Beside Myself...

I couldn't believe it. There I was, at a gallery opening with fellow photographers and artists, where I had a few images being exhibited. Overall response to my work was fantastic, with a plethora of positive comments and reactions, which is awesome! I was engaged in a conversation with a fellow photographer who was going on about one of my images, and how much he liked it. He was asking me about it, and I was relating the story about when I made it. He asked "So, what do you shoot with?". I explained that for years I have been a Canon guy, but since acquiring my Fuji X100 back in 2011, I rarely shoot with anything else. His response absolutely blew me away...

He said "Wow, I guess I need to look into that camera if it can make pictures like that". I have heard similar statements before, but generally from those who have no understanding of the time, determination and skill it takes to make a great image. I did not expect a comment like this from a fellow photographer.

Why did this set me off you might ask? It is quite simple really. Would you ask a chef who just made an amazing dinner what kind of stove he used? Would you suggest that with the same kind of stove, you would get the same result? No, because it would not be the stove making your meal... it still takes a chef, and you understand that. Photography is no different. Does equipment make a difference? Only to a very limited degree. I have seen amazing photos taken with disposable cameras. I have also seen many less than stellar images produced from camera rigs costing thousands of dollars.

A photograph that makes you take notice is the culmination of years of practice, training and implementation of knowledge. Sure, great photos can happen on accident occasionally, but as a rule the camera is not what makes the image special. It is the technical merit of the photograph and the process to get there that matters most. The camera is merely the tool a photographer uses in their chosen trade/profession. No different than a stove, pans, or spatulas. It truly is what one does with his/her tools that makes the difference.

Photography is an art. It is not simply the creation of a tool that magically occurs in haphazard fashion. It takes years of training and dedication to be proficient. A nice camera just makes the process more enjoyable, just like a nice stove. Don't credit the camera, credit the photographer!

The next time you talk to a photographer and you like their work, a simple compliment will suffice. Be respectful of their devotion to their trade/craft, and enjoy what they have created. Odds are, that was the intent of the photographer in the first place... to create an image that has a lasting effect on you.

Thanks for listening.

Getty Giving Up?

UPDATE: HERE is a link to another article that better explains what is happening with Getty Images and the impacts on photographers and the industry in general, as well as just how valuable your information is to them...

ORIGINAL POST: Long the gold standard in licensed images, Getty recently announced they were going to make nearly all the images in their library free for non-commercial use. Yes, you read that correctly, free, as in, you do not have to pay a licensing fee to use the image unless it is for commercial use. Although, like anything that is "free", there is also a bit of a catch. The images will still be housed on the Getty servers, but will allow consumers to use embeddable code to link the image in their blog, on Facebook, etc.

It sounds as if Getty has realized they cannot go around suing the millions of people that use Getty images for personal use, but they can use those same consumers to try and leverage advertising dollars. It looks like Getty will begin doing what the likes of YouTube have done, and will utilize this new embrace of embeddable code to sell targeted advertising in an effort to increase revenues. So, non-licensed use has traded a watermark for a privacy-invading line of code that will be used to try and sell products and services that their algorithm determines you are likely to be interested in.

As a photographer, I cannot help but wonder what all the people who rely on residuals from Getty might feel about all this? I recognize that many of the images found on Getty have been available for "free" through nefarious means in the past, but does this new stance actually encourage people to not pay for a photographer's work? By no longer requiring consumers to pay for the right to use the images, what then is the incentive to add images to Getty? To me, this seems like a slippery slope, and just might spell doom for stock photographers worldwide.

HERE is one of the many articles available online right now regarding the decision made by Getty. With the many questions and realms this affects, the fallout could be huge (or it could be virtually non-existent). At any rate, the landscape of photography is changing every day, and we photographers need to be sure to stay on top of the shifts and either fight to keep things the same, or champion change.

I am curious how you might feel about this policy change. Thanks for reading.