Photographers and Biologists
Looking at the roster of professional or budding professional photographers, there is a fair number of ex-biologists among the ranks. It makes sense. Biologists (here I'm talking about the environmental kind of biologist, i.e., wildlife, natural resources, rangeland, forestry, etc., not the chemical or medical kind) spend a lot of time outdoors in the environment, are educated in the "Ways of Nature" (for the most part), generally love being outside, and often have an inside track of sorts into environmental issues, access to locations, researchers and projects that non-biologists don't, etc.
When biologists are out in the field, they generally spend far more time at a given location than your typical photographer who might be out for a day, a weekend, or a week or two. Rarely does a photographer have time to spend consecutive weeks or months or over time, years, in a particular area. When you get that sort of "face time" with the environment you're bound to see some amazing things if you keep your eyes open. Admittedly, there are biologists out there who can't see beyond their research project or "burning issue of the moment" and thus don't notice the goings on around them that don't pertain to that narrow interest.
Being a biologist is great, if a person could find steady, decent paying work. Most of us would still be biologists if you could make a living at it, buy a house (or a car), and not be filling out job applications the size of small reference books every few weeks or months. It's not like there aren't enough good biologists. Thousands are pumped out every semester across the nation and if you count the entire planet, maybe at least tens of thousands. And, it's not like there isn't a need for good biologists, either.
The issue is there doesn't seem to be a real DESIRE for biologists among the government, which is the largest employer of biologists. To work in the private sector (consulting) you sometimes have to check your beliefs and morals at the door because private consultants often are hired by the folks trying to get past the regulations and laws enacted to protect the very stuff us biologists like to work with. Philosophical and sometimes moral conflicts are common in the private sector, unless you're working for the Nature Conservancy or World Wildlife Fund.
There's political pressure, internally and externally, in both government and private sectors. Lots of politics in the government and in some cases there is even more philosophical and moral pressure there than anywhere else. But that's perhaps another story.
So, the primary reason perhaps that biologists turn to photography as a career is the lure of money, combined with their love for the outdoors and things environmental. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Not very many biologists turned photographers (BTP) are making names for themselves in the field of Nature Photography, however. There are a handful and we all know who they are. What happens, is that the BTP turns to other forms of photography which are "less competitive" like some form of commercial, editorial or journalistic photography, or get a part time or full time job that helps pay the bills and is more steady than the temporary field work positions they previously worked all over the country.
On one of my re-reads through the March 2006 Photo District News (PDN) and the "PDN 30" article, I noticed that three of the 30 photographers showcased are BTPs. At least these are the ones that mentioned it in their biographical description accompanying their photos. There could be more. One-tenth. I wonder if I would find the same breakdown in last year's PDN 30? I'll have to drag that issue out and check. Imagine if that sample was representative of the overall "up-and-coming" pool of photographers. How many biologists would that be? How many schools are making money on tuitions that will never be fully realized or used? How many bright minds are being turned away from meaningful careers that, altogether, provide a substantial service to the upkeep of the human race? How many of those biologists are being diverted to other careers like sales or high tech or finance or auto repair? Conversely, how many BTPs are making a greater impact than they would if they had remained biologists?
Just an observation.
When biologists are out in the field, they generally spend far more time at a given location than your typical photographer who might be out for a day, a weekend, or a week or two. Rarely does a photographer have time to spend consecutive weeks or months or over time, years, in a particular area. When you get that sort of "face time" with the environment you're bound to see some amazing things if you keep your eyes open. Admittedly, there are biologists out there who can't see beyond their research project or "burning issue of the moment" and thus don't notice the goings on around them that don't pertain to that narrow interest.
Being a biologist is great, if a person could find steady, decent paying work. Most of us would still be biologists if you could make a living at it, buy a house (or a car), and not be filling out job applications the size of small reference books every few weeks or months. It's not like there aren't enough good biologists. Thousands are pumped out every semester across the nation and if you count the entire planet, maybe at least tens of thousands. And, it's not like there isn't a need for good biologists, either.
The issue is there doesn't seem to be a real DESIRE for biologists among the government, which is the largest employer of biologists. To work in the private sector (consulting) you sometimes have to check your beliefs and morals at the door because private consultants often are hired by the folks trying to get past the regulations and laws enacted to protect the very stuff us biologists like to work with. Philosophical and sometimes moral conflicts are common in the private sector, unless you're working for the Nature Conservancy or World Wildlife Fund.
There's political pressure, internally and externally, in both government and private sectors. Lots of politics in the government and in some cases there is even more philosophical and moral pressure there than anywhere else. But that's perhaps another story.
So, the primary reason perhaps that biologists turn to photography as a career is the lure of money, combined with their love for the outdoors and things environmental. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Not very many biologists turned photographers (BTP) are making names for themselves in the field of Nature Photography, however. There are a handful and we all know who they are. What happens, is that the BTP turns to other forms of photography which are "less competitive" like some form of commercial, editorial or journalistic photography, or get a part time or full time job that helps pay the bills and is more steady than the temporary field work positions they previously worked all over the country.
On one of my re-reads through the March 2006 Photo District News (PDN) and the "PDN 30" article, I noticed that three of the 30 photographers showcased are BTPs. At least these are the ones that mentioned it in their biographical description accompanying their photos. There could be more. One-tenth. I wonder if I would find the same breakdown in last year's PDN 30? I'll have to drag that issue out and check. Imagine if that sample was representative of the overall "up-and-coming" pool of photographers. How many biologists would that be? How many schools are making money on tuitions that will never be fully realized or used? How many bright minds are being turned away from meaningful careers that, altogether, provide a substantial service to the upkeep of the human race? How many of those biologists are being diverted to other careers like sales or high tech or finance or auto repair? Conversely, how many BTPs are making a greater impact than they would if they had remained biologists?
Just an observation.
posted by Mike Shipman | 5:49:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home