Documentary Photographers save the (big) day?

An open letter to the British Journal of Photography.

Sir/Madam,

In reference to your article in the March 2011 edition titled ‘A very civil partnership’ by Diane Smith, I’d like to add a few points for discussion.

Today, the photography industry is thriving and in turmoil, depending on which side you want to argue from. There are, it seems, more magazines than paid photographers, more micro-stock libraries, more demand for dynamic digital content (and therefore less for print media) and so on. There hasn’t been a huge pool of cash in the editorial markets for some time, as professional photographers well know. I know a fair few respected and previously busy photographers who are ‘sitting this one out’ and paying the bills by assisting, studio management, and supplying service to the professional industry providing lighting technicians and digital operators. Production is a major part of the end product, and an evolving industry of its own. This way people keep close to the vein of photography they love and contribute to the creative process with their integrity intact. It’s often the photographers and assistants who can adapt to the changing industry who emerge with new tech savvy ideas and push their creativity towards new pastures. They stick at it, partly through bloody mindedness, and partly because they need to pay the rent.

They don’t jump ship, they don’t ‘sell out’...

And here’s the rub - what is selling out? In the case of the article ‘A very civil partnership’ there are some annoying and obvious clues that could be a blueprint for the definition. A first draught of a great idea that is ‘gonna shake things up in the wedding photography world’. Unfortunately it seems to be a naive unfinished plan that is perhaps driven by marketing more than an actual understanding of a market.

At this stage I’d like to discuss the target of my complaint; I haven’t necessarily set my sights on the article’s heroes, Ben and Jay, who are not necessarily at fault here. They may be slightly guilty of over selling the story to the magazine at worst, but it’s not a story we haven’t heard before. I have met countless struggling (financially speaking) photographers who’s eyes light up when they learn of the megabucks wedding photographers can earn (sic). Sometimes it’s a tempting brainstorm that can quickly turn from “I’m not getting involved in that cheesy crap” to “I’m going to do it differently and use my unique reportage/documentary/modern/classic style to bring something new to the....etc etc.” It’s a false start. The story itself seems to have been written from a ‘what does the press release say?’ standpoint. It doesn’t appear to have any knowledge of what photographers are up to in the social market. In more than a few ways it’s insulting, and in other ways, it’s just ignorant, or badly researched.

Wedding photography has been changing plenty enough on its own in the last 10 years, without the need for our Heroes to liven things up. And there are some excellent wedding photographers out there who know what they’re doing, pushing the quality of their service and coverage ever further, providing strong photographic documents that modern couples demand. There is a subtle shift in understanding what that service means to the client, establishing trends and style as they mature and develop their skills often in tandem with rapid changes in technology. They work hard and live and breathe weddings, getting under the skin of the whole process. They want to evolve and emerge as better photographers because they want their clients to be more than satisfied with the product. They are successful and experienced with a business acumen that builds reputation and creates bookings. Their photography is often challenging and groundbreaking, genuinely bringing something new to the experience. And yes, they shoot with a genuine documentary or photojournalistic style - not pretend, not cheesy, and not for the sake of it. They are in demand and inspiring to their clients. They generally don’t ‘just’ do a few weddings (quote : “I’ve now photographed around 30 weddings”) to ‘Make ends meet’ - they love their work.

You can find these photographers quite easily - they’re very visible and active. That’s not to say that the social photography market isn’t chronically saturated with poor quality work and inadequate service. It’s full of the fabled ‘Weekend warrior’ amongst others. It’s becoming easier for the public to assume that a new, capable DSLR is all that it takes, and there’s a price war apparently going on. It’s getting harder to clarify the value of paying for a professional to the client.

The article suggests that these guys are what the wedding photography world has been waiting for. Really? Working photographers get booked for the quality of their work and the service they provide, as well as the bespoke products they can deliver. Sometimes a client may well book a competing photographer. I might lose a booking because I couldn’t meet the client’s budget requirements, but from a business point of view I can’t justify lowering my prices and degrading my product and service to compete on price alone. I haven’t personally been waiting for inexperienced (wedding) photographers to come along and show me how it’s done, and for less. Really?

Quote : ‘Dodd, who had shot about 12 weddings before pairing up with Roberts, has even learned to love the work, despite its bad reputation with other photographers. “Being a wedding photographer has a stigma with fellow photographers - it’s low to some, selling out to others,” he says “ I don’t get it. It’s not like it’s a morally questionable use of photography, and I find it really enjoyable. To bring up a cliche, you’re present on a joyous occasion and being paid to document it, so what’s not to love?”’

So many things wrong here. He has even learned to Love the work? Can this be possible? How grand! There’s a lot of putting one’s self on a pedestal here, and a whole bag of contradiction. If it’s selling out to [some] then ‘getting paid to document it, so what’s not to love?’ kind of grates. If I was a client looking for a photographer to cover my event and produce my everlasting memories of the best day of my life, I’d be wary of the photographer who has fully committed his/her self to learning to love the work. It’s arrogant to assume that there are couples out there who will collapse weak in the presence of your greatness. I guess they should just be thankful that you’re available for at least 28 days of any given month...

The article goes on to inform us about how showing “real” photographers at work through their all important documentary work (that doesn’t pay the bills) can really get prospective clients to “buy” into it. It can help them ‘“stand out from an increasingly competitive crowd” comments Roberts.’! What - a crowd that you participate in, or a crowd that you want a piece of?

The article then goes on to pat Dodd and Roberts on the back telling us how they plan to really get their teeth into things with innovative marketing at wedding fairs (fayres) which didn’t really work for them (the thousands of prospective couples or clientele weren’t really suited to their style, apparently) and new approaches etc. It feels a bit creepy. A lot of promotion for a couple of guys who can’t make enough money in their chosen specialism. It comes across as an extended profiling style sales pitch for a couple of guys who have one idea, and one idea that has been done and done again, and developed on by others already.

It seems in the end like old news, but made even more depressing by the deflated disappointment at the end and peppered with blind arrogance/optimism throughout. I actually expected better journalism from the BJP, but instead we get a regurgitated and rehashed take on the old ‘I’m gonna change the way the wedding/fashion/social/product/whatever industry is done. Just you wait and see...’ proclamations we’ve all heard before. Who was this article aimed at? Does it tell us what is going on in photography at ground level? It only seems to say ‘Someone is trying to turn their occasionally paid hobby into a business by changing their principles and directives to facilitate an income from a unsuspecting public’. Hardly very civil really.