I felt really bad about the Chicago Sun-Times photographers being laid off. I have an idea of what it's like to be in their shoes. When the economy tanked in 2008, my industry got hit hard and I eventually had to look for another job. I'm very thankful that I did. For these photojournalists, I can imagine it being much harder due to their shrinking industry. Photojournalists aren't the only photographers who are suffering. Other professionals, such as wedding photographers, have also been hit due to the democratization of photography.
I think one solution may be to require licenses in order to charge for photography.
Photographers invest time and money in order to learn their craft and buy the equipment needed to realize their vision. If there are no barriers to entry, they are being disincentivized from making that investment. The end result is that there will be fewer professional photographers. Of course, with so many people having cameras, there will always be people ready to take your photos for little or nothing. The issue for us as consumers is that, on the average, the quality will probably not be as good. Even talented amateurs who have the skills to produce good photos would find it hard to compete in a marketplace where someone is always available to offer their services for free.
We require licenses in several professions partly for health and safety, such as for doctors and engineers. But there are other professions for which a license is required even though there is no physical danger to consumers, such as lawyers, accountants, or even gardeners. Simply because we want someone to do the job competently. I think consumers would benefit from a similar assurance of competence for photographers.
I think the fact that a license has generally not yet been required for photography is because the skills and equipment required for photography served as a natural barrier to entry. But because the photographic industry changed virtually overnight, the law hasn't kept up. Eventually, if almost all competent photographers switch jobs and enough consumers are burned by ugly photos, consumers themselves will probably ask legislators for some sort of license for photography. I'm just suggesting we do that before we lose the talent of this unique generation of professional photographers who have used both film and digital cameras.
Having been a semi pro for nearly 30 years, I am also hurt by the billions of digital images created by the billions of cameras out there. However, I don't see how a license will revive the professional photography market (which is the problem that the paper's layoff was solving...demand for that quality is no longer worth paying for.)
ReplyDeleteFlipping it around, does that mean that nobody will be allowed to hire a photographer that is not licensed? How would you manage that, given that already the value of professional photography is almost nil? They simply would do it themselves....and not worry about the quality.
Photographers who live and breathe this are artists; licensing an artist is not likely to stop them from doing what they love...nor is it likely to improve the value of what they do...it is up to them to find a market, a client, a niche that will keep them doing it for pay. The crappy (not all that competent, artistic, etc) people with cameras will not make all that much money since just about anyone can do that themselves. Those of us (like yourself) who have the eye, have the drive and passion, will be "worth more". Is it enough? I hope so...since this is the only thing I have ever really wanted to do. My drawing and painting talent is completely absent.
This downward value trend has been going on for the past 10 years....many pro's in the commercial world have retired. Now these same retired commercial guys are competing in the stock photography world.
Oh, another thing; we already have some excellent certification programs (PPA, WPPI, other associations) who offer training and various levels of mastery. People who really want to invest in their photography craft will find value in getting the most from those governing bodies....who on earth in "government" is going to competently judge photography skills? The people who teach photography in college? Mmmmm...I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments Vin. I envision it not so much as no one being allowed to hire a photographer that is unlicensed, but that an unlicensed photographer cannot charge more than a de minimis amount for their services. If there was such a license, then as a consumer I would seek out a licensed photographer for assignments I really care about, such as weddings. The benefit to me is that I know the photographer has undergone training and if that photographer does not perform according to industry standards, then I have a remedy through the government agency that regulates photographers.
ReplyDeleteOf course, those who don't want to pay can always do it themselves or hire an unlicensed photographer who would do it for little or no pay. I don't think that hurts pros because those clients would not have hired pros anyway.
As for the argument about shifting the responsibility to artists to find a niche, do a better job, etc., I don't think it works in the real world because with an endless supply of bottom feeders consumers have a distorted view of how much photos should cost. So, even for a skilled photographer, it is difficult to compete.
An analogy is minimum wage. Shouldn't market forces determine what wages ought to be, minimum wage be damned? Well, if we got rid of minimum wage, I suppose the businesses who hire working class folks would get to keep more money and expand their business, while we consumers would benefit from lower prices. On the other hand, this would be at the expense of a lot of working class folks who would have a much lower quality of life and would have to work much harder. I think that trade-off is not fair (although I acknowledge that there are folks who believe otherwise), regardless of arguments about economic efficiency.
Regarding the certification programs, I think they are in effect efforts to distinguish themselves from competition. I'm just proposing a stronger way of doing it. And I think certain photographic skills can be objectively identified and tested. For example, we may differ on whether a shot looks better with shallow or deep dof, but we can test a person's understanding of what controls to use to produce a shallow or a deep dof. There could also be an experience requirement. Those are just some ideas.
Best regards,
Mic
Dear sir, I don't think this is a good idea. Paying for photography is a case between the photographer, his skill whoever he is, and the customer. I can't see how it is possibly to administrate a license worldwide giving permission to some and not to others.I think it is only the photographers skill and the demand for a certain photo that is resulting in a payment. How much, - I don't know of anything giving a rule. The payment is a moving subject, giving the uncertainty it has been being a photographer asking for money. Sorry for that. Yours Roar Velle, Norway, 2.generation photograph, retired.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Velle,
DeleteThank you very much for your comment and no need to apologize! It is very good to hear the perspective of professional photographers like you, who are most affected by the change in the industry.
I think a worldwide license is difficult or impossible, as you say. I also have no idea about the economics of the photography industry in other countries. I should have clarified that my suggestion was only for the U.S. I think a statewide license in the U.S. is feasible.
About for your point about the value of a photograph being too difficult to regulate, I agree. In the US, licenses for some professions such as lawyers don't regulate prices and I think that approach would work for photographers as well.
Best regards,
Mic
I am afraid you licensing analogy is incorrect. When there is a license there is a need to protect or regulate something generally. Like licensing a gardener (if there is even such a license) - if he messes up people could get hurt or fishing to protect the abuse. Licensing just so that the person will make money - not sure that is a good idea imho.
ReplyDeleteHi there! You are right, licenses are usually used only for professions that would pose a danger to health or safety of the public. However, there are jobs that don't pose an actual hazard, yet if they do an incompetent job, it could lead to economic harm. The example I gave are lawyers and accountants. When a photographer does a lousy job at a wedding, I think there is at least economic harm from that. Or another real-world example: my kids' preschool had graduation pics. The pics were "lost" (or maybe the pics were terrible) so the photographer had to re-do everyone's grad pics.
DeleteAs for using licensing as a barrier to entry, they are many examples of that. To be fair, many people, like you, oppose artificial barriers to entry primarily because of economic efficiency. I do understand and appreciate that point of view.
Best regards,
Mic