Will It Come Back? by Rocky Kneten

Much of the conversation I hear as I bump into fellow photographers is centered on the hope that business will return to levels of a few years ago. It's hard to find someone whose business has not been affected by the economic downturn, 9/11, the war, or any combination of these events.

The big question is, "What happens next?" Stanley Rowin, ASMP President, recently wrote a column in the ASMP Bulletin about "Photo Darwinism." He noticed the similarities in the photo profession and the acting profession with respect to earnings. Basically, a few "stars" rise to the top (through luck, hard work, good looks, etc...), but the vast majority struggle to work consistently and successfully in their chosen profession. Here is the shocker: The government's Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that the median annual wage for photographers is slightly over 23,000 dollars (similar to actors, according to Stanley). This was from a 2001 survey, so the effects of the downturn hadn't completely hit home yet. Another eye-opener was the fact that only 10 percent of all photographers make over $48k.

Let's look into the crystal ball and see what's affecting your wallet:
ARE YOU THE MASTER OF YOUR DOMAIN? (OR, DID TECHNOLOGY BYTE?)

Not too many years ago, the photographer was the gatekeeper of his or her images. He held the originals, so he connected with specific buyers who liked his work or needed an image that expressed a specific idea or subject. Likewise, the photographer could choose amongst many stock agencies to represent his work based on whatever criteria the photographer had in seeking representation.

Digitized work has changed all that. Pictures are stored on servers, disks, CDs and whatever comes next for storage. The problem is, so much work is now traded, passed around and given away without the careful supervision of the gatekeeper. Big collections of photographs such as newspaper archives, sell pictures for 25 bucks or less. Royalty-free disks proliferated, making pictures available to every secretary now charged with creating the company brochure in a word processing program. Big companies manage their picture archives online, making them available internally to all their divisions, and externally to trade magazines and "marketing partners."

The internet was promoted as a way to open new markets for photographers, and it has in many cases. However, it also stampeded away from photographers too. The spigot is open - there are so many options for a photo buyer before he or she needs to call the individual photographer (that's YOU reading this article, by the way). In fact, there's a whole culture among clients now that there's no need to look past a R-F disk for their visual solutions. In their minds, own a small library of these disks, and you never need to shoot again.

THE BEAST RISES

We, as photographers, are all aware of the consolidation of the stock agency business. It's us (Joe Photographer) vs. the visual Wal-Marts (Corbis and Getty). Their formula was simple: Find content for this new and wonderful delivery system, the internet. A big bonus was obtaining the content from a fragmented, unorganized group of providers. This is one place where we were really caught napping. I think it makes us all a bit nervous how much market share has gone to these behemoths.

My question: If electronic delivery and web marketing cut the costs of global commerce, why does the creator/photographer continue to get less and less share of the sale?

THE JETHRO, GOMER, ERKEL, & KRAMER AD AGENCY*

*(A fictional agency as a literary device. Any resemblance to an existing agency is purely coincidental).

Example One, and you know the drill: Client has cousin Billy Bob shoot the new fat rendering plant with one of "them magical digital cameras" and gives the image to the designer. Designer pulls out all stops with 32 layers and 16 filters in Photoshop to salvage image for print piece. Bingo, it's art. Or, it's a good substitution to the client.

Example Two: I'm driving around town and I see billboards that have no realistic chance of communicating their message. Too much information, too small application of type. For instance, a major jeans and sportswear designer has a billboard that features several models posing in a cluster of palm trees, basically shot in midday light. At least, that's what I think it is. I have passed this billboard at least 50 times, and I cannot make out the products, the models or what "sexy mood" I'm supposed to get from it that makes me want to run to Dillard's and buy the products. It could just as well been a camouflage billboard with the designer's label on it. (It's interesting to think how much money was spent on those models, however).

Do you see what's happening here (not the billboard, but the big picture)? Our photography has suffered because of a gradual erosion in how it's used. Some possible reasons follow.

In the past, most of our work found its way into print. Print is expensive, so photographers were required to have great craftsmanship in their work. The fudge factor was slim, so the right film emulsion needed to be selected, the darkroom skill was crucial, and decision making at the shoot could result in the difference between incurring or avoiding costly post-production retouching. A slick printed piece could have long shelf life for a company's needs and image.

Perhaps the internet has changed this to a degree. In it's current state, photos on the internet do not exhibit much of the nuances that make a printed photo wonderful. 256 colors is quite limiting, and those memorable jpeg artifacts don't enhance my "internet experience." Also, if a photo doesn't seem to work well on a web page, it's easy to eliminate it or change it overnight. The risk factor is much less than a print job. Hence, our expertise is devalued.

Also, I wonder if the training of young AD's and designers has been so concentrated on software and technology that they don't have time to study the arts of communication. Do they know the work of Penn, Evans, or Horst? Do they understand "gesture" in a Jay Maisel photo? Do they understand why these photographers didn't stand for "good enough?" I know that I spend much more time myself on the learning curve of computers, software, scanners, and such at the expense of reading photo books and seeing work at museums.

Lastly, digital capture allows amateurs to get visual feedback in cameras or laptops that had previously required understanding the Polaroid emulsion. I would wager that many photo assignments are staying in-house at agencies and design firms, shot by employees. (I'm learning more about Quark, though, so beware!)

THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOX

We now work in a time where our clients are seduced by the speed and ease of technology. Art, craftsmanship, and vision struggle to keep afloat in a sea of mediocrity fed by these new technologies. Now, I'm not such a luddite that I would stand in the way of these new tools. Some make my life much easier; I was tired of smelling stop bath. However, as photographers, we sell art, craftsmanship, vision, and service. The great shooters that preceded us created their unique look by how they composed, how grainy their film was, whether they included the film edge, and what they chose to leave sharp or soft. Their blood, sweat, tears, and joyful discoveries occurred over many years in the darkroom, studio, and in the fields of the seven continents. These years have been vaporized by a few keystrokes of the computer to get the same looks. On the other hand, complicated setups in the studio can be duplicated by assembling elements that are much easier to shoot separately. I don't need to carry an assortment of glass filters or different emulsions in my bag. Technology can be a fickle mistress.

SO, WHAT DO WE DO, GRAND POOBAH?

Some of us will use these new tools to rise above the mediocrity, and hopefully that will catch the eyes of our clients. Some of us will learn to beat the behemoth stock consolidators at their own game. And, hopefully, our clients and buyers of photography will see that quality is king when it comes to moving products and selling services. Perhaps the inevitable increase in the functions and quality of the web will truly open up markets in the medium for work that cannot be appreciated there now. Service will keep a client in the door when they get fed up with one of the Mega-Lo-Stock-Marts (apologies to King of the Hill).

Truly, though dark clouds remain. The figures for 2001 will likely look bright compared to last year and the next few years. I have written previously on the topics of rights grabs and how poorly we manage the usage of our intellectual properties, and these factor into the income figures. The "middle class" of photographers will continue to suffer unless 1) the supply of photographers shrinks, and/or 2) hard working, talented photographers in this "middle class" abandon their rogue behavior and work toward some form of collective bargaining or cooperative structure. Add it up - have fees increased in the past 20 years to keep pace with inflation? Are you having to support two technologies in your business in the form of film and digital? If you focus on stock, have you been treated fairly and honestly on your sales percentages, and have your ideas been plagiarized?

Will it come back? It will, but it won't be the same. Photo Darwinism is at work. Take no action and suffer accordingly. Actors have tried to level the playing field with SAG, and musicians have the ASCAP and BMI co-ops to make sure creators are paid for their efforts. Neither are perfect, but it's better than a choice of work-for-hire or nothing. There are folks working the backrooms for us in Congress to achieve support for collective bargaining; support them by writing your legislators at the appropriate time. The Creative Eye exists after a launch during the shock of 9/11 and its fallout; consider what it offers. There are specialty organizations that focus on stock and editorial work; join them too. ASMP is a great blanket organization that unifies photographers working in different disciplines, and it has acquired clout in Congress and in the court system. Join/stay current and keep your dues working to protect our interests in Washington and locally. Read updates and discussions of the issues online in the various forums of ASMP and others.

We hang together or we hang (and wait tables) separately.