Posted by Josh Mackey
COMMENTS
The best part about a blog is being able to rant and rave at my own expense. These are my opinions and not the opinions of NWMotiv, and should be taken that way. Something needs to be done about the term “photographer”, as it seems as though anyone with a camera now can consider themselves a photographer, or even worse, a paid one. There used to be an unwritten rule in the automotive photography realm that you have to prove your worth and expertise to be considered for a shoot, or be used at all for future shoots. It seems that rule has gone the way of the dodo, and without a sense of irony, the dodo has returned, for lack of a better term.
Photography, of any form is built upon a form of basic principles of how to properly expose a shot, and I use that term loosely because almost any shot is now “fixable” via some post processing. You can open up almost any automotive magazine and see some photos were you just go “what happened?” The shots are poorly executed, poorly lit, poorly composed; the list can go on, and you get the point. My question is, why don’t these magazines take the necessary steps to prevent such poor quality work in a highly respected and quality publication? There used to be a time with a magazine that if they were delivered poor shots, they would tell you, and more importantly, they would tell you to re-shoot it. A lot of photographers aren’t accustomed to taking feedback and criticism and get easily offended now because of it.
Think about it for a minute: we’re a generation living in an information world with a ton of new technology to help us achieve that. Photographers are a dime a dozen and there is a wealth of talent out there to tap from. I think it’s time for editors and art directors to start pushing their photographers to do better work and push back on them when their photos aren’t of quality. Don’t be afraid to hurt their feelings every once in a while; they need it, trust me. No one likes a photographer with an ego bigger than the size of his or her camera’s megapixels.
If you’re a photographer and you’re reading this, do yourself a favor and try and do better work EVERYTIME you go out to shoot. Don’t go out and shoot because it gets you an easy paycheck, or you know you can get the shoot done in a short time so you can go snowboarding or to some party. It speaks volumes if you actually take the time to research location, lighting, weather, composition and shot development.
I’ll quote a line from one of my favorite movies to end this post:
“Now, it’s up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile.” Stan, Manager of Chotchkie’s Restaurant, Office Space (1999)
About the author
- More at
Related Posts :
This post should be read while consuming a very fine glass of Jameson on the rocks. First I woul …
If there’s anything that’s grown to bug me over the almost 4 years I’ve been working in the afte …
What ever happened to driver courtesy? The new age of technology, getting information sent to yo …
Here at NWMotiv, we’re all automotive enthusiasts. Being true automotive enthusiasts however do …
NWMotiv.com Facebook Contest! Upload a picture and/or link to the NWMotiv.com Fan Page and …
I completely agree. I have had people offer to pay me for shoots because they like my pictures but I do not feel like I deserve to make money because the quality of my shoots is not yet to the quality I feel that it should to charge for a photo shoot.
I agree, i also think 99% of that should just be common sence.
The photography market is definitely saturated right now and unfortunately all you need to be a “pro” is a camera and someone who will pay you for what comes out of it, good or bad. I whole heatedly agree people should take pride in their work and go the extra mile; I’m just not sure that the current state of media can pay for that.
I’m hearing a lot about it in wedding photography, the veterans who charge premium prices are being undercut by uncle Bob who can do an okay job for just a couple hundred. The customer, audience, general population cant see the difference. Their the ones we have to educate so they can talk with their money and go back to the editors who then go back to the photographers. Cell phone pictures are not okay!
I agree also. There are soooo many ppl that can afford a rig and camera and take moving shots and be called a “pro” saddly everyshot thy take is from the exact same qtr panel angle. Oddly that bugs me the most. There is no creativity any more, yes there are rules but in photography they are made to be broken. while photography is still very technical it is still an art.with weddings, the gen population is stupid and saddly you do have to educate them. I even had a lady tell me i was to spendy, then email me after the wedding saying she should have gone with me since the person they highered sucked
Being a true professional goes beyond just shooting photos. You hit the nail on the head Josh. Anyone can take a “great photo” every once in a while. Not everyone can do it consistently.
You’re right on target Josh, and the sad thing is that we see this kind of behavior from consumers as well. It’s as if people these days are content with “good enough” with a small initial financial investment, rather than spending a bit extra for “high quality.” The problem of course is that “good enough” often only lasts for so long, and either eventually needs to be replaced and/or the small initial financial investment ends up costing more in the end since the quality isn’t up to where it should be. This is exactly how a lot of print magazines are now like you mentioned: editors are willing to pay for “good enough” but in the long run, the overall quality of the magazine and its readership goes down since “good enough” just isn’t high enough quality to last and keep people coming back.
And honestly, nothing frustrates me more than seeing “good enough” photos in a magazine that don’t do a car justice, when “high quality” photos from different photographer were passed over simply because of cost.