Digital BW, The Print

I would add one IMO very important factor.
A few years ago you could start seeing in the high end magazines a kind 
of "rough"
"unfinished", or rather "amateurish" look of some high end (I repeat) 
 ads and editorials.
I was asking myself for a while: "What e f... is going on?"
But then the magazines even escalated the game of disregarding the 
copyright and not
paying for editorial usage trying to antagonize clients and 
photographers.  New York Times
and others joined suite and have the "work for hire" in their freelance 
contracts.  Many
better photographers refuse to sign it, some others can't (I write can't 
and not don't on purpose).
And now I look on the "rough" look a few years ago in different light.
It was the beginning of the carefully planned and executed campaign to 
push High-End photographers
who provided High-End images out of equation. The "squirrels" can do the 
job and get away with it
because the market opened up for the "unprofessional on purpose" images.

I do not know where it is going to go.  I loose some jobs to the 
"squirrels".  I loose some clients to them
as well.  If the client doesn't see the difference between a diamond and 
the quartz crystal - he's not going to
pay the High-End photographer.

BUT, the worst what can happen is when a professional photographer for 
whatever reason dares to say
that  the "commercial ads ar just rip-offs..."  Sell yourself short - 
but do not pull anybody with it.
I worked for Sotheby's ("work for hire" contract - for 10 years - doing 
"Not for hire" assignments at the
same time)  until I started believing in myself.  
Again, if you want to sell short yourself it's your right if you can't 
do it the other way - but do not try
to pull the whole industry with you.

Good luck to all of you.
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

> John Vitollo wrote:
>
> >
> >Hmm...with  all do respect jnhugo have you been shooting 
> commercially? In actual practice
> >- as least in the 20 plus years I've been shooting - the photographer 
> is the copyright
> >owner. You are short changing yourself - literally - if you are give 
> the rights away to your
> >images. ASMP and other professional groups really try to educate the 
> photographer in not
> >doing work-for-hire or just giving the image away to the client. 
> Listen to Keith and at least
> >join APA or ASMP to learn about retaining rights to YOUR images.
> > 
> >
> Thanks John! If I come off as harsh on this issue it's because this is
> one of the most divisive issues between many photographers newly coming
> into the business and those who have been in it for years.
>
> Digital has greatly exacerbated an already bad situation in several 
> senses.
>
> 1)   Many new photographers don't learn lighting traditionally, they
> instead simply play with it until they "like what they see in the
> imagery they capture." That in come sense undercuts their status as any
> more than a technician.  Art directors suddenly believe, with the same
> equipment they "could do it themselves.
>
> 2)   Art directors now want to watch the on-screen display and/or
> "chimp" at photos as the shoot goes forward.. I don't allow that as a
> rule, they can see a few shots, but I'm not, nor is any professional
> photographer, their trained monkey there to give them instant
> gratification.  If they want that, I suggest they try some cheap and
> easy prostitute, I'm NOT responsible for relieving their tension. (This
> isn't only in the commercial world, I can show you parents of gymnasts
> openly complaining about the costs of imagery, and the fact that he
> doesn't post enough images freely on his website, as regards one of the
> nation's top gymnastics photog)
>
> 3)   Without film processing the preceding factor is magnified beyond
> what it had been, but, it also leads to serious underestimation by
> photogs who have ONLY done digital of what the real $ costs are.  They
> then underprice their work substantially, dropping the floor out of the
> market to a point where photography is, in many instances, only a
> potential 2nd or 3rd job.
>
> 4)   Buyers, subjects, models, etc. all seem to think that because the
> image is now only individual pixels and electrons instead of physically
> tangible and "costly" prints or negatives, that not only should the
> images be provided quickly, but, at almost no cost, AND to top it off
> should be fully post-processed ready for immediate printing.  Nonsense..
> If you want post-processing, you need to pay for it. Somehow people have
> the idea that post-processing consists of just pushing a button in
> Photoshop, etc. and that since that is all there is to it, it should be
> done for no cost.
>
> 5)   This all combines to a point where we find many new photogs
> idiotically signing away copyrights for literally no or nearly no
> cost... That hurts every other photographer in the business..
>
> In sum, these trends are combining to drive legions of professionals who
> worked for years, out of the business.  It has very little to do with
> them not wanting to take on the digital learning curve, most have done
> so already.   It's just the fact that if you hire 100 amateur squirrels
> to shoot digital at $1 each, when a single credible pro costs easily
> upwards of  $500 or more (excluding expenses) for a half-day, and you
> know that it's likely that one of the squirrels will get a usable
> shot... The paradigm shifts..  And yes, the squirrels ARE to blame.
> Because they actually think that there is no need to recoup their costs
> with their shooting... They simply do it for the "love of photography."
>
>
> Keith Krebs
>
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
> guys"
>
>
>
>
>
>