.
So, after a long absence of blogging, I am finally back; my sole devotion to
my Facebook profiles lately has been quite clear. Part of my delay in writing you today has to do with my sense of perfection and reluctance to write my next blog until I had it outlined properly in my mind. However, further talk of who Crimson Fox is will have to wait as I talk about something just as serious but less figurative.
I am most certainly humbled by the task that professional photographers such as myself have ahead of them now and in the years to come. Images in their digital form most definitely have their benefits, but the growing digital culture is an uphill battle that we, as professionals, must both fight and embrace in order to remain alive.
With any product or service in this commercial society of ours, a consumer pays for something that they find valuable.
Tangible products are quite simple: you’re able to hold in your hand what you pay for, and reproducing it would cost you far more time and energy than its individual value. The more you pay the more you get, and any portion of it that you use or share with others, by its very nature, depletes. It’s like a built-in system of checks-and-balances between company and client. With
intangible products and services, one benefits from a company’s esoteric expertise and talents that they themselves cannot, or choose not to, perform…otherwise, why make the hire? Here too, the more you pay the more you receive, but solely at the mercy of the company providing the service, not anything inherent to the item itself.
Photography is a service, an inherently intangible concept, but one which may produce either tangible and/or intangible products (i.e., prints and albums, or digital images, respectively). The problem is in those intangible, digital images…whose ease and convenience are the very potential dangers to running a photography business. Digital is more than simply technology, it is an entire culture that society has gotten quite cozy with, including myself, quite frankly. However, once professional, digital images are put in the hands of the consumer, checks-and-balances is no longer in play as the company is now at the mercy of the consumer (i.e., the roles are thus reversed).
Casually, people spend time with family and friends, take quick snaps amongst themselves, then either email or post those as-is images online the same/next day, then some who view the images decide to print them cheaply; very easy and no harm done, of course, because it’s all in good fun. But this has become so casual in this Facebook/Shutterfly generation of ours that some project their entitlement for it onto their expectations of professionals. I’ve heard stories of wedding couples who wanted digital copies of their professional photos the next day, understandably unaware of the multiple file backups and post-processing that must take place for hundreds of images and any other clients that the photographer must tend to.
The time and expertise for a professional photographer to create that image or those images, and the work that went into developing that expertise, should be respected by each individual who benefits beyond a simple viewing. My assumption is that couples such as this plan to take these digital pictures to share and print at their own leisure. However, via the same logic that film photographers would hold onto their negatives in the days of old, digital photographers today hold onto their files to ensure that any reproduction of the work is done with care. “Good enough” in the eyes of someone not in the business of image creation just isn’t good enough. Why settle for “Doesn’t that look nice?” when your memories can look even more spectacular?
Even beyond the care necessary to ensure the proper preservation of images and the memories they depict, there are varying values to the benefit of an image. An image may simply be admired by a single person, say a neighborhood client, or works wonders in multiplying a small business’ revenue as it is used in a local advertisement. While there is no guarantee that the image/advertisement will help to bring in money for that business no matter how striking the image is, its likelihood to do so is proportional to the number of people who will see it. Hence, the more popular the magazine the ad is in and the longer the ad stays in that magazine, then the more that accompanying image is worth...especially if the business owner receives validation that the image is indeed working to increase revenue. To make a healthy living, successful photographers charge not only for the service (i.e., time shooting and expertise/style) but for the value of the products as well.
There are industry-standard pricing structures available depending upon what the consumer desires: limited personal use of some digital images to unlimited personal use of all digital images from the event, limited commercial use of some digital images to unlimited commercial use of all digital images from the shoot, or prints/albums only (i.e., no digital copies) etc., or some combination, thereof. The key is that each of those categories should be priced accordingly and each category is only legally valid if such
licensing has been granted in writing.
Even for an individual, like that neighborhood client I spoke of, who wants prints or other products, like canvas wraps, whether small or large, those products are like artwork. When someone passes their digital, professional photos to friends and family who each reproduce them, the collection of individuals are each benefiting from the value of artwork that wouldn’t be without the work of the photographer. Again, I recognize that the misconception that this is okay comes from today’s ease of using digital technology…and image sharing from our little point-and-shoots becoming ubiquitous and almost daily. This is why
laws are in place to protect professional artists (i.e., photographers, musicians, etc.) from this type of copyright infringement. There has been a flurry of “professional” photographers who have taken the ease of digital as a means of inadvertently leading people to believe that they are entitled to have those professional, digital images and do as they wish – without any discussion of the caveats.
Again, there is nothing wrong with granting this categorical allowance, but the license should reflect so and that license should be priced accordingly…since once digital images leave the hands of the photographer, they’ve lost all control, including potential liabilities. Who’s to say that those images won’t make it into the hands of an unaware business owner, misled concerning the creator of the images hence uses an image or two in an advertisement to their highly profitable benefit? What guarantees does the photographer have that the integrity of their work, hence their brand, will be upheld? Even if the client agrees to uphold the integrity of the work and does so, who’s to say that when that client then shares those digital images with others that some or all of those people won’t present the work in an unflattering light? Who’s to say that those individuals won’t print or otherwise reproduce those digital images despite not being given written license to do so? The scenarios go on, but as a for instance to the latter inquiries, images uploaded to Facebook are automatically degraded in quality; if someone were to copy one of those images, not the high-res original, then make it into a jumbo print, say 16x20, it will undoubtedly look horrible…yet the photographer’s name will still be attached to it and unknowingly receive the blame, thereby degrading their brand/entire business.
So, this is the challenge that we as professional photographers face in this day and age, but our digital culture will only grow so we must embrace. Facebook has been a powerful marketing tool for me and I welcome the continued success it, and sites like it, will bring. This rant of mine is not about saying that consumers will never have or see my work in digital form; this is meant to make people aware of what’s at stake. We live in an age of people who begin to mistake that that which is done by everyone they know and easy to do is automatically ethical and just...a commercial threat to the work of artists that a company such as Apple has done such a beautiful job of subduing for the music industry. I would like to be a pioneer in doing the same for the photography industry, as well.
My artistic sensibilities for yin-and-yang - that
Crimson Fox duality - must be brought to the logistics side of things to balance this powerful dance between the commercial threat of digital imagery and the full breadth of its awesome potential. German philosopher
Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote
a beautiful allegory about a group of porcupines who, only over time, found the optimal distance to stay from one another to prevent harming each other yet still keep each other warm. I will continue to work to present my work digitally in a manner that does not degrade my business yet keeps myself and my clients happy; we must find that cozy symbiosis. Solutions include video slideshows and/or Flash images that cannot be copied but may be shared, tagged, commented on, and enjoyed on sites such as Facebook, …but I want to do even more. I will soon work with the
Professional Photographers of America (PPA) and
Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) to modify the existing standard or develop a new standard for seamless image protection (more on this later). Photos are a perennially important part of keeping our individual and collective histories alive; I only fight for ensuring that all of us work together to ensure that the industry remains in tact, no matter who you choose as your photographer.