Ormond Gigli's Top Tip: "Do Something Else..."

[BrianUK]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In Today's Guardian G2 the 'My Best Shot' article (p19) is about Ormond Gigli, who's Top Tip is:

 

"Do something else - it's too difficult being a photographer now."

 

Really?

 

I've been out of professional photography - advertising, archectural - for a while (1965-1993), so have no way of knowing if this is true, though my recollection of my time working was that it was always difficult.

 

Discuss.

[wda]

Everyone can pretend to be a photographer these days, without even possessing a camera. So a diminishing number of people commission photographers as was normal in the pre-digital era. Look how leading media companies woo Smart-phone snappers to upload their pictures without money changing hands. A commercial photographer can produce a far better product; finding and keeping buyers is an increasingly difficult challenge.

[alun]

I noticed this too -- an interesting post. I'm sure he must be right. While there must be hundreds of thousands who manage to carve out a niche market for themselves and earn a living wage from the sale of their services, work, or products, the ubiquity of digital images, photo-sharing and a slew of other digital developments have devalued photography as a commodity. This, leaving aside any other factors, must mean that it is now harder to make a living as a professional photographer.

 

Although interestingly, Gigli only said "it's too difficult being a photographer now", not too difficult to make a living...

 

Paradoxically, photography (in almost all of its technical aspects) is now easier than it has ever been. (That doesn't mean that taking great, lasting pictures is easier, of course.) What is harder is making money from it.

 

I'm glad someone else spotted this and posted it because it is a question I shall continue to mull over...

[Peter H]

........... A commercial photographer can produce a far better product; finding and keeping buyers is an increasingly difficult challenge.

 

Isn't there an inherent contradiction in this?

 

Or at least, if something is better but the vast majority of people don't value it, maybe its not really better except in a very narrow and limited sense.

 

However, I know what you mean!

[alun]

Peter, I think that is exactly the point -- that professional (i.e. expensive) photography has become devalued. Much of the market (including some media sources) are now satisfied with photography that is "good enough". They are interested not in satisfaction but in satisficing -- i.e. what will "satisfice" -- what will be sufficiently acceptable. Satisficing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Peter H]

I think its not quite exactly the point I was trying to make Alun.

 

I'm saying that if people don't value skilled and expert photography highly enough to keep it expensive, it hasn't been devalued as if by some malignant act of vandalism, its simply failed to be as desirable as it once was, probably for a host of cultural and technological reasons. And if it is less desirable, its quite right that it should be less expensive.

 

Generally, its good when things become less expensive, less exclusive and more accessible.It is sad when some old skills are lost, but that's humans for you. If they truly value something, they'll pay for it. If not, they won't. Claiming something is worth more than people are prepared to pay for it is a time honoured tradition, but it never gets very far.