable creatures; dentists report that they hardly EVER smell "bad breath", even from trenchmouth patients. When I was in my 20's, I had a couple buddies who worked as garbagemen...they said they hardly even noticed the stench. People from big cities walk by heroin junkies who have shat and pissed themselves, with hardly a second glance, while tourists from "the countryside" recoil in horror. Will the faux/MWAC/GWAC/hack aesthetic influence wedding and baby photography in the immediate future? I think it ALREADY HAS.

 

[amolitor]

I dunno a.m.--I think your so-called radical claim that the aesthetic of the fauxtographer/MWAC is likely to influence wedding, baby, and "so-on" photography in the 20 years is not really all that "radical" a claim. Why? Because almost any influence, good OR bad, elegant or gauche, can creep into the mainstream through sheer number of visual impressions. Once a person sees 1,000 chitty head-lopped-off, full-of-useless-dead-space shots, the fact that the overall visual impression is mediocre is somewhat muted. People are amazingly adaptable creatures; dentists report that they hardly EVER smell "bad breath", even from trenchmouth patients. When I was in my 20's, I had a couple buddies who worked as garbagemen...they said they hardly even noticed the stench. People from big cities walk by heroin junkies who have shat and pissed themselves, with hardly a second glance, while tourists from "the countryside" recoil in horror. Will the faux/MWAC/GWAC/hack aesthetic influence wedding and baby photography in the immediate future? I think it ALREADY HAS.

Exactly so! We are in perfect agreement here. I don't actually think the claim is all that radical either, for precisely the reasons you outlined here. I think there are others on TPF who might consider it a radical idea, though.

One very specific influence which can, I think, be traced to exactly the Daguerreotype, is the "group family portrait". I could be wrong here, but I think this was extremely rare in painted portraits. This camera, on the other hand, doesn't care how many people are crammed in front of the lens, so let's get everyone in there, and let's have little Sally holding her teddy bear. A formally trained painter turned photographer might have recoiled at the idea (might not have, too, I am speculating here) but the jackass with the Daguerreotype setup neither knew nor cared. And lo, now it's a standard. I bet you shot that one a few times!

 

[Animaniac888]

That was a very interesting read, amolitor. Well written, too.

I highly doubt the MWAC "phenomenon" will completely eradicate the professional photographer, though high-quality, low-cost photography may render professional photography obsolete, in a sense. In the same way portrait painters have been all but replaced by photographers, the immediacy and low cost of consumer photographers may do the same to professionals. I guess in this case, cost, rather than time, is what till be the deciding factor when it comes to the obsoletion of professional photography.

 

[pgriz]

The classic business response, when faced with the entry into the market of a competitor who can drastically undercut your price, is either to play their game and figure out how to undercut them, or if that is not feasible, abandon that market to the newcomers, and find a new one with less competition and where the margins one needs are sustainable/defensible. Which means, in essence, doing something your competition is not able to do.
If the conventional portrait business is being killed by MWACs and GWACs, then the smart business response would be to determine what people ARE willing to spend money on, and what requires enough skill and/or equipment that the MWACs and GWACs can't go there. Here are some ideas that could be opportunity for the enterprenurial photographer(s):

In no particular order:

• High-end birthday parties (I'm seeing parents engage in more and more expensive birthday party extravaganzas, costing thousands of dollars)
• House pictures and home-warming parties (Architectural Digest-style spreads showing the new owners' good taste)
• People who want to show off their toys (Boats, cars, motorcycles, planes, etc.) and themselves using these
• Well-done pet photos (yes this is an existing market, but I have a feeling it is not saturated, especially for larger animals like horses)
• People at play (good actions shots showing motocross, racing, jumping, diving, waterskiing (a la Branson... )

The point is, the best opportunities are those that no-one else figured out, and if you can make it happen, you're making a mint before others notice and want to join in the fun. Chrysler did it with minivans, Apple did it with the iPod, Blackberry did it with their original smartphone, etc.