proPhotogs

This week, pioneer street photographer Helen Levitt died in her New York City apartment. Levitt captured everyday New York in a way that was unprecedented at the time and essentially unmatched today.
Her death reminds us that, business and portraiture aside, there’s an artistic spontaneity at the heart of photography that came to light as technology made snapshots quick and easy and has faded away as we’ve become hyper-obsessed with lighting, composition, and production value.
Maybe her images (quick gallery here) will inspire a few of us to take up the challenge of getting out into the world and capturing the life that’s there – kids playing, a guy missing the bus, curbside puddles with rainbow oil slicks. It’s the kind of stuff that takes instinct as well as talent, reflex as well as know-how.
Really, really cool stuff. Helen Levitt, dead at 95. RIP.

Reminder: I’m not a photographer.
I do, however, love a great photo. But what exactly does that mean?
I enjoy looking through galleries and collections, news from around the world. But does that mean I’m a sucker for photography or just a sucker for looking at cool stuff.
For example, I was just looking through a National Geographic gallery and a collection from the Boston Globe.
Both galleries were full of wild stuff – beautiful, powerful, impressive, horrifying – the whole gambit.
But when I’m blown away by these images, is it because it is a great shot or because it is a picture of something really, really cool? Is it the content or the composition? The photographer or the subject?
Tell me what you think? Is photojournalism – the source for a whole lot of the “best of” type stuff out there – a matter of talent or a matter of being present when crazy things happen?
Share your thoughts!

Josh

Recently I’ve seen some seasoned photographers venting about losing the occasional piece of business to brand new photographers who present themselves as professionals but are willing to work for peanuts.
So basically, after you’ve spent two decades honing your craft and building a client base, you hear that the guy down the street is offering your $100 package for twenty bucks. You’re confident that your work is of higher quality and that the final products aren’t in the same league – but a lot of good that does when you start losing work to a cheaper date.
Of course, you don’t want to badmouth another photographer, but how else are you supposed to defend your turf against the invasion of the budget slashers? Especially in a tight economy, it can be tough to make the case that it takes more than a big honkin’ camera and a steady pulse to take a great photo.
(I can relate. I’m a writer. If some wanna-be word dude wants to steal my gig, they don’t even need any equipment. At least you guys work with a bunch of crazy expensive equipment that keeps the uncommitted and/or broke from getting in on the game – but I digress.)
Anyway, you and I both know that quality work will speak for itself and in the long run, decent photographers aren’t going to wake up one day to find that all of their business went to somebody who is selling prints for $1.99 a pound with no session fee.
But still, you might have to make the case for you vs them.
My thought? Don’t mention your competitors, in particular or in general. If someone asks you why what you do is worth so much more money than what somebody else does, just matter-of-factly explain what you do and what it costs: “I have been a professional photographer for XX years, here’s my portfolio, I know what I’m doing and here’s what it costs.” Talent and experience will prevail.
How about you? Anybody run into this? Please share your stories/advice in the comments section.

(Conversation overheard here)