The United Nations of Photography

, , ,

Brand, Niches, Style, Seconds, Edit… Why Is The New Photo Vocabulary So Wrong?

Words are important. That’s not a subjective opinion but an objective fact. We rely upon them for effective and accurate communication. To demonstrate our knowledge, experience and professionalism. And yet I continually see photographers online use language that fulfills none of these criteria.

Why? Well because they are learning from people who don’t know what they are talking about and are making it up as they go along! Who am I to make such a strident statement? Well, someone who has worked as an art director, photographer, curator and lecturer over forty years. Now, you may think that makes me an out of touch dinosaur that knows nothing of the contemporary photo market. Sadly, for you if you think this way you are misinformed and naive because I may be old but over the last forty years nothing has changed.

Yes, digital has replaced analogue and budgets have dropped whilst expectations have risen but the language used has not. An edit is still an edit, post production is still post production, clients still set budgets and fees and they are too busy to worry about what photographers are arguing, worrying or concerned about. Their expectations are simple. Not to be surprised, get what they were expecting, have great communication and a professional understanding of the clients worries, stresses and issues. This has always been the case.

If as a photographer you do not know and use the correct words, terms and phraseology as your clients then you are not going to come across as an informed professional. If you have learnt these from social media warriors then you may think you are right but you will be wrong. Don’t argue with me on this. I am just reflecting on the industry.

In a sense I am arguing here for well informed education. That is not just from photographers but perhaps more importantly from photo editors, art directors and from anyone whose job it is to commission photography. Perhaps the incorrect use of photo language is confined to wedding, high street portrait and event photographers whom I refer to as domestic professionals working for non-professional clients. Clients who are not aware of the professional terms used within the creative industries. Maybe I’m wrong… but I don’t think I am.

Those who have been in the industry for a decent amount of time will probably be nodding their heads sagely at this point. Those who live on social media will probably be foaming at the mouth with anger. How dare I tell them what to think and what to say! Am I exaggerating? No! I’ve had this response before when I have offered some help and experience.

Language and its meaning is always evolving but accuracy and appropriateness is constant. There are many professionals willing to share their knowledge. Unfortunately I’m afraid that many of those joining the profession today don’t want to ask or listen to those they could learn from. And often attack verbally those that are better informed. My suggestion is to never forget that the passing on of wisdom is not an act of condescension but one of kindness.

Dr.Grant Scott
After fifteen years art directing photography books and magazines such as Elle and Tatler, Scott began to work as a photographer for a number of advertising and editorial clients in 2000. Alongside his photographic career Scott has art directed numerous advertising campaigns, worked as a creative director at Sotheby’s, art directed foto8 magazine, founded his own photographic gallery, edited Professional Photographer magazine and launched his own title for photographers and filmmakers Hungry Eye. He founded the United Nations of Photography in 2012, and is now a Senior Lecturer and Subject Co-ordinator: Photography at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, and a BBC Radio contributor. Scott is the author of Professional Photography: The New Global Landscape Explained (Routledge 2014), The Essential Student Guide to Professional Photography (Routledge 2015), New Ways of Seeing: The Democratic Language of Photography (Routledge 2019), and What Does Photography Mean To You? (Bluecoat Press 2020). His photography has been published in At Home With The Makers of Style (Thames & Hudson 2006) and Crash Happy: A Night at The Bangers (Cafe Royal Books 2012). His film Do Not Bend: The Photographic Life of Bill Jay was premiered in 2018.

Scott’s book Inside Vogue House: One building. Seven magazines. Sixty Years of Stories is on sale now.

© Grant Scott 2025

Discover more from The United Nations of Photography

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

12 responses to “Brand, Niches, Style, Seconds, Edit… Why Is The New Photo Vocabulary So Wrong?”

  1. Rob Campbell Avatar
    Rob Campbell

    Well, let’s start by saying that it is important to know what an aperture is, and why a lens needs a diaphragm.

    I’ve heard various people saying “bigger numbers” when referring to f stops, the mistaken implication being that f22, a bigger number, is a bigger aperture than f2, for instance, whereas the opposite is the case, f2 being a bigger hole through which light can pass, than is the relatively tiny f22. With film, the neophyte learned the reality straight away: the teaching sources were more precise, back in those days. You got information from books, film and paper and camera manufacturers, magazines; in those instances, people who knew something about the medium were always involved. Today, it’s the Wild West, when anyone can get online and spout nonsense.

    Another beaut is “editing”, now almost universally used in place of the correct term, which should actually be manipulating, the digital equivalent of the analogue version of processing film. You can’t develop files, only manipulate them. Part of the difficulty in terminology comes from the fact that finished files are often displayed on screens, as just that: files. In the old days, the processed negative was very seldom the object viewed on display – you had another set of steps in a darkroom, printing (verb) of the negative leading to the print (noun), the physical object. Thinking about chemical photography in conjunction with digital photography is not helpful: it has led to the current confusion.

    “Editing”, used correctly, indicates the making of choices, selecting one image as being better or more appropriate to requirements than another. Editing is not the right word to describe what gets done when one works on a selected digital file: as I wrote, you manipulate that file; you are not editing it.

    That said, I certainly don’t absolve some manufacturers from blame: their software programmes can sometimes misuse the word “develop”, too… however, that might just be something lost in translation.

    I have come across several other digi-speak howlers, but my fear is that it’s just another lost battle – at least, a lost battle within the world of the youtuber and influencer. Outwith that realm, I suspect those who know better will mostly just keep silent, knowing the death of the old standards has already taken place.

    For what it’s worth, I think we’d all be better off treating digital image making as something quite separate and distinct from traditional photography. It really needs its own new language. Perhaps it’s not actually too late to begin anew, with a dedicated digital dictionary.

    Reply
    1. Jim McQuaid Avatar
      Jim McQuaid

      I agree that digital photography and analog / chemical-based photography are and should be treated as different media. The core (or starting point) of earlier photography is fundamental connection of the actual scene to the recorded image. In the digital realm, that is merely a starting point for manipulations which have no real boundaries. Every digital image is potentially a “deep fake,” alas.

      Reply
      1. Rob Campbell Avatar
        Rob Campbell

        Yes, but don’t assume that wet photography didn’t offer
        opportunity for faking; look no further than the renowned, classical Hollywood star portraits.

        That said, I very much take your point that a digital image starts life as a thing so open to post-production manipulation that the difficulty, really, is in trying to understand what the original subject really looked like; negatives were more straightforward, I think, but the best way to see a closer proximation of reality was via a colour transparency – until people got strung out on cross-processing, that is, but let’s not forget Pete Turner, either!

  2. Jim McQuaid Avatar
    Jim McQuaid

    I was attracted by the subject but disappointed because there was not a single example of the language being criticized.

    Reply
    1. gscott2012 Avatar
      gscott2012

      Sorry but I can’t write based on people’s expectations. You’re welcome to write the article you want to read.

      Reply
      1. Jim mcquaid Avatar
        Jim mcquaid

        Can you give me one example of the “new photo vocabulary?”

      2. gscott2012 Avatar
        gscott2012

        Yes. Some are in the headline others in the copy. However as you seem to have an issue with this maybe I’ll discuss it on a future A Photographic Life podcast episode

      3. Jim McQuaid Avatar
        Jim McQuaid

        Thank you for the reply. I see that you are talking about the vocabulary of an “informed professional” but your thesis would be clearer to me if there were an example of the uninformed say “A” but the informed would say “P.” I certainly agree that language is important. But “brand, niches , style” —to me— feel like terms that could be used in a discussion of the work of Ansel Adams as easily.

      4. gscott2012 Avatar
        gscott2012

        On that we disagree

      5. Jim McQuaid Avatar
        Jim McQuaid

        Fascinated to hear more about your thinking in a future post. But if the word “style” is an example of new, uninformed, and “wrong” vocabulary to use when talking about photography, I remain mystified.

      6. gscott2012 Avatar
        gscott2012

        Stay tuned

  3. Robert Dann Avatar
    Robert Dann

    It’s amazing how, for seasoned and traditionally educated professionals, how nothing has changed but the tools we use. I can’t remember who it was, but I was listening to a woman explain the depth of her B&W images compared to color in an interview. She simply stated, “Black & white photography was and is my first language.” I could almost hear the minds of the very modern photographers you describe in your opinion exploding. I have been a photographer for just over forty-five years and education for me is as it was at the beginning; by studying an image I admire not just for the technique, but for the nuances beneath the surface of the print. Brook Jensen described it the other day when he defined the difference between images made for social media (seen the way everyone on the planet sees them) and those clearly made by a true image-maker sharing their perception of a subject (their soul if you will). I recall Ralph Gibson explaining the process as “creating the tension of a snare drum” in his images. While there may be photographers of merit on social media, they are few and far between. As for being “old” Grant, I prefer seasoned. You and your guests do a fabulous job of reminding us that this journey we’re on is far from over. It’s those feeling compelled to take short cuts and, worse yet, those profiting from them, who have little or nothing to offer.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Robert DannCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trending

Discover more from The United Nations of Photography

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading