This is the exact opposite of the "rich getting richer!" Whenever we start discussing income and wealth trends in the United States we always neglect how we as a society have gotten richer through technological progress. Even the poorest houses in the USA have computers and tv's that would blow the minds of people from the 1990's and be incomprehensible to people from the 1950's.

Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.

I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur.

Even with that in mind, your claim that even the poorest households in the US have access to computers at home is simply not true. The digital divide is still a very real issue within the U.S.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-l...

> I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur.

That is true... but I also don't understand how that is "the rich get richer"?

On the cost of cameras, if anything, they have gotten much more expensive. It used to be possible to buy a pro-quality film camera and prime lens for less than $1,000 -- so, let's say $1500 in today's dollars. More money might get you features like better auto-exposure, auto-focus or high-speed film winders, but a lot of pros didn't use any of those features, and back in the day when I was shooting sports events at my college, I often had a more modern camera rig than the pros sitting next to me. Digital cameras that give similar image quality as those film cameras start at $2,500 today, and go up from there. It feels like the divide between pro and amateur equipment in photography has shot through the roof over the past decade, with the blanket adoption of digital.

What has gotten cheaper / more accessible is the ability to publicize, duplicate and distribute one's work. Twenty years ago, short of dropping off prints at the local newspaper, there would be no way for an amateur photographer to get her photos under the nose of photo editors at major news outlets. Today, that's as simple as uploading to Flickr.

I generally agree with you with respect to equipment cost although, to be fair, a lot of that difference is offset by consumables. A Nikon F4 may only have been modestly more expensive than a more consumer-oriented SLR but the pro probably shot thousands of dollars more film during a year.

So in addition to distribution, just using the camera has also gotten a lot cheaper.

You don't need brand new gear though: A used Nikon D2x or D300 on a good lens will produce results as good as most pros would get with film back in the day. Those bodies even drive all the old (cheap) Nikkor AF lenses. Total cost for a body and a couple of high quality AF zooms will run you less than $500 on eBay.

If you want to get really cheap, pick up a D1 for $35, a refurbished 55-200 VR for $100, and maybe a 2x teleconverter for $20.

>Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.

Eh. Plenty of amateurs using SLRs were taking good, solid photos 20 or 30 years ago. How do you think the pros got their jobs if not by becoming good photographers first?

It is far easier these days is to take photos that are technically proficient especially in difficult light. (My brain probably still holds way too much arcane and now useless information about B&W film processing chemistry.) And, of course, it's far easier for amateurs to get their photos seen.

How many pictures do you think the average newbie needs to take to become a "proficient" photographer? 10,000? How much would it have cost to develop all that film twenty years ago? A modern user doesn't just have a better camera than those twenty years ago, they also have a built in dark room with unlimited "prints" (digital viewing).

10,000 is probably high for "proficient"--whatever that means exactly. I was probably shooting a few 36-exposure rolls of B&W film a week when I was in school. A roll of Tri-X is about $5 today and was probably something similar in adjusted dollars then. (We did generally load our own film but that's in the noise.) Chemicals and paper adds a bit more.

So, I don't know. $7 x 150 rolls or whatever. So maybe $1000 plus gear. The gear might actually be a bit cheaper than today assuming access to a darkroom. Color would be significantly more but you probably wouldn't do your own processing.

To your basic point though. Yes, it's much easier today. The instant feedback, much improved ability to work in low light, no-cost experimentation, easier to use equipment, etc. As a result, I think it's much easier for people to get to the "good enough" stage today even if becoming really accomplished isn't necessarily all that much easier.

You seem to be saying digital cameras aren't "real cameras". Can you define what makes a camera real? How will the difference be visible in the final pictures? Would a high resolution digital camera with a "film filter" applied to the pictures be just as good?

Like the comment in the article, you're not very clear on what "quality" means. What makes a photo soulless or 2 dimensional? This guy's photos certainly had out of focus backgrounds which I think is one way to indicate 3D depth. Would it help it he used an actual 3D camera and presented them for viewing on a 3D monitor?

To be honest, it sounds like you're frustrated that a skill you've perhaps spent a lot of time and money on has become easily available to everyone and thus lost most of its value. That happens in life and it's not the end of the world as long as you keep developing yourself. Just ask a programmer.

Ah .. not quite. Im not a photographer by any stretch. Im a Vexiologist by trade, and Ive invested a tonne of time and money into that. It has provided me with a wonderful lifestyle that I wouldnt swap for anything. That line of work has always been open and accessible to all (just like programming), but the skills are never diluted by progress (just like programming skills are never really diluted)

Not saying that Digital Cameras arent "real cameras" .. an empty packet of smokes with a pinhole in the side makes for an acceptable form of camera as well. Just making the assertion that pretty much ALL digital cameras are garbage. At least the metallic paper in the empty packet of smokes has many interesting uses, and can be crafted into something of lasting value .... no such luck with yesterday's used Digital Camera. They are a future landfill liability, just like all of your iPhones and other battery powered crap.

There are a few notable exceptions in Digital Cameras of course, but we already know that. The Sony Mavica (with the floppy disc in the side) was a work of art, The M9 with the Kodak CCD is justifably sort after in the 2nd hand market at premium prices, and of course the MM. Its even hard to find someone willing to part with a much loved M8. The X-Vario is not only a brilliant digital camera, but there is the added bonus of annoying any "experts" who see it in your camera bag. That is priceless.

No, what I find really annoying in this crappy article goes a little deeper than that.

For example, you can put a Rat in a maze, and measure how long it takes to find its way out. You can repeat the experiment several times over many days, and observe how the cunning little bastard manages to shave seconds, and then minutes off his time. Its only a filthy Rat, and yet the damn thing can reason and think for itself, and optimize a solution to a rather abstract problem. One has to respect the Rat, no matter what diseases the thing might be harboring in its dirty, matted fur.

Now lets take a look at the first photos published by the subject of this article. They look like the work of a noob with a new toy. Fair enough ... he is on an exciting new journey of discovery. Life is good for him, he has all the support in the world, and the doors are wide open to learn anything he wants to learn.

Fast Forward a few hundred photos.

The same.

Fast Forward a few thousand.

The same.

Dammit - Fast Forward 40,000 photos.

Exactly the same.

So you mean to tell me that after publishing his very best set of 40,000 images out of God-only-knows how many happy snaps he has shot ... that he has managed to learn, grow, and develop ... nothing at all. There is zero evidence of any artistic growth in 40,000 images ! NONE ! There is not even a hint of technical development in terms of composition, story telling ... or anything at all related to either photography or journalism.

There is no other word for this other than "Mediocrity"

The 40,000 images that are being thrust into the public eye are nothing more than a tragically monumental celebration of the Mediocre.

As a work of Conceptual Modern Art - A poignant epitaph to a dying culture, in the form of an endless series of the same mediocre images of the same mediocre plutorcats ... brilliant.

And then there is the mindless gushing of the so-called "Media" over this guys so-called "achievements". They are always so hungry to idolize the talent-less and the mediocre, in whatever form they can find it.

Its just horrible to watch.

I used to agree with you about the reusability of things. It's sad to throw away a powerful computer/camera/phone/etc just because the latest app doesn't work and it's too difficult to repurpose the old components.

Nowdays, I consciously rationalize and think that tiny camera only cost a few cents to make. It's not actually a valuable item worth preserving. Sure it would have been an amazing treasure a few decades ago, but now it's common and worthless. Perhaps quite similar to parts of a human body - very powerful when they're working together but utterly useless when they're removed or broken. Even long lasting parts like bones have very specialized shapes and internal structure that make them hard to re-purpose.

I still don't understand what you mean by quality. What makes this guy's photos mediocre? The one on the Donald Trump website looks exactly like I'd expect a photo of a politician to look. How can it tell a story? Does he need a sequence of photos showing something changing with time? It's just a person, not an event. The guy's just a stock photo photographer taking pictures for people who don't need context around them, not a journalist telling a story about a specific event.

I appreciate your sentiment. I own an old Nikon film camera that I use every now and then and I'm always impressed with the photos it takes. There is something unique about them that isn't present in my digital camera. That being said, I think you are unfairly bashing journalistic photography. The purpose of his pictures isn't art, but capturing a moment for posterity. Your criticism is akin to complaining about a newspaper article because it lacks the plot and character development of your favorite novels.

>"Journalists cannot help inserting their views of candidates, Zachary Crockett, describes anyone who works for Trump as "Cronies." Since, @zzcrockett will read this now, you need to keep your opinion out, your other articles were great, keep them that way."

He puts in a few other silent "jabs" inside the article. Everything from "tea-partier" to "If you have the willpower to scroll past this image [of Donald Trump]". It's unfortunate, because it's a good article that conveyed and presented something very few knew of before reading it.

> I am not one to say that the rich get richer, but this may be a specific case of an individual being supported by his parents circumventing the normal process of working the ropes to progress up to taking photos of the people discussed.

It basically the modern version of the rich kid doing an unpaid internship fund by his parents. The new thing is skipping the company.

I'm actually not sure how much is really new here. Yes, he's expended a lot of effort and done this systematically and he's released the photos as creative commons which isn't normally the default so a lot of people don't use it. However, as we speak, there are any number of students both on college newspapers and other amateurs taking many thousands of pictures of candidates at their stump speeches and rallies. And this has been the case for a long time. The photos just aren't readily available for reuse.

My thought on reading this was "how does he afford this?"

Gage's work is probably not prohibitively expensive in terms of money. A few plane tickets to Iowa and New Hampshire every four years, lodging in each for maybe a few days. He also attends Comic-Con every year. He has a good DSLR and lens kit, but that's a one time cost. If he had a paid summer internship in accounting, a side job during the academic year, and supportive parents this all seems doable for a middle class college student attending a public university with in-state tuition.

The bigger cost in Gage's photography is almost certainly time. He's uploaded almost 40,000 photos to Flickr since December 2007 -- roughly 5,700 photos a year. Even with the one-person-many-angles style seen in his Flickr stream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/with/24744613302/, that's a lot. He also captions his photos, e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/24744613302/.

The vast reach of his photography is likely a sufficient incentive for Gage to invest all that time and significant-but-not-immense money. I hope Gage continues his excellent work.

>>Gage's work is probably not prohibitively expensive in terms of money.

"between states to more than 40 speaking engagements." "I traveled to nearly every part of the country to cover his political events,” "Skidmore is hot on the campaign trail again, toggling his time between New Hampshire, Iowa, and Arizona"

Prohibitively expensive is a relative term, but it is hard to imagine this not costing 10s of thousands of dollars and being out of the reach of most high school and college students.

Maybe not in this particular case, but you could definitely make a case that photographing political candidates as that pass within range of a day-trip (or maybe a two-day-trip) of where you live is just the cost of time, gas, (food,) and lodging.

Someone could do something similar using such a model.

> * it is hard to imagine this not costing 10s of thousands of dollars and being out of the reach of most high school and college students.*

I would be surprised if Gage and his parents have spent more than $10,000 of their personal money on this hobby. Again, cost near that range is certainly significant, but not monetarily immense for a middle class kid with a consuming hobby and supportive parents over the course of 7+ years.

Gage has been frugal in his choice of college, and gets funding from GoFundMe campaigns. He also seems to have had side jobs. Simply choosing to attend a community college and then an in-state public university as Gage has done -- rather than a private university for 4 years -- is probably enough to defray a huge portion of his hobby's cost.

I suspect Gage is also frugal in his means of travel and lodging. A sibling comment mentions the possibility of photographing candidates that come within a day or two trip of home. I imagine that accounts for most of Gage's photography.

Consider this note from [2]: "Skidmore is a 19-year-old student at Glendale Community College in Phoenix and a freelance graphic designer. A Ron Paul supporter, he began photographing politicians when he was living in Terre Haute, Indiana, attending events held by Rand Paul during his successful 2010 Senate run in Kentucky." The drive from Terre Haute, IN to Lexington, KY is about 4 hours. That's completely doable in a day trip. I've driven 4 hours each way in day trips for similar free culture pursuits. It costs about $80 for gas and food.

> "between states to more than 40 speaking engagements."

Travel among multiple US states to attend 40 speaking engagements over the course of 7 years is not necessarily a major financial burden, even for someone Gage's age.

> "I traveled to nearly every part of the country to cover his political events"

"Part" can be pretty general. One could have covered events in Arizona, Iowa, New Hampshire and, say, Virginia and say one has traveled to nearly every part of the country -- the American West, Midwest, Northeast and South.

> "Skidmore is hot on the campaign trail again, toggling his time between New Hampshire, Iowa, and Arizona"

I think it's much more likely that Gage has been to New Hampshire and Iowa each once or twice in the 2016 campaign season, rather than flying out every weekend or so like a high-level political operative or corporate executive from his Arizona State University dorm room.

---

[1] http://priceonomics.com/how-a-college-student-used-creative-...

[2] http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/how-a-19-year-old-student-b...

Expensive to whom? The average college kid? Don't kid yourself.

Kinda like a VC-backed startup disrupting an industry.