5 ms·

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 o

by Agustus 11y ago

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. On the other hand, it is great that these photos are available as they allow bloggers to use these to make their site look more professional. 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.

jccalhoun 11y ago
My thought on reading this was "how does he afford this?"
- emw 11y ago
  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/ 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/ 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.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    Expensive to whom? The average college kid? Don't kid yourself.
  - x43b 11y ago
    >>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.
    - pyre 11y ago
      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.
    - emw 11y ago
      > * 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-commons-to/ http://priceonomics.com/how-a-college-student-used-creative-... [2] http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/how-a-19-year-old-student-became-one-of-the-hottest-political-photographers-in-the-country http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/how-a-19-year-old-student-b...
ghaff 11y ago
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.
myNXTact 11y ago
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.
- ghaff 11y ago
  >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.
  - myNXTact 11y ago
    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).
    - ghaff 11y ago
      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.
zo1 11y ago
>"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.
protomyth 11y ago
> 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.
8ig8 11y ago
Kinda like a VC-backed startup disrupting an industry.

by Agustus 11y ago

jccalhoun 11y ago

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

emw 11y ago
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/ 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/ 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.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  Expensive to whom? The average college kid? Don't kid yourself.
- x43b 11y ago
  >>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.
  - pyre 11y ago
    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.
  - emw 11y ago
    > * 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-commons-to/ http://priceonomics.com/how-a-college-student-used-creative-... [2] http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/how-a-19-year-old-student-became-one-of-the-hottest-political-photographers-in-the-country http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/how-a-19-year-old-student-b...

ghaff 11y ago

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.

myNXTact 11y ago

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.

ghaff 11y ago
>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.
- myNXTact 11y ago
  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).
  - ghaff 11y ago
    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.

zo1 11y ago

>"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.

protomyth 11y ago

> 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.

8ig8 11y ago

Kinda like a VC-backed startup disrupting an industry.