« Black-and-White is Always Better... | Main | Don McCullin's 75th Birthday Show »

Wednesday, 03 February 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Oh the dreaded photo contest. This example is a more insidious version and a logical extreme of the nightly news asking viewers to send in their photos of the day's weather with the 'prize' being that they'll show it on air. Or even more to the point, the requests to "send in your YouTube videos" that you've filmed when you were witness to a story in progress. Freelance videographers used be paid for filming news events that they happened upon (or raced towards). Now it's supposed to be a privilege just to see your photo or video appear in print or on air.

Somehow the value equation has changed from the old paradigm where a photo had value to a publication, to current times where publication in and of itself is supposed to have value to photographers.

And as long as photographers keep oversupplying and undervaluing their work, this trend will continue.

I just started taking photographs in earnest about 2 years ago. Since I'm older, and working productively, I decided to do it in order to give my children and grandchildren a look inside my head. I want them to know me though what I decided was worth creating. In the end, that is enough for me to continue to take photos.

I don't see the issue. Nick was working as a staff photographer, thus cannot claim ownership of the image and is not entitled to a penny of remuneration.

I worked as a newspaper photographer for 16 years and during that span saw my images in almost every national news and sports magazine at one time, or another. I never received a dime from any of it, nor should I have. We all knew how the system worked. We all accepted it.

Nick I know this probably seems lame but, in my own way, I understand what you are going through. My own work is very different but is suffering from severe devaluation as well. Unfortunately we are a society that values cheep over quality. Hence the success of Walmart in America. It intrigues me that their paradigm has failed in Germany and China. I wonder if in some of those other cultures photography as a profession will survive as they will value the difference a professional can bring. I am amazed at the number of people I meet who produce boring uninteresting images and have no clue about how to change parameters of their imaging but believe they are as good as a pro. I am hopeful that after the real economic fallout we will return to some values other that lots of cheep throw away stuff. Sorry for the rant. If I have been offensive I apologize it was not my intent. This just pains me to see this happening.

I'm sorry for you that you lost an opportunity to earn money, but (and there is always a but, isn't there?) the value of something is only as much as people are willing to pay.

For better or worse, it's easier than ever to create fantastic photos.

Since I'm not a photographic professional, I welcome this. What matters to me is the art. There are some narrow-minded photographers out there are say that this "kills" the art of photography. This is obviously completely false, since if it wasn't for the fact that the photography world has actually grown faster than ever, the prices wouldn't have dropped the way they have.

If you love the art of photography, just keep doing what you want and enjoy the fact that there are so many other photographers around you to share your experience. The art is not evolving by the people who are in it for the money anyway.

Now, if only the same thing could happen with the music industry…

That sounds a bit like sharecropper mentality to me. Broadly speaking, the fight for justice is never over, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting. Is it even possible to argue rationally that TIME didn't get more value out of Nick's work than he was compensated for? Just because the exploited are complicit in their exploitation (even if they're sanguine about it) doesn't mean they're not being exploited.


"the value of something is only as much as people are willing to pay."

No. The value of something is only as much as people are willing to pay IN A FREE MARKET. In practice, markets are seldom "free" because the powerful are able to leverage the rules to their own advantage--which is why regulation is needed. In a well-regulated market, the rules balance the interests of all parties to minimize unfairness. Most people want to be treated fairly, even if it means they're forced to extend that same courtesy to others.


It's an odd situation. It's apparent that there still is a need for good quality photography: it's still happening out there on the web and in print. There are just more ways to not pay for it now. Print publications are losing revenue and readers; the web has no proven income model and theft is rampant. This inevitably leads to dire economics for photographers. They are not just competing against other professionals in their own town now, it's a globally connected and competitive market. There is no easy answer on how to overcome it.

Well, the good news in all of this is the old "what goes around comes around" rule applies. Soon it will be the AP who will be asked to submit their news stories for competitions for major news outlets. Professionalism in journalism implies there are professionals involved.

I work in a professional field and I'm routinely suprised by requests from my colleagues that I just copy that other project, that I just make something up, or that I just bring in some new young people to get our work done cheaply. Things aren't what they used to be.

I remember "Popular Photography" (USA mag) wanted to use one of my images (I was to supply a high res image) and for $100 wanted the rights to use it in the mag and internet and other books/related stuff for ALL time. I said no.

The contract was "1) Photographer/Artist grants Publisher the following nonexclusive rights to the Work:
a. The right to publish the Work in the Magazine, including the right to reproduce and distribute the Work together with all or substantially all of the issue in which it appears at any time in any current or future media, including, without limitation, electronic databases and other collective works;
b. The right to reuse the Work on Web sites operated under the Popular Photography & Imaging trademark;
c. The right to reuse the Work in subsequent issues of the Magazine or any Popular Photography & Imaging special publication, any newsletter, book, and in any anthology or similar collective work published by or at the direction of Publisher"

I agree with Damon. Somehow the general public has been hoodwinked into giving these creative assets away for free. For a lot of people, there's a compulsion to share their lives with everyone, no matter how uninteresting and embarassing the details may be.

Lonely people, digital cameras, the Internet...it's a perfect storm of passive-aggressive narcissism.

"So far, I'm just out. I quit that paper middle of 2008 and have been trying to figure out what I want to do with the rest of my life ever since."

One word: WORKSHOPS! Consider the following potential copy from your workshop's description:

"About Your Instructor -- Nick Wright is a veteran photojournalist whose work has regularly appeared on the cover of national publications such as Time Magazine and probably many others."

This has been going back and forth for some time, and I thought I'd chime in.

When I graduated with my double major in English/photography, I wanted to work as a photojournalist. I ended up as a tech making eyeglasses.

When I graduated, it was as bad as now. It's terrible, and people's careers are being vaporized. I don't belittle the anger. In my previous comments, I came across as callous, and I apologize.

I've seen it first hand. I was in the ER in respiratory distress with asthma. The x-ray tech was 45, and had a nice office job. He had to go back to school, and learn something else after decades. It's harsh, that late in life.

And it's not just you. Gorbachev, once leader of the 2nd most poweful nation, is reduced to making product endorsements, because his pension is about $1,600/month.

Could you imagine Reagan in a Pizza Hut commecial, or Reagan in a Coach luggage ad? It's happening everywhere, not just to you.

"And as long as photographers keep oversupplying and undervaluing their work, this trend will continue."

Damon - I think the problem there is that "photographers" are not any kind of cohesive entity that can make decision on what to sell their work for. So as supply goes up and demand is steady, the prices are always going to fall. That's the reality of what photos are worth, not whatever number a photographer feels they should be paid.

As you stated, the equation changed. But it didn't change because photographers devalued their work (although the explosion of new photographers may also be doing that). It changed because there are magnitudes more photographers than their used to be, many of which just don't care about being paid much for their photos.

Mike: and I'll argue that right now. The photograph in question is a nice photograph but nothing special. It feels like a stock photograph. If for some reason TIME couldn't have used it, they could have reached in some hypothetical desk drawer and pulled out thousands of other photographs that depicted exactly the same thing.

There's no real value to things that aren't special and can be easily replaced. In this case it was nothing more than the luck of the draw.

Changes take place in everything and the value of goods and services reflects their supply. The earliest photographers are celebrated for their ability to produce an image at all. Say what we will about great photographers in the past, their abilities were more mechanical than artistic.

Today, for just a few hours pay, we can buy these incredibly sophisticated devices that have 150 years of photographic experience built right into them. All we have to do is carry them around and point them in the general direction. It's no wonder that the supply of images ranging from "not bad" to "kinda great" has increased so. These images are for all intents free. Big dollar days for mechanically proficient photographers are over I'm afraid.

One device which provides 2 examples of this is the cell phone. The standard of excellence for phone conversations was referred to as "Toll Quality." Cell phones have never delivered this standard but their convenience overwhelms everything else. A cell phone's digital imager provides the same type of service. It's always available, not great but getting better. Perhaps 80%+ of my digital images are done now on my iPhone. My images seem to range from "not bad" to "kinda great"...and yes they're also free if anyone wants them.

Oh, c'mon. There is no exploitation! As an "employee" Nick was paid to shoot that photo by the newspaper for whom he worked. The rules and laws are very clear and EVERY one of the thousands of employed staff photojournalists in the country knows and accepts this.

Peter Turnley's brother, David, worked for years at the Detroit Free Press under these same exact rules. He is one of the better newspaper photogs who has ever lived. If he could live with the rules without complaint, so can the rest of us.

Chuck knows what he's talking about, and he's telling you the way it is.
I understand Nick's frustration, but there is no claim to be made.
He worked as a staff photographer, on salary, using newspaper's equipment, having access because of his employer, assigned to shoot an event. The newspaper is part of AP, and contribute the images (the A in AP stands for Assoicated). Time magazine pays good money to receive the AP service and use it. It's not like he shot for a client who re-sold the picture. The paper is the rightfull copyright holder. Time is a client. In this case and business the photo is a commodity sold and used.
I was on staff for two wire agencies, and worked as a staffer for newspapers. There is no matter here for talking about sharecroppers mentality or I don't know what else. It's all very clear. We like it or not, it still is the way business is done, and all parties involved are aware of it, and agree by contract. Photography as a hobby or art is one thing, working as a news photographer on salary is an other. Like if I was crying because one of my pictures of Yves Saint-Laurent got re-used and re-sold to non-Reuters subscribers hundreds of times right after his death. It was shot when I was a staffer for Reuters, on assignment, I was (well) paid to do it, and I smiled when I saw it used again.
What I find despicable here is that the photographer has to discover the magazine laying on a desk to learn the photo made the cover. Nobody at the newspaper recognized the picture, or even read the credit of a picture used on the cover of a national magazine? Nobody told him, if they knew?

(Hence the success of Walmart in America. It intrigues me that their paradigm has failed in Germany and China.)

The competition in the German discount retail market is so strong (i.e., prices, and often also quality and workers' rights in the store and in production, are so low) that Walmart did not have a chance to earn any money. Thus, it's not Walmart's paradigm that failed. Rather, there are other companies who implement it in a more successful way.

It would be a mistake to assume that German middle class are not driving their BMWs to discount retailers.

(Broadly speaking, the fight for justice is never over, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting. Is it even possible to argue rationally that TIME didn't get more value out of Nick's work than he was compensated for? Just because the exploited are complicit in their exploitation (even if they're sanguine about it) doesn't mean they're not being exploited.)

Sorry, but I don't really follow you there. As far as I understand (OK, I might completely misunderstand this), as a photographer you have the choice to work as a freelancer, take your own risks and control your work -- or work as an employee, and hand over control and risk (to whatever degree) to your company. The decision is yours, not?

If the OP's paper paid him a regular salary in return for his work, then he was not -- as the caption to the illustration claims -- paid zero for giving the image to his employer. Maybe not much -- we don't know, so we can hardly talk about exploitation -- but not zero. What followed was business between this employer and AP (or Time).

If the employer gave the photo away for zero, then what I am asking myself is this: Why would a paper (i.e., a professional business, I assume) hand over their products to AP (or Time) for free? Amateurs participating in competitions for free (or even paying for it) is one thing, but why would a business participate in such activities if they receive nothing in return?

(Yes, these are honest questions. I hope somebody knows these things better than I do.)


I didn't say anything about the "art" of photography being in trouble, I was lamenting the problems facing the "industry."

I still love photography. I still make photos quite often. And I love looking through the wonderful work done by artists of all types on sites like Flickr.

On another note, I pulled my copy of this issue of Time out again and I'm just amazed at how absolutely horrible this image of mine really is.

It was shot on an original EOS 1D camera (i.e. - 4-megapixel) as a horizontal and sent to the AP over a slow-as-molasses dial-up internet connection (meaning that I assuredly used a higher JPG compression). Then Time did a severe crop making the image a vertical and those JPG artifacts really show up.

The only reason I sent this image in was because it showed all five voting booths filled with voters which was something I had never seen in my 10 years as a photojournalist.

I'm assuming that was what drew Time to the photo as well, because it sure lacks any artistic or technical merit that I know of.

Dear Mike,

Hear, hear!

In all of the articles on this topic, I'm distressed that so few of the commenters seem to understand that the problem isn't "microstock" it's letting fat cats like Time magazine get a huge amount of value for a ridiculously low price.

There is nothing inherent in the microstock game plan or model that prevents charging for value received, like the old days of stock. Microstock lets you lower the low end way, way down. You're a small buyer? You pay very small prices. But if you're a major market? You should pay major prices. It's not rocket science, not as a concept, as a business plan, or even as a programming issue.

This is not empowering the little guy. For everybody who wants to talk about how wonderful microstock has been for them, how would it be less wonderful if, should Time Magazine use your photograph on the cover, you got paid $2500 instead of $100? Do you honestly think it would make it less likely you'd make the sale? Oh I can just see the art director at Time saying, "Well, we would have used that photograph if it had saved us $4900 over a custom shoot, but we decided not to use it because it would have saved us only $2500?" That will go over real well in their next job performance review.

Which doesn't address the broader problem Ken is raised of the degradation of prices for creative content, but that's a whole different game. We're not talking about a "degradation" here, we're talking about getting this stuff essentially for free. That's not a decline, that's a complete collapse.

And that's not democratization, that's exploitation. In what possible way are you, the small photographer, empowered by Time Magazine buying and using your photograph for 1/20 of what they would have willingly paid? Just because some idiot couldn't be bothered to put a progressive payment scale in their website?

You guys should all be marching on the offices of the microstock agencies with torches and pitchforks demanding they fix their pricing model! If you don't, I'd love to be able to say you deserve to be taken to the cleaners... but the problem is that all the rest of us get taken along with you.

~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com

I never work for hire, I quit freelancing with the magazines that wanted to resell my images without giving me my share, and think royalty free stock is a bad idea in the long run.

It is a hard fight, especially when young photographers will sign anything to get published no matter how canibalistic the contract, but after years I have had something around 20 % of my income come from royalties of reusing images already shot and paid for.

This kind of thing kills the photographer. Why would I want my son to be a photographer if at most will make a couple of dollars for his images at best, or get paid nothing. In the end it is our fault as business people to have lost so much control over our images and valued them so little.

Its ironic. Almost everybody values photography, except for the photographers that actually make it.

Everyone takes pictures today, of everything they do. Then posts them on facebook. People are now documenting and narrating their lives as they go (we used to do that around the dinner table). Pro photographers can’t be everywhere cell phones are, so that news outlets are trying to harness this, and on the cheap, is not surprising (annoying, but not surprising). For most of these people, being able to point to something on TV or the online paper and say, “That’s mine!” is valuable. And the news hasn’t forsaken pros entirely; at least not yet. There is a mix of amateur and professionally shot stuff.

This does seem to be creating a new aesthetic, however, one which values amateurism. They want pictures and videos that “look” like they were made by ordinary people (read, non-professional photographers). Yes, it’s true that it is easier now to create better images than could easily be created before, but often even that is rejected in favor of pictures that look rushed, skewed, or taken by someone who knows nothing about photography. Maybe they think this heightens the immediacy of the image (and maybe it does, in a way). In any event, what people now see being published, and so as viable and valuable photography, are, partly, these images. Maybe this is inevitable. In the 70s and 80s there were artists putting together collections of snapshots and showing them in galleries. The personal content was supposed to raise this to the level of art, and perhaps they were trying to draw attention, in a Duschampian manner, to the artistry of the mundane.

But it does devalue photography, across the board. Even in galleries (thought not the very high-end galleries), I will on occasion overhear someone effuse over a photograph, only to hear the person they are with say, “I can do that.” Or hear someone say, “Everyone takes pictures,” then buy the painting down the wall that sells for ten times as much (not that I’m bitter, or anything). I don’t like it, but then no one asked me. And I don’t think it is going away. If anything, it could get worse. Art has never been an easy gig, and maybe we have known an all too brief period of plenty in the photographic arts (certainly debatable), with the pendulum now arcing the other way. So my question in the face of all this is, how do we continue to make a living? What are the new strategies?

I do not get it... what exploitation? The photographer was paid, via salary.

"So far, I'm just out. I quit that paper middle of 2008 and have been trying to figure out what I want to do with the rest of my life ever since."
You and me both, buddy. Except that I was a casualty of that summer's mass euthanizing of small town newspapers.
...and now I shoot for myself.
...and I really enjoy it.
I got myself a "real" job that pays on time, comes with benefits that I can afford and offers a month (!) of vacation time in the first year...and I can afford to take it!

***I am however*** lately seeing a number of newcomers to "professional" photojournalism here and there that remind me of me back when...they're oblivious to, or just not concerned with, the new way of doing business. The old way, which culminated with digital workflow, at first helped the pro's bottom line as long as they could master the learning curve...then killed it when publishers realized that pros were no longer necessary. The new schoolies don't know about monthly lab invoices, they can do perfectly swell with a $600 kit, they probably still live in Mom's basement, drive subcompacts and are super web-savvy in terms of marketing their "brand", so they're focusing their efforts on getting a plum, salaried staff position. They're ready to roll with the new terms of doing business.

Time to shoot weddings or get a real job...and if you're like me, stop defining your "success" by where you are published, or if you are at all.

This all makes me glad I don't have to earn my living through photography. Modern cameras make it so easy to produce a reasonable result with no skill or experience that suddenly everyone thinks that he or she is a photographer of professional standard. The result is, of course, hardship for many who have given their lives to the art (and websites filled with mega-tera-pixels of trash).

There is a popular UK website where one can read almost any day questions which go something like "I have decided to do wedding photography, and have got my first booking for next month. Can anyone advise me what camera I should use?" What I find more amazing is that anyone should employ such idiots, but apparently they do!

"Chuck knows what he's talking about, and he's telling you the way it is."

Correct, and I'm not saying it's not the way it is. I'm also not saying anybody did anything illegal or shady.

But the idea that something is automatically "right" just because it's the current state of the rules is risible. (I struggle to refrain from using a stronger word.)

An immigrant father in 1880 New York might have said to his 10-year-old, "look, if you want two square meals a day and a place to sleep, you're just going to have to go work at the garment factory for 11 hours a day. This family needs the money." The child agrees. No school for me! Off to be photographed by Lewis Hine!

And one could say: that's the way it is.

That doesn't mean it's a fair setup, and it doesn't mean that it can't be regulated to improve the situation.


Hi Nick:

I can imagine your feelings of ambivalence. Hey, I made the cover of Time! I didn’t make a cent for it? I wonder if the devaluation of photography has resulted in the abundance of photo workshops. I sometimes have the impression that many professionals derive their incomes less from taking photographs than from instructing others how to. The digital revolution has had many consequences.

Good luck,


PS; After I wrote this, I saw that Ken Tanaka posted a related note; it's an idea.

Mike, it's not the current state of rules or levels of fairness or regulations that are at issue here, it's copyright law. Employees operate under the work-for-hire exemption to the copyright law.

An important question, though, is how this particular image came to be uploaded to AP. Photos are sent to AP for one of two reason: either an AP editor requests an image from a specific event (usually news related), or a photographer decides a particular image is newsworthy or compelling, thus adds it to that night's queue. As the image in question is rather generic, at least as far as subject matter is concerned, I think it's safe to assume that the upload was initiated by the photographer, on his own initiative, and was not an AP request.

The National Press Photographers Association has, last I heard, about 5000 members in North America and can be quite vocal on issues pertaining to photojournalism. The issue of staff photographers operating under the work-for-hire exemption has never, to my knowledge, been an issue.

I apologize to be so adamant about this, but it's an important issue that is apparently not well understood, as evidenced by many of the replies.

"I apologize to be so adamant about this"

Not necessary at all Chuck. I'm learning too. I appreciate your contributions.


Mike - Per your child-labor example... the difference as I see it is that in one case someone is performing a loathsome function in order to get whatever subsistence they can. In the other, it's an activity that a lot of people do as a hobby, for free, already. That's a lot harder to regulate - what are you going to do, ask every photographer in the world to have a set minimum price? I don't write that to be flippant - I really mean that I don't see how to regulate a price on something that many people would/do enjoy doing for free.

In other "fun" pursuits, like football, the uniqueness of talent is more easily recognized, and an expensive product derived from it. If there were hoards of amateur football players who could play anywhere near as well as the pros (as judged by fans), you can bet that pro athletes wouldn't garner the money that they do now either. Perhaps in the large majority of cases, there just isn't enough apparent difference between what the pro photographer produces and that of the amateur. (Which speaks to the comments above about producing something unique.)

Maybe that's why wedding photography remains as lucrative as it does - it's more obvious to the customer that they are paying for a higher level of product. What Time magazine has on the cover - great or not in the eyes of other photographers - may just not rise to the level of making a noticeable (monetarily speaking) difference in the quality of the product for their customers.

I sort of understand the gripe, but my sympathy is limited, frankly.

He was salaried, as has been stated, and so he was paid for his work. Many other fields have the same disconnect between what you're paid and what the end product finally sells for. A nurse doesn't get a bonus for saving somebody's life in the course of their work - it is their work. How about the AP wire story writers? They can see a story of theirs go right around the world, with (I assume) no extra money to show for it.

I work as a scientist. I can spend six months preparing a research paper and get it published, in a journal that can cost several hundred dollars per year to subscribe to. I never get any money at all from that publication; sometimes you are required to pay the publisher for the privilege of having it in print. The editing and the formatting is often all done by us, and we review other people's submission in turn for free. And like many researchers I'm not salaried. I go on temporary contracts (I've done month-by-month contracts with no benefits for over a year) with no prospect of a salaried position in my future.


You write, "it's not the current state of rules or levels of fairness or regulations that are at issue here, it's copyright law."

Um, copyright law, when looked at in its best light, is precisely about fairness, is it not? Otherwise, why even have it? There are, no doubt, many more cynical ways of interpreting certain aspects of current copyright law....

Sorry to repeat Mike's point so adamantly, but it's not a question of whether or not Nick's experience is the way it is, nor is it only a legal question, despite your claim to the contrary. The question Mike raises is whether or not the way it is is reflects one's moral and ethical values. Just because the current state of affairs seems to jibe with your values doesn't invalidate the question for others. Furthermore, the fact that they're considering it does not imply that they don't understand the issue! Many of us face similar realities in our own professions (see Janne's comment, for example).

Thanks to you and Kenneth for your insights into the industry, by the way. Very helpful.

I'm not sure what Time magazine pays for for their AP service, but I imagine it would not be cheap, at not something the average person or blogger could afford, and how much would the cover photo photo cost Time magazine if one worked out the the thousands of dollars they likely pay to the AP per month to have that service ?.

As for myself, I have worked in the newspaper business in smaller market daily Canadian newspapers for the past 30 years, I have sent countless pictures I have made while working for the papers to Canadian Press ( CP ) which is much like the AP in terms of working as a cooperative, many times I have sent pictures on my own initiative and others at the request of CP when they ask for them which I am obliged to send ( and happy to do so ). I have never had a problem with my "free" work appearing in larger papers or national magazines, which they sometimes have, I feel very fortunate to have a staff job in this day and age where I have a salary, holidays and benefits doing what I love to do, make pictures !

There seems to be a general misunderstanding of how photographers have been paid for their work in the past.

Yes, I was salary. But most of the papers that I worked for allowed the photographers to keep most -- if not all -- extra money generated by a photograph.

And yes, the paper was under contract to the AP for the photos. But the AP did pay the photographer (not the paper) for photos we sent in. And it is my understanding that photographers also got paid for any additional usages (such as Time covers).

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could write a little bit more about how the system used to work, so that folks from other fields could understand why some of us are upset that it's changing.

I think Jeffrey D's comment hints on what is maybe one of the more difficult aspects of "(financially) evaluating photographers' work".

Photography can be art -- but not every photograph, even not every professionally made photograph, is a piece of art. And not every piece of well done craftsmanship can claim thousands of dollars.

Or, if every photograph is a piece of art -- then so is every ... handmade chair, for example(*). Following some arguments in comments above, the company employing a craftsman building a chair would not be entitled to sell that chair. Or, following Ctein's idea, the price of the chair should depend on the buyer and the intended use. If the chair ends up in a 3-star-restaurant, it demands a higher price than the same chair ending up in somebody's bedroom?
Sorry, but I don't follow you there. And, like or dislike microstock -- nobody is forced to publish their images there, right?

Responding to Mike, I have a lot of difficulties comparing an 1880 immigrant's daughter with educated 20th century persons who decide to venture out and make their hobby become their job. Everybody knows that if you want to have a (relatively) reliable income, there are other, better choices than becoming a photographer.
I don't intend to offend or hurt anybody, but I think this comparison is absolutely off.

To be honest, I find Janne's comment about the career perspectives of scientists more worrying than the situation of photographers. But that might be due to the fact that my personal opinion is that -- important as photography is -- I consider science to be much more important. And I would not be amazed to learn that more people can live from photography than from science ...

(*) no offense meant, neither to makers of chairs nor to makers of photographs.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007