G'day All,
Well, I tried hard to resist but ...
First I should let you know where I fit into the photo community. I have
very recently retired from managing a major website (several hundred
thousand pages). I love photography, my first camera WAS a Box Brownie. My
current photographic enthusiasms tend to fall into the
nature/landscape area. I print on an Epson 3800 - both colour and B&W (why
I joined this group). I occasionally sell prints up to A2 as well as cards
to support my interest through local outlets. For larger prints, both for
myself and for others, I use the services of first class printing
professionals.
So:
1. EJ, your website sucks! Not because of the technology you have/haven't
used but because it just does not work for a user. The architecture and UI
comes across as self-indulgent, and arrogant while the text reinforces that
impression and is occasionally whiny to boot. It is probably doing your
business more harm than not having a website at all.
2. More generally, photography has changed. To produce an acceptable
quality image requires far less skill and experience than driving yourself
across town safely. The ability to produce a good image is somewhat rarer
but still more common than good driving skill. Neither skill is
really sale-able though there will always be hacks. To make a living at
driving you either have to be exceptional (F1 driver) or be very good and
drive something that uses technology beyond the norm. Same with
photography.
3. The fine art photography space in general does not use technology beyond
the reach of most non-professionals so to make a living in this space you
have to be exceptional. It's no use complaining that because you were one
of the few who could safely pilot one of the initial horseless carriages
and were well paid to do so, you are owed a living driving a modern car. If
you are not exceptional, you are playing in a non-professional space and
you are pwned!
4. There will always be room for the professionals who know how to drive
specialist technologies. Jimbo and Tyler can produce a quality of print
that I can only dream about because of their specialist skills and
experience in digital printing. My prints are good but ... ! Similarly a
very good fashion photographer with all the specialist lighting and studio
gear (and the skill and experience to get the most out of them) can make a
living and me with my speedlights and living room cannot take food off
their table even if I wanted to. For these sort folk its probably only
their marketing skills that restrict their income (or their specialist
niche is too small).
5. One effect of the democratisation of photography is that people are
becoming more visually literate and many more can readily differentiate
between the genuinely engaging image and the merely twee (FX - any
instagram user can do that, or alt printing of images for the sake of using
alt processes). This is also an effect causing grief for some professionals
who based their work around leveraging the effects or processes they could
employ. Note that I am not saying that an effect cannot be used to add
emotional impact to an already strong nor that some images will not work
better if they are printed using an alt process.
6. This all started with a FB scam that played on the desire of many
photographers to have someone (anyone) validate their work. That's natural
but its an admission that you think the OPs sense of what does and does not
suck is better than yours. That may be true.
regards,
John
On 21 February 2013 08:11, EJ Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...t> wrote:
> **
>
>
> AJ, if you take offense at it, well� The truth of the matter is there are
> some doctors literally giving their work away. They use the same or better
> equipment that many professionals use to make the images. The same
> equipment across the board. That directly undermines the livelihood of
> someone trying to actually sell it. To say it�s a free market economy and
> if you can�t compete go sit down, is the same BS rational that can be
> applied to teaching at any level. If you have the toys you win. Control the
> production process you win. You may not have the best art work, the best
> ideas or the best value, but you do have the market. The others that don�t
> have it? It is a sad world when those that have want even more at the
> expense of those try just to get by. And while the shit may sell, the
> market suffers, much like it suffers with millions and millions of garbage
> shots. Which I believe is the whole point of Photo that Don�t suck Web
> site. Someone trying to elevate some photos above the chaos.
>
> As to my dated web site, the look is a choice, I even mention it on the
> site. Not everything need to be Flash, Ipad, driven technocrap. Does that
> type of look gather more eyes? Some see past the lack of glitz and enter.
> Others may get up on the free market driven glitzy view and move on. I see
> that as even more of buy into the pedantic movement of overly made up
> models, babies hanging from every structure known to man, ridiculous HDR,
> etc, etc.
>
> The link for feedback may have gotten broken lately when the hosting
> company changed some setting and since I maintain the site , and several
> others, it has fallen through the cracks. There are ample places to find an
> email address. Do you try and host a forum? Try keep all the hackers out
> and oh, yeah make prints and do the photography.
>
> I will gladly put my prints up against your images at any respected
> gallery or audience sir AJ. Several here have seen the quality. Perhaps
> you�d like to teach a class on platinum printing? Or silver, or cyanotype
> or �.
>
> Photographic writers have for years pointed out the problem with auto
> cameras diluting or changing the nature of photography. Not every doctor is
> simply buying their way in, but the world of photography is geared that
> way. Some actually do have talent in image making, and great for them. So
> take even more offense if you must.
>
> Rather than go to workshops, I teach them, set them up and generally I am
> on the side that makes attendees learn and enjoy their visits.
>
> Eric Neilsen
>
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> 214-827-8301
>
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> SKYPE ejprinter
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:43 PM
>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Photography That Doesn't Suck
>
> Eric,
> I think I'll take offense at your statement that 'retired Doctors' taking
> images on auto etc. are not up to your standards and are giving it away,
> while you consider yourself a 'pro' and are charging a fair fee for your
> wares. And your site is pokey, out of date, has misspellings, and I could
> go on but maybe I should address this to you personally. Oh �" can’t do
> that as your link for feedback does not work.
> A.J. Berkson
> Omages Fine Art
> Omages.com
> Owned by Alan J Berkson, DDS, Periodontics and Dental Implants [not yet,
> but close to retired], dedicated amateur, and hardly ever uses AUTO on my
> Nikon, Leica, or Hasselblad.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com , "EJ Neilsen" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Jimbo. I am certainly NOT against people getting out and having
> fun
> > with photography or even making a living doing it. But between the
> retired
> > Doctors using the highest quality equipment which produces exceedingly
> well
> > made images on AUTO and giving it away (photos) and college students
> looking
> > to take ANY job to payoff student loans. WOW. I may become a West Texas
> > whore. or a back alley dealer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Neilsen
> >
> > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> >
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> >
> > 214-827-8301
> >
> >
> >
> > www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> >
> > SKYPE ejprinter
> >
> >
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of
> jimbo
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:27 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Photography That Doesn't Suck
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ya know EJ ...I could grow to really like you..... :-)
> >
> > jimbo
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: EJ Neilsen
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 1:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Photography That Doesn't Suck
> >
> > Dave, Do you fully explain how FB works to your members; not just tell
> them
> > to read the privacy agreement? Do they know that submitting a photo to
> > Photos that Don't Suck, that you plan to repost them?
> >
> > Why the hell would anyone promote the creation of orphaned images. I am
> > sorry you older guys, here at 53, but the fact that your 80 and you don't
> > care what happens to the profession that you made your living at pisses
> me
> > off. I got mine now go figure out how to get yours? Now that is a bit
> tongue
> > in cheek but just a little.
> >
> > Now granted, Facebook is not Professional photography, it is social media
> > but it does use professional and non professional photography alike. Too
> > full of one self, ? sure there are many photos that were licensed at a
> value
> > which I'd consider full of it.
> >
> > $10 can buy you a web hosting package and another $50 to $100 for a
> domain;
> > Photos that don't suck. Once you have a hosted site, there are only the
> > regular avenue of theft on the internet, as if that's not already bad
> > enough. I tell clients NOT to post valuable work on any social media, let
> > alone FB. I regularly see attribution for writers on FB post. I almost
> NEVER
> > see a credit to a photographer. People just expect to be able to use one
> > however they see fit.
> >
> > So , sharing good photos - grand idea. Doing it on the net? You get what
> you
> > pay for.
> >
> > Eric Neilsen
> >
> > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> >
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> >
> > 214-827-8301
> >
> > www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> >
> > SKYPE ejprinter
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > ] On Behalf Of David
> > Lykes Keenan
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:50 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
> >
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Photography That Doesn't Suck
> >
> > For those of you who use Facebook, I started a group there entitled
> > Photography That Doesn't Suck.
> >
> > In this group, I take a crack at curating photographs that I think don't
> > suck and posting one or two of these a day. This group was born because
> so
> > much photography I see online DOES suck.
> >
> > The group is still quite new and there are little over 100 members.
> >
> > If you Facebook and would like to be a part of the group go to this URL
> > http://on.fb.me/Yjqq1D and ask to join. Hope to see you there..
> > .
> > Dave.
> >
> > --
> > See my 2013 Picture A Week (PAW) Gallery
> > http://www.dlkphotography.com/paw>originally begun in 2007.
> > Please join my photography mailing
> >
> listhttp://dlkphotography.us2.list-manage2.com/subscribe?u=3d9dfbb5b18c48175
> > 32a37b90
> >
> http://dlkphotography.us2.list-manage2.com/subscribe?u=3d9dfbb5b18c4817532a
> > 37b90&id=4dd441d8fe> &id=4dd441d8fe>
> > .
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6099 - Release Date: 02/12/13
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]