|
Search this group's discussions
|
Pro vs. Amateur. The Paradigm Shift.
|
The Paradigm Shift.
Carried over from this thread: www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d90/discuss/72157622564852965/
I believe the operating words here to be "traditional" and "purpose".
With the rise of digital, "professional looking photography" has become accessible to the masses.
As a result, we are living what I believe to be the biggest paradigm shift in the history of photography since the launch of the Kodak Brownie. (While saving at least one well known camera brand - wink-wink -)
In the last 8 years or so, we have witnessed the rise (and fall) of hundreds of photo sites until Flickr changed the concept of what a photo site really is by throwing social networking into the mix and directing it at the "general public" rather than the "slr-owning" minority.
At least two of the sites I used to frequent, have seen a dramatic fall in their statistics and membership, while there are also hardly any newbie’s on them anymore.
Gone is the "pro" advice on tilt, DoF, OoF, under/over exposure, etc..
I believe that one of the beautiful results of this democratization and subsequent education of the masses is that the separation between amateur and pro has become increasingly blurry, with millions of aspiring "bread photographers" turning up the heat on the pro community.
The collateral damage of these events has also been substantial. Both my pro labs went out of business about 4 years ago, and Velvia is impossible to come by.
If it was already difficult to make a living as a photographer in Chile, today it is almost impossible. Clients pay – on average – $ 35 for a freestanding shot and maintaining a full-blown studio with that kind of income is not really an option, unless you're jam-packed 24/7.
With the arrival of amateurs on the pro scene, we've also seen a considerable paradigm shift in what pro photography is about and how it is perceived.
With amateurs unaware of what the “right” lens is and the explosive proliferation of images shot the “wrong” way, the whole concept of what is right or wrong technically all of a sudden seems old fashioned.
True: tele for wild life and wide angle for landscape, those “rules” will probably not change dramatically due to the nature of the subject, but still, there will be those who try.
However, how humans are portrayed, be that at home, on the street or in the studio, has changed forever.
Holgas, lens babies, cell phones, p & s; anything goes, sometimes – accidentally – with stunning results that challenge our concepts about what is right or wrong, and, more importantly: our concept on what beauty is about.
The challenge that lies before every photographer is to creatively reflect the human condition and that of his environment. There is virtually nothing left in this world that has not been photographed a million times and – in turn – been shown to millions.
The quality level of the modern DSLR, combined with its virtually flat learning curve, has also made it practically impossible for the untrained to distinguish between pro and amateur.
Thus, the only way a professional can distinguish himself today, is not by “tradition” – which is a cliche followed by millions – but through “uniqueness” which is an art form dominated by a privileged few.
To create uniqueness consistently, one needs purpose (not accident), because purpose leads to professionalism: the total domination of one's medium, its materials and tools.
Purpose lies not in choosing Nikon over Canon (or v.v.), but it does in purposely & knowingly choosing the “wrong” lens or lighting for a given subject, purposely breaking the rules and purposely pursuing a personal style or point of view.
Purpose combined with talent creates Art, and creating Art is reserved – thank heavens – to those who purposely dedicate their lives to doing so.
Let's all thank digital for largely eliminating the technical barriers that once separated amateur from pro, allowing amateurs to raise the bar a notch or two and forcing all of us to – once again – concentrate on what photography (to me) is all about: talent, beauty & art.
Gerard
blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php
Originally posted at 10:19AM, 1 November 2009 PDT
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
Granted that the digital revolution has democratized most areas of photography, the basic issue remains that the main separation would be in the CREATIVE and VISION issue. Bue then we did have this discussion before didn't we? LOL
I mean most beginners do not know HOW the meter 'sees' much less properly expose for a 'Tone' without thinking he/she is under or overexposing. Exposing for a tone properly isnt under/over exposuire at all. And this is just one of the issues facing somebody without the technical depth and experience that a photographer brings into a scene.
Evaluative or segmented Matrix Metering ceratyinly has helped in the majority of cases but still the proeply exposed images would always be the oen that a photographer chose to properly expose for. Automation would not help there for it cannot guess WHICH parts of the scene are IMPORTANT to the photographer. Two different photographers shooting the same scene would certainly come out with two different shots.
it ceratinly is a challenge for the traditional Pro's to adapt and change the way they work. To make their image apart from Uncle Joe or from Little Tommy.
I for one is happy in the democratization of this. Just like when I play online games with people (fli-sims actually) I actually teach people to play betetr because it makes the game better for everyone if there are more competent players. I feel this way for photography as well.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Reposted from previous thread:
Thank-you for the extremely well written opinion. The only rebuttal I will make is that you missed one very critical point.
Not all professional photographers are making images for the sake of art.
There are countless thousands of investigative, forensic, scientific and documentary photographers making a living today. Each making "art" in their own way. Each due to the nature of their profession needing to understand and use the "right" lens for the "right" subject, less their work loose it's value.
Rules are indeed made to be broken. In art. Not always in research, nor a court of law, nor in scientific research.
But in order to break those rules, I would argue that the rules need to first be learned. After all if one is unaware of the rules of tradition, how can we, as professionals, deliver a product when asked to do it the 'traditional" way or in a "non-traditional" manner?
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thing is, Joe blow who pics up a digi cam does not automatically produce great shots in that "urban decay" kind of anything goes way. A good composition/exposure/technique still beats a poor one of the same subject. So just being able to access good cameras and your own "dark room" does not replace knowledge of the craft. The same can be said of any profession: I am sure I can watch a dentist drill out a cavity and do the next one just as well as he (once I am not all thumbs); I run out of "talent" though if I screw something up - he can fix it, I can't because of the training I will never see by just observing a snap shot of his knowledge in play.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is a marvellous thread - thank you all for your insights - my perspective is that with the complexity of digital cameras today there is little fear that professionals who know their craft inside and out will always 'wow' us with their shots while an amateur without training will be fortunate to have the occasional lucky shot. It brings to mind the old adage - an amateur practices until he gets it right while a professional practices until it never goes wrong. Certainly those who buy Nikon products have a higher expectation for their equipment than many other brands - but without the training they are stuck getting to the next level. It may be an idea to feature each month training in a specific area - say focal length - and have members respond back with photos using the training they receive.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In spite of this being an "interesting" & "marvelous" thread, it appears few people care.
It is very interesting to observe that what's written with one intention, is read in a different context and/or reality.
Zeroneg - for example - focuses on the skills differences between one and the other, which are doubtlessly correct.
PVA_1964 (9 years younger than yours truthfully, no doubt), brings in his corporate view, which is absolutely correct, but - in the Flickr context - is not a topic users worry much about.
I'm sure most people do not question for a second that CSI's use the right lenses and the right gear. (Good placement job, BTW)
I feel cctats best interprets me, connects to what I was trying to - imperfectly - say.
Maybe the topic is not tradition or purpose. Rereading, I believe the essence of this note is this: >>the total domination of one's medium, its materials and tools<<
THX for your contributions.
Originally posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 31 months ago.
|
 |
-_m_- [deleted] says:
it's funny, because now i agree with pva, or maybe we always agreed and i just didn't know it :)
since the world series is going on, i like the baseball analogy. managers learn the "right" move throughout their careers as players, then manage according to the percentages they have learned over a long time frame. but all managers know the same stuff for the most part. if the "right" percentage move was always the right move, then the other manager would know exactly what the game plan was, and that would be bad news. what am i saying with all this?? i have no idea, but i know you simply can't always stick with the percentages or with "tradition" if you want to be a top professional (not saying i am one by the way).
Originally posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
-_m_- edited this topic 31 months ago.
|
|
Speaking as an amateur I can say that I see a major difference between my own work and a professionals'. I can SEE the difference, though. The problem with art, any art at all, is that the customer needs to have a tertiary knowledge of the medium to actually appreciate it. I could draw something and someone who can't draw at all would think it's amazing, someone else who knows art can think it's crap. But I can still sell my crap to someone who doesn't know any better. That's why the amateurs are bad for business.
The average customers don't see a difference in quality, only a difference in price. People who don't know anything about photography think it's easy, just hit the button... anyone can do that. It's probably the hardest art form to make a living with because of that perception.
I have seen a lot of "professional" photographers working for conglomerates who have less training than I do pawning themselves off as being "pro" with their crappy point-and-shoot sonys, trying to charge me $90 for an awful picture of my newborn baby. But they sell those crappy pictures every day... it's gotta be infuriating for a real pro. I also noticed that studio type shots are on the way out. People want "on location" and "candid" work now, which is completely plausible with the quickness of the DSLR.
Without this "shift" and this site I wouldn't have learned as much as I have about photography and for that I am exceedingly grateful. I'm going to keep learning (and spending too much money) to get better. I have no aspirations to make a living with it, I just love taking pictures. I look at exif data all the time on here and have learned quite a few things by doing so.... flickr is great! I see pro work and feel awed and inspired to better myself. I can also see beginner work and feel like I've come a long way (and maybe even help them out). I have a long way to go. I agree there needs to be traditional knowledge before you can start bending the rules. I see pictures all the time I have no idea how to capture/create because I lack that knowledge!
OK I'm done rambling on now ;)
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well since it appears you are tying to stir up conversation, I will put my opinion in on the topic. Scanning through there are a lot of good points here. Specifically I like zeroneg’s point of armatures forcing the pros to work harder in separating their selves.
Myself just being a guy who loves photography and wants to be the best I can. Photography is by no means a profession for me, just a hobby that I need paid gigs for to support. If I can charge ¼ the price of someone making a living on photography and still please the client that’s what matters. Many people want “professional” pictures of themselves or family and pay top dollar for them; others are just looking for affordable quality.
I am not sure what you consider a “professional” but to me a professional is more than someone who makes a living off photography. I think there is a missus of the term. A professional photography should be in the top 10% of his class worldwide. Not someone who charges $250 for a family session in a park twice a week that has a name for him/her self in the local community. Like today I just learned about: tylerstableford.com, that guy is a rock star and a professional that no armature could touch! So if you are a true professional you should not be threatened or concerned about armatures.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
With amateurs charging a quarter of the market price, and mickey mouse clients who don't give a damn or don't know any better, soon there will be no professionals left.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You seriously think that? There will always be professionals and those who produce topnotch work will be well compensated for it.
That is like saying there will be no more Jimmy Hendrix's just because your average person off the street can purchase a quality guitar and read a blog about how to play it.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
[ maybe not the best analogy, because there actually will be no more Jimmy Hendrix's ]
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am hoping this is a consumerism cycle; the masses flock to "cheap" until they realize what they are not getting, then things return to normal. Granted, it will probably be a "new normal."
Until then, there will probably be more casualties, and the pool will shrink.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My own personal life experience tells me that, in any field, the cream tends to rise to the top. Remember, the invention of the printing press gave people access to books, the elite were challenged and more cream was produced. The members of the traditional elite who couldn't compete, sank.
If you see what I mean.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think a big problem is that a lot of amateur hobby photographers look at the discipline as an easy gig, it's just pushing buttons right? ;) A lot of these people have no formal training in any sort of creative subject and think it's an easy way to make a load of money, have you seen how much the Pro's charge?
What they don't see is the amount of work that is actually involved, they also have no understanding or intention to learn, it's the camera that takes the images right?
I have been asked a good few times by friends that have seen my images how much my camera costs, probably thinking they will get similar quality images to the ones I get from it right out of the the box They don't see the countless hours of frustration, tears (almost) ranting, hatred (at times), hours spent reading and debating and the like I've been through. It's just pushing a button right?
Having said all that I'm 100% sure there are a lot of amateur photographers out there that will go on to becoming famous pro. There is always going to be cowboys or folk that just don't get it in any trade. I don't like cowboys but respect anyone that's willing to put the time and effort into their work to make it better.
I class myself as semi pro as I don't pay the mortgage and bills from my photography income but hope to do so one day, at the moment it's only enough to sustain itself whilst expanding my studio equipment.
A pro will understand that they need a lot of experience and possibly £10-20k of equipment to even begin think about charging real money, an amateur will think it's closer to £2k
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Exactly Levi, and a pro's work will be PRO quality, there is no shift.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
An amateur shot that costs 1/4 of the price is still priceless to the person who bought it. I think what's going to happen is the professionals are going to have to drop their prices or go out of business.
I agree with sunglow, there will always be the "rockstars" with true vision and talent.
I don't think this is a cycle. This is more like what MP3's did to the CD industry.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I pretty much agree alliecat1881. We are in a capitalist consumer society. We, as consumers, expect cameras to get better or cheaper. Consumers of photography expect the same.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I see what you mean.
Many pros (here at least) "sink" for a number of reasons:
- When I arrived in Chile, studio photography was already badly paid. Where a good advertising photographer in Amsterdam charged on average the equivalent of $ 1.200 to 1.500 a day, here it was more like 200-400.
- A properly trained pro photographer goes through at least 4 years of formal training plus at least 2 more assisting. In London, this can be considerably longer: up to 8 years - with bad pay.
- Initial investment in a properly equipped studio is anywhere up from $ 60.000 - $ 100.000. Just one digital MF will set you back in the order of $35.000, a technical 4x5" or 8x10" (film) camera ditto.
- Pro photographers have no "day-time" job that pays the bills, it *is* their day-time job.
- Most clients here, including quite a few advertising art directors, do not recognize "pro quality" and are not prepared to pay for it.
Even less so, now that amateurs are all over the place doing quick & dirty stuff for a quarter of the price
- So: it's not in quality, skill or creativity the pros loose, it's because you can't pay the bank, the rent, the assistants and the infra structure of a production studio with a monthly gross income of three to four thousand dollar. That is: you can't, if you still want to eat.
This is why - at least here - pros are forced out of business because of the unfair competition by the moon lighters who work way below a fair and economically feasible market price.
And, just to avoid any misunderstandings: I am not a pro, I'm not complaining and I do have a day-time job, which includes photography, sometimes...
;)
Originally posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 31 months ago.
|
|
|
WOHOO that goes way too fast!!
LOL
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hmmm, but given the nature of the society we live in, it could be said that you're highlighting problems rather than suggesting solutions. Those who succeed will succeed because they found ways to meet the needs of the market.
And what price talent?
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I also wanted to add that usually the people buying the "quick and dirty" stuff would most likely never pay for a pro shoot... nor could they. Especially now with nearly every economy being in crisis.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Haha.... yep it's going fast. It's fascinating though.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
micro stock came about as a result of the establishment not letting the amateurs in, now some micro stock companies are the establishment in terms of RF.
Things have changed very quickly and it is going to continue.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@littlechap: I think my solution is in the original post, but maybe I explained myself badly.
@alliecat: Unfortunately, the quick and dirty stuff does not only get bought by people who would never pay for a pro shoot, and the downward pressure on fees happens not just in Chile. I'm hearing the same thing from my (advertising) colleges in Amsterdam and the US
@Levi: YUP: micro stock is probably the worst thing that could happen to the pro community, because in the end, nobody is making a living. Except, maybe, the top 10 or 20% in Europe and the US.
Originally posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 31 months ago.
|
|
|
My apologies. I take it you mean these comments -
Thus, the only way a professional can distinguish himself today, is not by “tradition” – which is a cliche followed by millions – but through “uniqueness” which is an art form dominated by a privileged few.
To create uniqueness consistently, one needs purpose (not accident), because purpose leads to professionalism: the total domination of one's medium, its materials and tools.
Purpose combined with talent creates Art, and creating Art is reserved – thank heavens – to those who purposely dedicate their lives to doing so.
concentrate on what photography is all about: talent, beauty & art.
I agree with all of this. I perhaps misunderstood because your more recent post focused on cost of equipment and the difficulties of earning a living given that cost.
So, to be clear, are we discussing art or commercial photography, and here I reveal the true depths of my ignorance, to what extent is there a difference?
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That's an excellent question.
It appears the word "art" is interpreted as "art 4 art sake". This is not what I intended to say. I may have used the therm to loosely, probably because I consider photography an art form in general, and because in my profession we call any type of illustration in a piece of graphic material (ad, brochure, etc) "art-work"
Generally speaking, the choice between one photographer and the next is mostly decided by the vision, personality and creativity each can bring to a particular assignment, which - supposedly - adds to the creativity, quality and value of the final piece.
Professionalism goes without discussion; you suppose the guy is a pro, and if for some reason he turns out not to be, he'll get kicked off the job in no-time or simply not get paid.
If you take a look at the work of some of my favorite photographers (I have a lot more), it may become more clear why I talk about "Art" and the pursuit of eliminating the random success, associated with amateurism.
Duncan Sim Would have loved to work with him, but he is practically unaffordable
John Claridge I have worked with him on one campaign, and learned a helluva lot.
Rolph Gobits Worked with him once, and it was a disaster. Still: great photog.
Denis Waugh
Sebastiao Salgado
Hope this is more clear, now
Originally posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 31 months ago.
|
|
|
This is excellent!
Thanks for the links; I'll take my time to study them. I totally agree that photography is an art form. Where we may differ, and I'm struggling with how to phrase this, is that noone has a right to expect to be commercially more successful than anyone else, regardless of equipment, training, talent etc. There is an art to marketing and self promotion. You mentioned 10-20% earlier. Compared to musicians and actors, that's quite high.
Posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@littlechap. Absolutely true: no one has the "right" to expect anything in this life.
And it was not my intention to suggest that pros have more "rights" because of investment or training either.
Commercial success in the case of an advertising photographer (at least) is the result of all the factors you mention, honed social skills, awards, and more awards, plus a hefty debt to the bank.
Top custom built studios may end up costing well over a million dollars and include horizon-less walls, sometimes "the egg" (studio with seem-less walls and ceiling), etc., plus the before mentioned investment in equipment, which may gobble up another half million, in some cases.
The 10-20% is a very ballpark estimate of the pros that make a decent to very good living with this.
The ones that can ask whatever they want, like top sportsmen, must be in the order of 1%, more likely.
The rest is competing in some way or another with the cream of amateurs, and has to accept the reality of the market, which has seen nothing but downward price pressure ever since digital became affordable, a little less than 10 years ago.
I myself could only move into studio work because I found I could compete with local pros and because digital is not half as difficult as film.
Would I be able to do the same in Amsterdam?
Most likely not, that is a far more sophisticated market.
Am I competing unfairly? I think not.
I charge market price - even if that is considerably lower than 10 years ago - and get hired for my creativity, quality and vision.
Does that make me a pro?
No, I think not, because ask me to do what I do on film, and I probably won't be able to deliver, put me in a more demanding market and I'll be out of a job.
Lastly: there is an expression in advertising that also applies to photography and many other performing arts, be that sports or music.
"You are as good as your latest job"
Originally posted 31 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 31 months ago.
|
|
basically i've read through most of the page and now my brain is mush. :/ i started really recently like about 7months ago i got my D90. I in no way claim to be professional. I do though, enjoy photography alot, its more than a hobby for me. I am a film student, studying hard to learn what it takes to be a director. Saying that alone I need to seperate myself from everyone else as best i can. So i am working hard to do so, drawing inspiration from both Amateurs and Professionals alike (more so from the pro's cause us Ama's only get lucky now and then). I am trying to develope as best i can skill. I am completly aware of how far i am from being good. Like for say, i dont even know what Matrixing is at all :/
I do understand the points trying to be made though. About amateurs posing as pro's. I've seen the work of some people where out of the 50 shots of a model they all look the same. There's no change in tone or anything of that sort in the photo's all look the same. Its like having to watch a movie with the dialouge being repeated with different words. There are also people who purchase like low end DSlr's, and have them on auto and do point and shoot simplicity. There's nothing to their photo's, content is the same for everyshot but maybe the model has like looked the other way :D
of and something that realllllly annoys me... -_-
people who do things like take a black and white shot of a trash can and proclaim to the high heavens sealing their creative independence "abstract art".
an amateur practices until he gets it right while a professional practices until it never goes wrong.. i love this quote by the way.
i hope i didnt come off wrong.
josh.
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It is very difficult to make a living as a photographer today because of this.
This has happened time and time again in many industries. If your profession is in a field that people consider fun, and might do as a hobby, and doing well at it gets easier and easier with new technology, eventually you'll get to the point where it is difficult to make money.
I'm going to get married in the next year or two, and there is no way I'm going to pay someone thousands of dollars to take pictures, just so he can sell prints to me and my guests...
Nope, I'll give some kid with a DSLR (or a couple kids, to avoid having bad luck with one of them) $100 for the evening, and tell him that the RAW originals all the pictures he takes are my property at the end of the job. I'll be willing to bet I'll get plenty of people willing to do it, and the results won't be very different from what a pro would deliver.
The only reason I wouldn't do it myself, is so I could enjoy myself at my wedding :p
I recently shot at my works big holiday party with my D90, 35-70f/2.8D and SB-900 for free. The IT manager has a nice Canon and does all the portraits of the CEO and Executives, as well as product photos for marketing.
We never have to hire a photographer again because we have talented hobbyists that can do almost as good a job for free.
As this trend continues, I'd be very worried if I were a professional photographer. To the OP's point, artistry will be the only surviving form of pro photography, because everything else, people will be able to either do themselves, or ask a hobbyist friend to do for them for a pizza and a few beers.
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This has happened in the IT industry - a couple of CEO's or enthusiastic mechanical engineers read a PC magazine and next thing they are telling trained professionals what to buy and how to get from A->B. And this happened in the early 90's when PC's came of age, networking got more organized - and the world was inflicted with MS Windows.
The dSLR will (has?) do the same to pros. But just like the IT industry still needs real pros, the photo industry will always need real pro photogs. There is a difference. But like the IT industry, their are bogus pros too - people who shoot crap knowing that a "dumb" client will accept anything they send their way. The strong (and good) will survive....
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@shoot4food "pros are forced out of business because of the unfair competition by the moon lighters who work way below a fair and economically feasible market price."
I don't understand how this type of competition is unfair. It is economically feasible for the moon lighter who is doing it and there is nothing wrong with that. The professional photographer who invested $80,000 in equipment simply made a bad decision because the market is moving in another direction. High quality photographs have become much more affordable and accessible. Even though they may not be at the same level of quality. If people aren't willing to pay prices to support close to $100k in equipment then that's the way the cookie crumbles. There's nothing unfair about it.
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more.
This is like the horse cart manufacturers complaining that the new car companies are putting them out of business...
People simply didn't want horse carts anymore when they could buy cars.
In the same fashion, now that excellent photography equipment is cheaper and technology allows for it to be used more easily with less of a learning curve, people no longer want to pay joe pro a lot of money. It's the wya life works. Nothing unfair about it at all.
If anyone is at fault here, it's the pros who thought they could make a living off of something others consider fun and a hobby. If something is fun, then you don't have to pay people to do it, cause they want to do it anyway. When it is fun, it is no longer work.
There will still be areas for professional photography going forward, but they will be in areas that the hobbyists don't want to, or can't feasibly do. (either boring, or requires specialty knowledge, or really expensive equipment). As time goes on, and technology gets cheaper and easier to use, only the boring photo jobs will remain.
Again, nothing unfair about it at all. Calling it unfair, and railing about it is about as silly as the Luddites of the industrial revolution burning mechanized looms....
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I don't really see how its unfair either. free market is free market. what was (is?) unfair, perhaps, was the manufacturers charging so much for equipment. recouping cost of develpment can't possibly take 5 years, or the product wouldn't have been pursued. but anyway...
I enjoyed reading this thread, especialy the first several posts. I think we all also need to consider how many great artists have come and gone, lives spent in ghettos and trailer parks because they couldn't afford college or equipment. equipment prices prevented countless artists from ever getting a camera, guitar, canvas, etc. and now we are at a point where they are more able to blossom.
it's about time.
the haystack is bigger, but there are more needles to find if you look. I do not care if that devalues the few old needles that had the market cornered in the past. I don't care that it devalues the market itself because more people are happy now.
i'm getting married in 6 months and we've seen a ton of bad local "photographers" in our search for a wedding photog. we ended up with a pro photog who has 2 degrees (one in photojournalism, which is practically defunct industry, and one degree in journalism). we're paying around $1000, I think. I am very picky about aesthetics and vision and creativity, and avoiding all the traditional cliches (contrary to my photostream :) ), so it took a while to find a pro whose work impressed me. if i'd have found an "amateur" with the same style, i'd have gone with them but I didn't find one.
a lot of amateurs aren't studying art. they study just the manual and youtube vids on PS, but don't understand what being creative means or that having a personal style is more than a watermark.
being consistently creative and able to exact your inner vision with your medium...that is the artist. that is what I am interested in doing, and appreciating from others. if I can get good enough that people will pay me for that, then great. and I have no qualms in charging half.
:)
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This happened when cameras were first “boxed” and made “pocketable.” There was an explosion of photos and photographers back at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century when cameras where the next big thing. Don't get me wrong this is a cool thing - to stand on the Acropolis and see all of the digital cameras. But I can tell you from experience that folks ask me how I got such a cool photo when there was all the scaffolding all over the place.
I think the market place is changing for sure but there is lots of room for the pros. It's just like many things in today’s world the photographic market is fragmenting. The big thing with pros is they understand a good business plan and the amateurs don't.
If you are a solid wedding photographer there is a lot of pro work available and believe me when I say any amateur that shows up without enough experience they get cut off at the knees very rapidly.
There is plenty of commercial and product work available for the pro. Working with companies means you have to be very savvy and understand their mission and products.
Fashion photogs are another area that you better be good, understand your customer or go home.
Sports photogs are in demand. The only way in the door in the US is to know one so you can get credentials to get onto the field of play.
Take a look at the LightStalkers forum to see what PJs (photojournalists) are up to and you’ll see there are a lot of jobs for competent photogs. Just remember all bets are off when the shooting starts.
You can get $8-$10 per house working the real estate market. You can do the school photos through a jobber. Same is true for local youth sports venues. But these are crap jobs for amateurs.
A pro has education and practice on their side so they can make fast assessments - they know their gear, they know the conditions, and they know post-production. Sounds simple but there are many items in each of these three simple statements. And a pro can assess each quickly and accurately unlike an amateur who has to post to this list about what to do in a particular situation or with a particular piece of gear.
Originally posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
In the Viewfinder edited this topic 29 months ago.
|
|
|
Well said In The Veiwfinder. A pro just has to look for the "boring" stuff that no amateur is going after and he can make a good living still I am sure. However, if a pro believes that because he is a pro he is automatically going to take a better picture than a good amateur of that landscape over there, the world may really seem a bit "unfair" in short time. Experience counts, and a good pro will use it to survive and even thrive. The crap shooting pros will fall by the wayside thanks to the digital revolution.
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
in the end i think the picture says it all.
If amateurs really were in par with the pro's, you'd be seeing alot more amateur work in Nat Geo cover pages. But no, you dont, its still the veteran craftsmen who have their work in the most prestegious of places.
For example if Time magazine needed a picture of President Obama, i doubt an amateur could offer one as good as a pro could. The feel a pro has cant be bought, it only comes after time.
I think the main issue here is that some Pro's feel amateurs are "stealing" their business. Thats about it. I dont think you Pro's have anything to worry about. I dont see myself taking any good fashion pic's in anytime to come, or wildlife pics, or political or war. The point is, yes i could probably cover a wedding. But no i cant do anything further than that besides what i already am doing.
So stop fretting and try a different feild instead of wedding photography.
Posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
To preface, I am neither pro nor "amateur".
My cousin just got a Canon 50D, which is just under comparison to our camera. He still takes the same family shots where people's heads are small and dead center in the frame, with lots of dead space around the composition and the flattening on-camera flash. I can tell just by talking to him that he is clueless about f-stops, depth-of-field, continuous auto-focus, etc. He spent all that money and it doesn't really make his shots any better. At least he's not posing to be a pro.
Which is somewhat related to what "The_Funeral portrait" was just getting at. Seems to me, it's the clients who really care about images and their stories that are going to look for photographers who are dedicated, focused, with a good eye, and not their equipment. It's about process, story, and connection. It's not just about the product, but also how you produce it. A Professional approach to shooting and maybe not necessarily a ten-years-of-experience kind of pro.
So if there are amateurs who have this "pro-ethic" quality, then more power to them (I'm quasi-pro so I hope I fall into this category). If there are pros who don't (we know them when we see them, marketing strategies keep them afloat), then they should bow-out, or will get weeded out with time. So overall, I think this "shift" is encouraging us all to be on our toes.
Originally posted 29 months ago.
(permalink)
photos.juliechen edited this topic 29 months ago.
|
|
with the advances in technology, taking photographs is easy and fast.
the market will decide who can make a living from it, and who can't.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
thx for bumping this thread up - have missed it and the OP is very insightful.
Market is the problem not the solution: Gerad mentioned distintive style as a way to get by it, but this becomes a smaller and smaller market.
Look at advertising: With some notable exceptions all imagery there looks almost the same. Even for distinctive products like perfume: Could you swear that they are not using the same model all the time? The rest is photoshop. In broad consumer products it is even worse: There I see a tendency to imitate the P&S look to make it look familiar to potential customers and that is getting close to the meaningless snapshot photography they do at home. An extreme example I have seen lately was the campaign of a big supermarket chain: The ad was photoshopped from at least 4 photographs (poorly executed so that this was easily to see) - so why paying a photographer when you can buy some cheap stock images and one intern will photoshop it for the final imagery?
This disruptive imagery is a consequence from the democratization where history repeats itself. In the 19th century a larger class got interested in art - not really sophisticated art necessarily, but suddenly the market was big enough to host a lot of artist that satisfied the needs. Most of them are forgotten today, but it was the foundation for the better ones who advanced the arts to get a source of income - like most fine-art photographers do today advertising to subsidide their personal work.
The dangerous difference for photography as an art form: Few can paint but anybody can press a button.
As our viewing habits get streamlined by the ubiquitous presence of imagery I am very pessimistic whether distinctive style is really an option. The only examples (besides a handful of big names) of that I get to see are expositions of young photographers who try to get attention of a gallery. When they happen to get a second exposition (rarely) their style already went lost. Part of the problem might be the art business that is essentially: Build a name and sell a lot with it, repeat.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is such a fascinating debate...it is very refreshing to read genuine pro's comments written with dignity and insight, rather than take the route of being bitter at the obvious pressure on their profession.
I find it fascinating for two reasons.
1) Naively, I thought there was 'money' in photography for me; I had two DSLR's, the 'wrong' lenses and an evening class on photography photoshopping...what else would I possibly need??? lol Instead of giving me the enthusiasm and drive to pursue some money making, it just made me respect and appreciate what an immense subject photography really is. How the portrait pro's consistently produce the goods, how wedding pro's make the special day of people last forever and how local press pro cajole and work with the general public and clubs and societies to get the best shots. For me, it's not about the equipment; it's about, drive, passion, technical appreciation, skill, understanding, patience, investment and sometimes talent.
2) Art Photography is a subject that I don't think belongs in the same thread as Photography Pro's -v- amateurs. I know there are photographs that we like to look at, but terms like 'rock stars' and 'hero's' for photographers under appreciates 'real' pros.
Elton John is a 'RockStar', yet I find him boring, one dimensional and plain boring....yet my wife thinks he is god. My point is that a wedding pro, press pro, portrait pro etc... must deliver the goods everytime or the reputation fails, a 'rockstar artist' can do whatever they want and still not lose credibility in their circle.
So, I won't be 'going pro', nor will I turn up at local village fundays offering £10 snapshots because I have a DSLR, nor will I accept and offer do a mates wedding because he knows I did an evening class.
It is a profession, yes I can get fluky with the odd snap and I can love some amateurs really great work, but a pro for me can be defined clearly and I have a huge respect and admiration (envy too lol) for them.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Technological advances and price drops are more marketing and sales related than impacting on on a particular segment of any market. Sure, the DSLR market has revolutionized the access to and saturated the hobbyist markets with people possessing equipment capable of highly technical and artistic quality shots. Still the fundamentals are fundamentals.
Take music for example. The electric piano/organ for example has become low enough in cost to be added to every kids wish list, and many have been sold, however the professional musicians aren't being crowded out be slews of kids out of high school breaking into the music business, or computers for that matter making DJ being as simple as opening a program and loading 2 or more MP3 files into a program. Now that everyone has a computer, access to quality word processing and platforms for publishing and blogging the professional writing world isn't under siege (however the reporting world is but for different reasons - poor marketing and adapting to the medium).
What advances in DSLR photography has done is put high quality equipment into the reach of the average person. Most people will be happy to just take family pictures and preserve simple moments either in print, online to share with friends (for which 60% of the resolution is wasted), or to dull others with presentation style slide shows (remember the Kodak Carousel slide shows with actual slides?). Some adventurous few will take the next step up, creatively, and that is where the separation occurs.
Sure some people can stumble into a contest winning photo, but understanding what it is they did, why they did it, and ability to capture and correctly convey the message they wanted to is something entirely different. As this may sound more like art it applies to the professional photographer as well. Even the lowly school portrait photographers are able to, very quickly, set, instruct, and capture a persons portrait in just a few moments. Sure their lighting is already set up, as are their settings, focal length, etc. Its the ability to capture the kids that separates them from the amateurs.
How many threads have we seen with people pleading for assistance and guidance of wedding photography? There are reasons pros do that kind of work, they are prepared and experienced enough NOT to be intimidated by it. That is where the line between weekend warrior and professional is to me, the experience and confidence to take on a project and concentrate on the end result, not on the equipment. They know the settings, lighting, framing, and 'rules' by heart and work on the message.
While the market is becoming saturated with cheap studios and friends doing jobs for soon to be former friends it is just a market adjustment. While this time around it is more prolific and pronounced than in the days of film, the same dynamics apply, supply and demand. Those that offer the best results, consistently, for the lowest price and market their services aggressively will survive to the next day. Most hobbyists will lose the professional photographer bug at the first or second sight of real work or trouble, that is the nature of things. Those who stick with it will gain the knowledge and experience to truly graduate into the world of professional photography.
Sure some bright eyed artistic type can now get a camera, go out and take 10,000 shots of sunsets, select the best 50, print out 12,000 books and sell them on eBay, local stores, Craig's List, etc. but that does not make them professional despite making some money off the adventure. If they gained the experience to repeat with a different subject, and increased their sales each series than that is a different story, as they gained the knowledge and experience to concentrate on the vision and relaying the message via the format of the viewfinder to medium of their choice. Millions of people have cameras on their cell phones, professional can take great pictures using them, but I would venture to guess less than 1/10 of 1% would be able to turn that inspiration of capturing a good shot into something that would result in a lifestyle supporting profession. Or I could just be full of it, who knows. Its my opinion on the matter and something I feel we should all examine as to what it is we are doing and why in terms of photography.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Being a "Professional" is not just about the skill involved in capturing the image and the numerous other technical aspects of handling the cameras and choosing the right lens. Most experienced Amateurs are quite capable of this too and in truth there are some shockingly poor so called 'Pros' out there too.
Business experience, Communication, Personality, Professionalism (the way we come across to others), Marketing, Accounting, Invoicing, Sales, and Company Image are all just as important. It is considered by many Professionals that using the camera is almost secondary. You can be the best photographer in the world but if your commercial skills are lacking then you might as well stay in bed as these are prerequisites to being a true professional.
A majority of Professionals (excluding the exceptionally gifted few) need to realise that they are pretty average and get off their high horses. These must realise that experienced amateurs have as much right to pitch for work and compete as they do. I find those "Pros" that comlain are usually the one's most in fear of being exposed as AVERAGE...
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
Fac-Man edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
Jybravo i'm breath taken. well written.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Interesting and eternal discussions. Thanks Gerard for starting it and Joshua for bringing it back for the deep belly of the group.
A disclaimer: I don't shoot for food. I did for a period last century (literally) and I came back to photography - strictly for fun - only recently, so I consider myself a digital newbie.
I agree with many things Gerard said, but as usual - I grew up with Hegelian dialectic ;-) - I'll focus on what I don't agree.
you say "Purpose combined with talent creates Art, and creating Art is reserved – thank heavens – to those who purposely dedicate their lives to doing so." For sure this is one way to producing Art but, although probably the main one, it has not been the only one through which great works have been created - from visual art to literature counter examples abound.
More broadly, an artisan is not an artist. Some rough definitions. Artisan: a worker in a skilled trade. Artist: a person who practices any of the various creative arts (Wharol would probably add that being an artist is a way of living, but that's another story). When I was shooting for food, I never thought of myself as an artist, but only as an artisan. I was doing a skilled job, I had fun with it, and it paid part of my rent and studies. Like a good wood carver, I never thought of being a Michelangelo.
This distinction is important since the effect of the digital photo revolution for artists and artisans is very different.
For the artisans, yes the photo democratization of the digital era is giving them a hard time. Competition went dramatically up, and this will cause many to be pushed out of the "trade." It's a fact. But this should also cause a selection - the one that survive in the "trade" have to be good, or at least at a higher level than the kid with the D40. In a sense, alphabetization did the same in a even more dramatic fashion: being able to write used to give people a living by charging a small fee for writing any sort of letters (from formal ones to love ones). But none of these "writers" was really a Balzac, and modern schooling sent them out of market. But some of them in a sense survived in a more specialized and skilled trade - don't you pay your lawyer a hefty fee to write to your ex wife?
For the art, the story is quite different. As rock & roll first, and pop later, made anybody with a garage the potential next star, digital is making anybody with a camera the potential next Ernst Haas. In a sense, the pop-photography analogy is well fitting. If I came from Mars and happened to listen to MTV, I could easily think that there are very few musicians on earth since too many things sound so similar. In the same fashion, take a look at the Explore section of flickr - if you were not looking at the names of the authors you could easily think that all these pictures are actually taken by very few people since they all look very similar.
Is this bad? Honestly, I don't think so. Photo artisans will be kept to higher standard. And for the next photo artist, we will also be looking outside of academia. Indeed, the transition can be painful for some, but in the long run this is an overall improvement.
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
Chris JL edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
My 2 cents, I am one of these start up kids who needed a hobby and found solace in digital photography, for me its better than drowning it in gambling, booze or drugs, (although lenses and equipment are another matter) My intention is not to be the next Ansel Adams or David Burnett but I do appreciate their work and works of the other great artists in flickr.
I want to learn from them and you how to take photos properly and add my own imagination to it. I learned in this hobby, the best equipment does not guarantee the best results, so i approach it like golf invest in lessons not too much on equipment. instead i joined a photography club, pay for one on one tutoring, attend seminars and currently looking for an apprenticeship with a local pro just to get better at it.
And if I needed a good photographer for a wedding or an important occasion, I will hire one
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
T.J. Morales edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
The word 'Professional' is meaningless in photography as you don't need any recognized qualifications to get to the top.
Hence there is no such thing.
A 'Great' photographer yes.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Wow, look how this one came alive! And with such well thought out writing at that.
@JyBravo: inspired writing (even if you're not a lawyer / see ChrisJL's post) ;)
@ChrisJL: I thought I had already cleared that one up, but you cleared it up even clearer. Have to love Hegelian dialectic. ;)
@godofwar1975: looks to me like you've got "purpose"...
@cuckooclock: could'n disagree more. The "recognized qualifications" are your last job, your portfolio, and your clients' confidence that you will deliver; all things absent with ama's...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been more than eight months since I originally wrote this, so I'm going to take this slot to react to the insightful comments above.
However, most previous posters obviously spent at least some time pondering & writing, and I should do no less.
I'll be back...
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
The faster learning curve in regards to camera handling and post-production is another significant factor in the discussion of pro vs amateur.
One thing I've found on my photographic journey is that the benefit of digital isn't so much about the availability of high quality gear (composition notwithstanding, high quality gear can easily be used to make low quality images), it's about instant feedback that eliminates a lot of the time spent in the learning curve for film.
What is learned about aperture, shutter, ISO, metering, and white balance in a few hours with a digital took days to learn with film. Which also scales appropriately when considering the amount of time needed to master those skills. Plus all the accompanying development and print technique that was previously required to be considered a photographer is now irrelevant.
What still stands between the general public camera owner and anyone who can produce stunning images is that many people only take their learning so far. Some peoples' learning curve may end with turning the mode selector to the green one and leaving it there, while others may develop a thorough understanding of camera handling, composition, and post processing.
In any case, this skill and knowledge has no boundary of amateur vs pro. It's a matter of proficiency leading to a result, and who cares what the label is of the person who produced a stunning image?
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
shoot4food, what you're saying is very eloquent and make the case very well. That quote sums things up perfectly:
"Thus, the only way a professional can distinguish himself today, is not by “tradition” – which is a cliche followed by millions – but through “uniqueness” which is an art form dominated by a privileged few."
Go back 60 years, and many people had nice cameras but had problems even getting the exposure right. All the layers of auto everything that followed eventually allowed people to enter the photography process with fewer shots lost due to bad technique. By the early 1980s, many photographers were going bust, as there was a bad recession, and much more competition from amateurs.
Now we have a similar change in the market, where the ability of a professional to hire a 'spotter' in the film era has been replicated to everyone via the cloning tool.
However, at each stage where the professionals found it harder, the only thing that amateurs gained was easier technical quality. I don't think the creative skills of the best professionals has even been touched. Look back at shots by people like Irving Penn or Diane Arbus - do many amateurs reach this level?
You're right - photography has become more raw and focused on the creative edge.
Just one thing, and sorry to be a pedant here - we're actually just talking about technical progress changing the market. Paradigm shift is my most hated buzzword at the moment - here's what it actually means....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@shootforfood
If it makes you feel more important to be called a 'professional' so be it.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It takes a lot more to get quality images than a good digital camera. You need the best lenses for perfect sharpness. You need professional quality lighting and the knowhow to use it. Popup flash doesn't cut it. Skimping on a tripod will bring you fuzzy photos. These are things you can't fix with a clone tool or a handy filter in photoshop.
There's still a world of difference between professional and amateur. A professional has the equipment, experience and technical expertise to get sharply focused and evenly exposed images with every shutter click. Amateurs like me have a much lower batting average.
I don't think the "wrong way" has gotten popular. Images still have to be sharp, well exposed and have no noise. That won't change, and it's something amateurs have a tough time doing no matter how many auto modes are available.
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
robalh edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
Your only as pro as the the last shot you took.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Professional as in "professionally executed" or professional as in " makes his living with it"? - big difference.
Why has a good photo to be sharp? One of my favorite photographers, Philippe Pache, rarely has anything sharp in his personal work.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you become a famous artist or something, you can get away with more creative, out-of-focus stuff. But in general, if you shoot for advertising, stock, journalism, sports, weddings, child photography, whatever, and most portrait stuff, your clients will want things to be in focus. That's where cheaper consumer lenses, like kit lenses, fall short.
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
robalh edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
Before anything: I am a PRO Advertising Art Director, NOT a pro photog, I am NOT whining over losing work/money, and YES: life’s unfair!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is funny how this thread keeps floating back to what (or who) is a pro.
It surely did not start out that way.
I definitely did not claim that the pros are “dead” – even though some may have gone out of business, because of their inability to adapt.
Quite the contrary, and I quote myself:
“Thus, the only way a professional can distinguish himself today, is not by “tradition” – which is a cliché followed by millions – but through “uniqueness” which is an art form dominated by a privileged few”.
What and who we are is very much a matter of self-image. A person who is confident that he or she can professionally handle any situation that comes his way, is a “Professional” in the true sense of the word.
A professional fireman, physician, builder, lawyer, photographer, hit-man...
Being a professional is – therefore – a state of mind, not a status.
If you wake up in the morning asking yourself if you are, you are not.
Curiously, ama photogs like to believe they can “do” professional as a side job (ditto Levi: "[they] look at the discipline as an easy gig, it's just pushing buttons, right?").
Would you want a fireman or – worse – your doctor waking up one morning asking themselves "the" question? Hell, no!
It is no coincidence that the being a pro, “going pro” topic is recurrent at top-end ama camera forums like this one. It would never feature in – say – the D40 forum…
For some strange reason, people aspire to be bread photographers.
Of course, if they were aware of the daily grind and nitty-gritty involved – client handling, for one – they would probably not be that eager.
Just one example:
I got a call a few months ago, asking to do 1.500 free-standing product shots for the local equivalent of less than $ 3.000. Deadline: 10 days.
The low down on this job is shooting 150 large, medium and small electronics products per day, 24/7 for less than $ 2 each.
The client had gotten used to people who would do a couple of those at $ 10 each, so he thought he could “force” the market.
Of course, the moonlighters wouldn’t touch it, because it sounded complicated.
They were right, this is what’s involved: (all money up-front; the client pays in 60 days - if you're lucky)
1 – hiring a large studio
2 – building at least 3 sets, including a large seemless.
3 – bringing in or hiring artificial lighting (strobe, continuous) for three sets. Small and medium sets 2 lights, large set 3 or 4 lights. Total: 8 lights plus back-up.
4 – hiring a stylist, a second photog and one or two assistants
5 – re-shooting at least 10% because the art director – who does not send a mock-up and does not show up on the set – will not like some of the shots, while the client rejects a few more for good measure and unknown reasons.
I was busy at the time, but even if I had not been, I would not have touched it even with a pole. Not with that deadline and for peanuts...
The guy who finally ended up doing it, negotiated twice the budget, ran into overtime, missed the deadline and afterward fessed up he’d lost money on it. Right: this was a $ 15.000 job which he decided to do for 6.
Mind you, I consider him a “pro”.
This discussion started out as a follow-up on a discussion on the “the right gear”, and the paradigm shift I was talking about is how our perception of beauty and what is “technically right” has been changing.
I also said I thought it was good the cream of the amateurs were putting pressure on the pro community, because it forces everybody to try harder.
It was definitely not a rant about the unfairness of live. Life IS unfair and – as many of you have stated – talented full-time photographers (for not using the P word) will adapt and survive.
Point in fact is that, since I originally wrote this, I have seen most of the amas who were “doing” social events disappear into oblivion, while the same old, same old bread photogs reappeared in force.
Paradigm shift or no Paradigm shift?
-- Paradigm shift is my most hated buzzword at the moment - here's what it actually means....--
The paradigm shift I was originally talking about is not ama vs. pro, but rather how the massification of the image is shifting our perception of what is technically “right” and “wrong” and how - on the whole - this new creative edge is changing the perception of photography in general and beauty in particular.
Quotes & comments
-- an amateur practices until he gets it right while a professional practices until it never goes wrong --
Could not agree more
-- We never have to hire a photographer again because we have talented hobbyists that can do almost as good a job for free --
Funny thing is that – at least here – people have gotten just one too many f--- ups (seen two in my close circle in less than 6 months), and word is out.
Of course, if it is your own wedding shoot that turns a train wreck that's doubly sad: no decent pictures of a "once in a life time event" and your first shouting contest with your newlywed wife.
After all, you should have known better...
ALMOST is the operating word here; flash photography is one of the most complicated aspects of the trade and "almost good enough" will definitely not be good enough for your wife-to-be.
I decided to double on a so-called pro at a friend's (daylight, outdoor) wedding when I realized he had not brought a flash. Good thing I did...
-- unfair competition by the moon lighters who work way below a fair and economically feasible market price -- -- I don't understand how this type of competition is unfair --
Even if this is off-topic, I'm at loss how some of you feel the concept of “unfair competition” does not apply here.
With most members living either in the US or Europe, surely you are familiar with anti-trust law and other ways countries pretend to protect their industries against predatory business practices.
If you or one of your family members lost their job at a GM plant or any other industry because of low-wage-country competition, I bet you felt that was unfair…
-- any amateur that shows up without enough experience they get cut off at the knees very rapidly --
But not before leaving a FU or two, which is particularly sad in the case of weddings...
-- distintive (sic) style as a way to get by it, but this becomes a smaller and smaller market --
I think not. Apart of the "complicated" and “boring” stuff, there are still plenty of challenging creative “personality” shoots to be done.
General advertising may seem uniform, beauty in particular, while supermarkets or department stores are hardly known for presenting creative challenges, or spend any money on photography, for that matter.
However, if you take a look at D&AD or top British advertising in general, you may realize that creative photography is still very much in demand and – thus – rewarded.
-- it's about, drive, passion, technical appreciation, skill, understanding, patience, investment and sometimes talent --
All true, plus talent: ALWAYS
-- stumble into a contest winning photo, but [without] understanding what it is they did, why they did it --
Purpose plus understanding and domination of the tools makes for total domination of the medium, which is the sign of a pro
-- Is this bad? Honestly, I don't think so. Photo artisans will be kept to higher standard --
* Let's all thank digital for largely eliminating the technical barriers that once separated amateur from pro, allowing amateurs to raise the bar a notch or two and forcing all of us – once again – to concentrate on photography, rather than pixel peeping *
Apart of expressing my opinion, I'm also shamelessly plugging my blog ;) ;) ;)
blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
@Gerard: indeed in a later post you had clarified that by "pro" (and art work) you meant only artisan (and its work), and not artist. I had noticed that - I'm not that senile yet :-)
But I wanted to stress it since in most of the posts the two figures are very blurred, while I think these are - the art and the artisanry - two very distant worlds. Yes, an artist needs to be a craftsman first (well, with a few notable exceptions...), but from mastery of the craft to art there is still a very long way to go.
Btw, about the example you mentioned: that would be a 25k+ job in London. But at the end of the day, everything is worth what the buyer would pay for it ;-)
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
Chris JL edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
@ChrisJL
1 - I think it was good you cleared that up!
2 - That would be a 25 k job in Amsterdam too, but Santiago de Chile is not London or Adam and here I could do the job comfortably for 15.
I would probably even get one less assistant and a third photog to not miss the deadline (which is the real killer on that particular one).
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
shoot4food edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
Being a photographer and being self employed are two separate skills. Some time ago a friend of mine turned over £40k in his first year but went bust in his seond year as the bank pulled his loans. He could take professional quality photos but didn't do business well.
I think it's very difficult to be a full time pro these days because DSLR's have de mystified photography and made it safe and quick people are reluctant to pay as much as before. I can remember dropping wedding films off at the lab and hoping everthing was going to turn out as it looked through the view finder. Most people wouldn't take the risk so employed people like me because I got the shots consistantly. There's a lot to be said for consistancy :-)
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Nikon D90 /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon D90 discussion threads
