RE: [Leica] Photo school or what? long reply

["Zeissler, Mitch" <mzeissle@gcipoa.gannett.com>]

I agree with Rei on both points he makes in the his note below.

When I was a pro photog, I was never able to break the $30K barrier.  My
first full-time photog job in 1983 paid $11,500 right out of a 4 year
design school where I graduated in the top 5 percent of my class; real
tough when you have a new wife that only worked occasionally as a part
time substitute teacher.  I was so poor I had to walk to work, as I
could not afford to fill the tank of my '72 Ford pick-up.

Turnover at the creative houses tends to be about every 18 months [or
less] for a large percentage of the staff, largely due to the fact that
other starving artists are graduating and will work longer, harder and
with newer ideas than you, for less money.

As I hopped from job to job [5 employers in just under 10 years], I
tried to improve my salary with each new job; which is easier said than
done.  At least the last place that I worked at as a pro photog [a
24-hour sweat shop] had health benefits and a 401K plan, something none
of the others *ever* offered.  However, the sweat shop had so many
safety and health code violations, it was just a matter of time before
someone had a fatal accident.  The final straw for me at the sweat shop
was not being included as part of a company-wide bonus at the end of our
fall busy season.  Even though I had implemented many "work smarter, not
harder" initiatives that significantly improved the output from our tiny
2 person photo department, the bonus went to the folks that put in the
most overtime.

Each photo place that I ever worked at echoed the same things, which
ultimately soured me on the creative field in general.  The *only*
exceptions I have ever come across were the folks that were
self-employed, but I never had the drive to follow that road.

I have spoken to a lot of high school and college age job entrants, each
eager to go into the creative field.  For each I have told them that to
succeed, they need to feel they cannot live without doing art in order
to make it work for them and to never *expect* to make decent money for
all of their efforts.

On the other hand, the IT field has been a spectacular success for me,
though it does have its share of managers that Rei describes so well.
But I do have a loving wife, good health, warm home, good salary and
investments, comfortable life, vacation time and property, pets, AND
LEICA CAMERAS, all of which I did *not* have as a pro photog.

If you feel the NEED, by all means pursue your dream.  Just be aware it
can be a marginal existence for many that are not the top 1 percent in
the field.

/Mitch Zeissler

- -----Original Message-----
From: Rei Shinozuka [mailto:shino@ubspw.com]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:22 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Photo school or what?

i can't say that photography is a viable career; there's a lot of
evidence
that says it's on average a tough and poorly compensated way of ekeing
out
a living.

but as someone with a comp sci background who has in the past worked in
and
around IT organizations (no longer!) i do sympathize.  as an aggregate,
IT
seems to attract some of the most bureaucratic, dull-minded,
incompetent,
political, spread-sheet and pie-chart loving, goldbricking,
backstabbing,
uncreative, disloyal, unthankful, riskfearing, parochial-minded,
unvisionary,
micromanaging yet clueless crowd of lemmings for managers.  however,
because
programming is one of the most creative, demanding, and rewarding
endeavors,
there are pockets of good guys in good technology groups and companies
out
there.  you just have to find them.  and 2002 might just be the year.

- -rei
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html