An Old Story . . .

By Ron Rovtar
Managing Editor
Dec 4, 2006

Some fifteen years ago after a preview of a large photography exhibit at the Columbus (Ohio) Museum of Art, an elderly woman who clearly considered herself an authority declared that the images were all very nice but that no thinking person could ever consider photography an "art."

The declaration resulted in a considerable number of embarassed glances among others in the group who were clearly torn between treating the woman respectfully and telling her what they really thought of her statement.

Most knew that questions about photography's place in the art world had been firmly settled decades earlier. They had to wonder how anyone could spend two hours looking at work by the likes of Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, Man Ray, Imogene Cunningham, Bill Brandt, Dorothea Lang, Paul Strand, André Kertész and others without seeing the immense creative powers of a camera in the hands of a truly brilliant human being.

This is, unfortunately, an issue that, in one form or another, seems to return over and over again. There are alway those who fail to see the difference between the work of very accomplished photographers, who can make something enduring out of the most unlikely subjects, and talented (even promising) amateurs shooting on vacation.

Cameras are easy to use –– they were in the days of film and they are in today's digital age, especially if one confines oneself to the right subjects and to situations with considerable available light. Its hard to miss the mark when shooting flowers and children in late afternoon sunlight.

As photographer and curator Edward Steichen once famously pointed out, "Photography is a medium of formidable contradictions, it is both incredibly easy and impossibly difficult."

So it was more with resignation than anger that we read a comment in an article published on abouttheimage.com by Bryan Zmijewski.

Zmijewski, founder of LuckyOliver, a micropayment stock photography company, was offering his predictions for the near-term future of the stock industry. Many of his observations were well considered and thought-provoking.

But, then he commented that, "the difference between a pro photographer and an amateur is that the amateur just hasn't gotten paid yet."

With all due respect, anyone who deals with photography at any level should know better.

It is true that in one extremely narrow and unimportant sense, Zmijewski is correct. Certain amateur sports organizations like the NCAA consider an athlete "professional" (or at least no longer an amateur) once the athlete has accepted remuneration of any amount whatsoever.

This is more of a pratical matter than a profound statement on professionalism. Drawing the line anywhere above zero dollars would leave the NCAA in the difficult position of mediating endless disputes about which athletes had accepted too much, especially where the "gifts" were property, not money.

However, few ball-players, for example, would presume to consider themselves "pros" before they had at least been picked by a professional team, successfully completed a training camp and actually contributed something significant to a professional-level game.

In fact, some athletes who play just two or three years in the pros are modest enough to describe their experience with statements like "I played a couple of years of professional ball." They leave the more definitive comment, "I was a pro," to those who really made names for themselves among the professional ranks.

Which brings us back to photography:

It does no one, amateur or professional, any good to downplay the incredible amount of work that goes into becoming a real professional commercial, editorial or artistic photographer.

Successful photographers literally train themselves to see the world differently than other people. Where others see a simple office chair, commercial photographers see light, color, form and background, and how these elements interact.

What's that red highlight reflected in the armrest chrome? At what angle does the chair look best? Would a little rim lighting on a black edge make it stand out against a dark background element? Does anything in the frame compete visually with the main subject?

All this and a hundred other considerations just to capture a 125th-of-a-second instant in the life of an office chair for a client who is betting the picture will sell 5,000 units and help put the kid through college in the process.

Does anyone really think Arthur Fellig stumbled onto all those crime scenes before even the police arrived? Weegee, as he was called, was a pro among pros. He set the gold standard –– be there –– that nearly every editorial shooter emulates.

Living up to this precept has cost a number of photographers their lives covering wars, crime scenes, coup d'etat and riots. Yet the survivors still rush to the action because that's what pros do.

And then there are the artists who have chosen the most difficult financial path of all. Few art photographers make a comfortable living from photography, yet they persist in their quests to show us some truth, ask us some important question, fill in some missing gap in our understanding of life. To do it they develop amazing skills of observation and look just as deeply into themselves in ways that are often far from comfortable.

What all these real professional shooters share is an incredible dedication to craftsmanship, a restless search for perfection, a carefully honed sense of visual perception.

They cultivate a deep understanding of light, gesture, juxtaposition, and human nature, not to mention an understanding of the business side of the equation, which is another important professional matter entirely.

On their way up, many leave their day jobs to spend sleepless nights wondering how they will pay the rent this month. Once they arrive, insomnia remains an unwelcome companion as they struggle with the problems of creating even better images tomorrow. It never stops.

Let's be clear. None of this implies that amateur shooters don't (or shouldn't) become professionals. Professional photography has a long tradition of welcoming amateurs into the ranks.

And, like minor league baseball teams, today's micropayment web sites may give the aspiring a better-than-ever chance to build their skills and be seen by people who just might give them a break. These shooters can even make a few dollars while they are at it.

You can see some reasonably good baseball at Fifth Third Field where the Toledo Mud Hens play. Occassionally you get a glimpse of greatness as a player on his way up passes through town.

In a healthy way, the mere existence of Triple-A ball puts pressure on the real pros to maintain their high standards or lose out to those waiting in the wings. The same will probably be true of the micropayment sites as they grow.

But let's not get carried away. Making a few dollars elevates no one to "pro" status. Amateurs remain amateurs until they make a conscious decision to take their skills to the highest possible level, follow through on that decision by truly dedicating themselves and, finally, test themselves against those who have done it before.

In other words, they must earn the right to call themselves pros.

(Editor's note: As is usual at The Stock Asylum, we have published below important links relating to this article, starting with a link to Zmijewski's original article. On this occasion, we also have linked to the web sites/portfolios of some professional photographers doing great work. We could easily have included many more shooters on the list, but we felt this was enough to support the idea that pros bring something special to their craft. We encourage readers, especially those who want to become professional shooters, to take a look at these and other web sites. For those who wish to see additional professional work, we have included at the bottom a link to The Stock Asylum's Find a Photographer page.)

For Zmijewski's article: click here.

Franco Vogt's web site is at: http://www.francovogt.com.

Joan Teasdale's web site is at: http://www.joanteasdale.com.

Chip Simons' web site is at: http://www.chipsimons.com.

Rob Aaron Gordon's web site is at: http://www.robbaarongordon.com.

Douglas Menuez's site is at: http://www.menuez.com.

Matt Antrobus' web site is at: http://www.mattantrobus.com.

Jim Fiscus' web site is at: http://www.fiscusphoto.com.

Douglas Bizzaro's and Elizabeth Moss' site is at: http://www.dbem.net.

Ka Yeung's web site is at: http://www.kayeung.com.

Pete Saloutos web site is at: http://www.petesaloutos.com.

Ferguson Katzman Photography's site is at: http://www.fkphoto.com.

Jackie Alpers' web site is at: http://www.jackiealpers.com.

For SA's Find a Photographer page, click here .