Ironies and Oddities of the Photography Business

Anthony will be guest blogging for me for a few days. Enjoy the eccentric meanderings of Lisa V Lupo Photography’s most valued employee.

Photography and the photography business host some interesting ironies and oddities. These are the emergent phenomena that come into existence somewhere in the space between photographer, subject, blogosphere, and social media. I present a few for your consideration. I've included a few old photos (well before professional photography was ever on the radar) for some topical amusement as you read.

Mind your head. This could get a little weird.

1. 'Amateurs' and 'Professionals'
   What does the phrase 'amateur photographer' actually mean? It is often used to identify photographers that are learning, inexperienced, or not very good. A 'professional photographer' is a photographer that takes pictures for a living. Professionals satisfy the requirements of clients. As I see it, the distinction between 'amateur' and 'professional' is not one of skill but purpose. The amateur takes pictures because he or she wants to. Professionals usually also want to take pictures for the sake of it, but they must produce a deliverable to a client. This highlights where the budding amateur-turned-professional photographer must adopt a change in attitude. As I see it (warning: opinion to follow), a professional photographer should seek to influence the client's expectations--almost like an artistic consultant. But the client does not, should not, and will not fundamentally change their expectations. The professional photographer meets the client halfway. For this reason, the amateur photographer (or the professional on a personal project) is capable of being an artist in the truest sense of the word. Ideally, there shouldn't be any artistic compromise, or fettering of his/her artistic vision. It is for this reason that 'amateur' is, ironically, something of a philosophical/artistic badge of honor. Now, there are many professional photographers who have amassed a cult following of their own, distinct, uncompromised style-- so take what I say as a theoretical observation.
   
   

   

   For these reasons, amateur body-building and amateur
   photography are very different.

   
   
2. Photography Blogs are for _________. 
   I'm going to go out on a limb and venture to guess some statistics. I suspect (and that is all it is, I'd gladly change my opinion if given some evidence) that most popular (well-established) photography blogs get more weekly hits from photographers than potential clients. [Because most of our traffic comes from Facebook, this is not true for this blog.] Or, at the very least, photographers comprise a much larger percentage of total hits than one who doesn't give these things much thought would expect. Obviously, photography blogs exist to connect with clients. But the average client only searches the blogosphere for photographers on special occasions when a photographer is needed. Photographers, thousands of them, spend much more time blog-lurking. It's both market research and a free exchange of photography and business tips. This is why you will notice that many professional photographers spend as much time blogging about the technical aspects of photography as they do blogging for clientele. He/She that ropes in the photography demographic generates many hits, thereby extending their reach and Google footprint. This really helps when potential clients Google search for photographers in a certain area. This is one of the oddities of the internet age.
   
   

   

   Pfft. Amateur.

   
   
3. Are You Buying a Lifestyle or a Memory?
   This is another one we owe to the digital age. This is not a cynical idea, remember, I'm only presenting observations. Let me just come out and say it: today, clients are looking to buy a lifestyle more so than in the past when a client's only concern was immortalizing a moment. It used to be that a photographer would capture film images, and those that attended the wedding (mostly the family) would purchase prints of these images. Nowadays, these images are digital and therefore instantaneously global. They will capture momentary stardom on Facebook, at which point they will be viewed by hundreds of friends and possibly thousands of acquaintances. The digital 'image' we project on the internet will go much further in shaping others' impressions of us than actual interaction, for actual interactions are limited by time and space in a way that digital footprints are not. Now, old timers might begrudge this reality, but it just is what it is. One consequence of this is what I think we may call (if we are permitted a certain academic baroque-ness) a 'homogenization of photographical style.' Style, or lifestyles, propagate much faster than ever before thanks to the internet machine. A clever photographer will therefore sell a lifestyle 'image' to his or her clients, which means that photographers need to present portfolios that can be characterized as affluent, hip, or whatever. My observation is that many portfolios seem very 'insert face here' to me, which is to say that roughly the same few poses, locations, or fashions that happen to be trendy characterize every shoot in such a way that they do not feel unique or different from each other. This may not be a bad thing, for you get what you pay for and you pay for what you want. Getting what you want is a good thing. I think that Lisa and I try to differentiate shoots as much as possible on purpose (read our mission statement), but then again, photographical style is part habit (which we, as humans, are very hesitant to change) and there are only so many ways to take a picture of a person. The goal isn't necessarily to be different from everyone else, for while people are unique in some ways, many people are similar in most ways. The goal is, however, to bring the person through the image in way that really resonates. This is one of the things I've been working on here in Afghanistan. 

This probably isn't a lifestyle anyone would willingly buy into...

I bet if you dig deep enough, there is some quirky yet fascinating detail of the human condition that accounts for any given x deemed 'ironic'. I'll let you ponder that one.

Epilogue

Is item (3) above interesting because it's true (assuming it is true) or because it's true yet widely unnoticed (or is it true only because it's widely unnoticed)? Let me draw a parallel from history that I hope indicates that this phenomenon is not new-- but recycled. In the 1860s, say, a person may afford to have one or two pictures taken of him or her in the course of his/her life (I'm making up history as I go along, I can't nail the decade precisely, but the following description should fit some period in the 19th/early 20th century, hopefully). For this reason, the Subject got all dressed up in his/her Sunday's best. The image was to be the image he/she would be remembered by, not unlike painted portraits of old. If an image is to be a legacy, should we be surprised that it departs from reality (or emphasizes selected facets thereof)? Another side-point on (3). It's important to note that 'being different' is not a virtue unto itself. 'Thinking different', as Apple might say, seems much better as a catch-phrase than a fully-fledged ideology (which, when embodied, resembles something closer to insanity). 'Principled thinking' is a much better way to characterize where Lisa and I are going. Same or Different-- it doesn't matter. What matters is that the principle, whatever we decide it may be-- is upheld. The principle is all that matters.

This picture is like the oddities and ironies of photography in what way?