Although the year is barely four months old, we’ve already seen a (disappointing) trend amongst several of the stories we’ve brought to you through our social media outlets – namely, a lack of appreciation and respect for the people who build their lives upon their passion for photography.
While this is certainly nothing new – after all, since the dawn of time there have been people who try to depreciate a photographer’s skills – one would expect that in today’s age things would be a lot better. Or is that the problem itself? Today’s age is now so heavily oriented on camera phones, affordable point and shoots, and a gross obsession with the selfie, that people have lost their sense of understanding in what it takes to be a photographer. Even more concerning, this is something the media has (implicitly) perpetuated to the wider masses. Take for example, two leading publications, Vogue Magazine and Brides Magazine, who started the year with articles that (understandably) displeased the photography community.
Vogue on the one hand, contended that with social media, camera phones, and disposable cameras so readily available, the modern wedding no longer required a professional photographer – essentially, implying the need for physical photos and a professional to take them was redundant. The rationale for this sort of implication was either provocative or poorly conceived, with the reality being that physical photos are often a form of sentimental value to the client, and for purposes of cherished reflection. It goes without saying that a professional photographer, with their years of experience, profound knowledge, and extensive range of equipment, is (clearly) better prepared to capture the rigorous demands of a wedding shoot – and in a manner that will stand the test of time.
Brides Magazine meanwhile, was quite explicit in its belief that photographers were amongst the group of wedding vendors who don’t need to be fed at the event – putting forward the notion that photographers, as vendors who (apparently) work five or six hours on the day, should be looking after themselves. Not only is this advice short sighted, for the sake of trying to save money on the cost of a meal, it is also misguided. To consider that a photographer ‘only’ does five or six hours work, when in fact they are often there for over ten hours, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and appreciation for what a photographer does on the day. Coming from a bridal publication, one would have expected a more thorough comprehension towards a key component of any wedding.
More recently, we heard about a photographer in San Francisco who had his livelihood threatened after a client decided that he did not like the photographer’s work, and upon disagreeing about a refund. While the concept of an unhappy client is not to be overlooked, for a customer to ignore the value of a photographer’s time, and their offer in rectifying the situation, is symptomatic of a wider problem in society – that people value their own time more highly than someone else’s. To then resort to attempts of extortion, to make a professional feel insecure about their livelihood, is something not to be dismissed. We also saw a ridiculous Craigslist ad looking for a wedding photographer, where effectively, the client’s expectation was that the photographer would put in a 14+ hour shift, pay for their own meal, and receive no payment – other than being reimbursed toll fees.
There are countless more examples demonstrating this sort of ungracious behaviour, many of which go undocumented. It’s a problem that is unlikely to change any time soon, and in fact, with more people becoming disillusioned by the belief that their smart phone allows them to become a photographer, little suggests it will necessarily change. In the meantime however, the photography community needs a reprieve from publications that generate ill-informed advice and bespoke it on the very people who are photographers’ clients. On the part of photographers however, one wonders what must they do to redefine others perceptions?
