| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. photograpy as profession
Asked by stefan streefkerk
(K=113) on 3/22/2006
|
What worries me a bit about those cheap digital camera's is that anyone these days can make a great photo without even having the knowledge or skills to know how to do it. They might not even be interested in this craft as long as they can make a nice pic. It seems photography is more of a hobby then a profession these days. Photography might be the only craft/job where a certificate or diploma isn't required to do it. And when looking at images it's sometimes hard to tell wich of the work is made by the amateur and wich is from the professional. So they might be considered to be on the same level or the professional might be even regarded less creative based on these images. Do u think photography needs to be more clearer/strict about wich photographer is educated and wich not? And does everyone that considers to work as one need a certificate? Or can anyone try it without one? Does photography needs to return to the old days and become a real profession for those ambitious die hard fanatics only?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 3/23/2006
|
"What worries me a bit about those cheap digital camera's is that anyone these days can make a great photo without even having the knowledge or skills to know how to do it."
Yes, it's true that todays digicams are much easier to get great results with w/o a wealth of photographic knowledge, as they perform most of the calculations that previously had to be performed by the photographer themself. However, there is still a clear line in my eyes between those who are able to frame up a nice picture, but have no deeper understanding into photography... and those who create breathtaking images with a clear technical understanding of the equipment & techniques they're using.
Have a look at the attachemnt. I randomly found a landscape image on the internet, and beside it is one of my images. You can clearly tell the differences... I waited and setup for approx. 1-2 hours for just the right light, created bracketed images, metered from the sky and foreground, used proper DOF, used a tripod, leveled the horizon, etc. etc. And while the other photo has accurate colors, and is sharp - you can always tell the people who are photographers and go above and beyond to create images that standout - vs. the snap shooter who will now be able to have more accurate color and prob. sharpness w/ digicams, but don't have that extra spark to their photos.
The whole "Amatuer/Pro" debate is a little less clear. As far as photographic knowledge, and experience, whether you're a "pro" or an "amateur" makes little difference. You can be a "pro" (meaning you are employed and your primary source of income is photography) and not be very good, and you can be an "amateur/hobbyist" (simply meaning you don't make any income from photography) and be incredibly talented & knowledable w/ a full range of camera systems and the ability to expertly use them.
|
|
Comparsion
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/23/2006
|
Call me a die hard-but I have 34 years as a pro photographer.
It is rough for economics -people do not want to pay up.
I can tell you now that 32 years of Pro "work" is very hard
Best wishes. I am glad that I ma retired as a pro.
|
|
|
|
Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 3/23/2006
|
Hi CHuck - I am on the exact opposite end of the spectrum. I'm 25 and just starting out to do professional paid work on a regular basis. Hopefully 32 years from now I'll be saying the same thing you are...(meaning I'll have had the fortitude to stick it out for that long!)
Chris
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 3/24/2006
|
Thank you both for your reactions. Yes Chris you're absolutely right. Pro's might stand-out when they 'go above and beyond' to add that extra element to a pic, like u said. But I was more talking about single images because in a long range of work you will be able to see more clearer who is the amateur and who is the pro. You're also right about the small difference between an amateur and a pro. Maybe u can say it's more of a wish for me to teach those 'snap shooters' more about the basics of photography. Maybe I should become a teacher after all.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/24/2006
|
Stefan, a digicam doesn't guarantee quality images.
Neither does a camera of a certain pricerange.
The skill of the operator are FAR more important.
And remember that a digital camera still costs roughly 2-3 times as much as a real camera with the same performance and features, so they're not cheap at all.
Digital cameras may have caused more people to enter the marketplace, but they're mostly people with a massive lack of skills producing very poor quality work.
These people are of course degrading the image potential customers have of photographers as a class, which might mean it's harder to convinve those potential customers that your services are good enough to warrant the price you're charging.
But if you have a decent portfolio of samples you should still be able to convince the serious customers (and the cheapskates are unlikely to be return customers and might well be difficult to get them to pay as well).
So the bar has been set higher, but it's mainly the marketing effort that's increasing.
The average quality of your competitors' work is actually going down which should give opportunities to people who do have the skills to produce quality to really set them apart from the crowd.
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 3/24/2006
|
Jeroen, I agree with you totally. I think as long as photographers keep producing high quality images the marketplace will be alright.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9845) - Comment Date 3/25/2006
|
I believe what counts is one's vision. Equipment is not everything. Cartier-Bresson used his Leica rangefinder and a single lens for almost his entire career.
What digital cameras are doing, in my opinion, is the banalization of photography. Everyone thinks they can take a photo with them, so some companies hire people who know how to operate DSLRs and have they do pictures once done by a real professional photographer. of course, images are not up to the same level, but the subject is photographed and that's what counts for many.
Concerning diplomas or else, since photography is very relate to artistic expression, I think it's more ont the individual than on what somebody teaches him. If it's required, this will create a generation of highly knowledged technical photographers, because it's easier to learn technical data than to develop one's vision, educate the eye. Take a look at today's photo magazines and weight the volume dedicated to technique and inspiration. The best photo magazine I've read was Camera And Darkroom, which doesn't exist more for a long time. It didn't had many images and LOTS of text on the inspirational side of photography.
You're young still, go for what you want and discover how to make a difference from the others. Today, everything is very the same. Everybody (pros) uses the same equipment, does the same images, you can't tell anymore by the pictures if you're reading Vogue or Bazaar, Road & Track or Car and Driver. Or who's paying for the advertising - Ford or GM, McDonalds or Burger King.
Study the others' work, develop your vision, learn the technique. Do your homework and, if you don't forget to HAVE FUN, you'll get there.
Best regards and the best of luck,
José Azevedo
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 3/25/2006
|
I think there will always be room for good professional photographers. If a company is real they are not going to trust one of their friends or employees to take pictures of their products, they may try it once but experience has shown that they will go back to hiring a pro. When you take commercial photos there is a lot of other expenses besides the photographer, you have studio rental, equipment costs, a stylist, makeup, hair, art directors etc... On those kind of shoots it is foolish not to use a professional that can get the shot. The same goes for high quality portraits or events.
What digital allows people to do is click away at no expense until they luck out and get a keeper. In commercial, or pro portrait work you cannot do that, you have to be sure that you have the shot so you can move on to the next one. You cannot spend all day playing with one shot in hopes you get it right and not be sure, you have a schedule and a shot list that you have to live with and produce.
I kind of relate this to the web design business, do you hire the 14 year old zit faced kid down the street to do your corporate web page or do you hire a real designer. I have been fighting that one for years. The serious people that have a budget will go with the pro, those that are not serious will go with the kid, same with photography I think. Do you really want the ones that do not see the value in what you do?
I was recently hired by a company to teach their artist how to shoot their products for their catalog. They purchased some big bucks hung out light chamber, must have cost thosands, bought a little digital camera that was adjustable and they hoped to come up with images that would compare with what they had from their pro photographer. I spent the day there at my normal day rate, went through the operation and theory and ways to light things, so now they pay an employee to do it, which takes away from his normal work and the pictures are not as good. A total false economy if you ask me. I suspect they will go back to hiring out their photography once again real soon once they realize this.
This whole thing is part of the shakeout process I think. Companies and families will want what only a pro can give them and a quality that they can count on when they need it, not the lucky shot out of 500 bad ones.
In the mean time just make sure that your portfolio is top rate, leave out the marginal images, sell yourself and capabilities and you should have no problem competing with the brother-in-law with the new D200.
Phil
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 3/25/2006
|
Thank you José & Phil! You two gave me some new stuff to think about.
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 5/12/2006
|
I totally agree with you.
Unfortunately we live in a fast track society that cheap digital technology managed to throw out the real art of photography.
I know lots of people who do NOT know nothing about the basic stuff about photography, but some how they bought expensive cameras and with the help of their friends took the place of pro people!!
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 5/22/2006
|
Thank you for your comment Kambiz. I guess there's positive and negative sides to this digital age. In one way I'm happy that more people enjoy photographing now so much. On the other hand much more photographic material causes some kind of erosion and it's become harder to select a certain photographer or picture because basically anybody can make a nice shot or even make a career out of it. Therefore photography loses some of it's uniqueness. Anyway let's keep on enjoying this great art form.
|
|
|
|
George Tam
(K=416) - Comment Date 5/22/2006
|
Stefan, I couldn't disagree with you more about your statment that digital cameras have allowed anyone without photographic skills to produce great pictures. I argue that digital cameras have not made anyone any better or worse than before. A camera is just a tool. It is the photographer himself or herself, through practice and education, who can make improvments possible.
Certainly there are amateurs who can shoot at professional level but for one reason or another have chosen not to go into the field. In any profession, there are going to be some who are exceptionally talented and take their work seriously and there are others who are less talented and produce substandard quality of work. It doesn't really matter in the end, because the the great ones always stand out from the crowd.
How I distinguish whether someone is lucky, good, or great is the consistent, high quality, work one produces over time. Almost all of us can claim one or two great shots in our portfolio, but to be able to do that day in and day out is truly exceptional.
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 5/23/2006
|
Thanks for your comment George. Ofcourse I think someone's creativity doesn't depend on a camera. I only think digital camera's have made it easier to create that 'lucky shot'. Because more people use digital cameras and internet u will get more material and oppurtunity to create nice images faster.
|
|
|
|
Melanie Reynolds
(K=9096) - Comment Date 6/9/2006
|
I guess it really comes down to the person.
I only recently got into photography and have never used anything but a digital camera. While I have learned A LOT, especially from the website, I realize that there is a lot of the more techinical aspects I need to learn.
I would love to do photography as a profession, but I realize I do not only lack the equipment, but I also lack some of the neccessary skills! I have people asking me ALL THE TIME to do photos for them and I just can't bring myself to do it! It just doesn't seem right. I can't charge someone money for something that I know I am not fully qualified to do.
Granted, I could come in, do a half-assed job then spend hours upon hours digitally editing the photos, but I don't want to do that. I'm the type of person that if I'm going to do something, I'm going to do it right.
Not everyone is like that, though and will do half-assed work just for a quick buck without taking any pride in it what-so-ever!
At the same time, I don't think it's neccessary to have a diploma or certificate in order to do this as a profession. Some of the best talent is raw and natural. If you tap into that and have the desire to grow and improve, you will have no choice but to learn the fundamentals. I agree with Chris and believe that when you have a true passion it will shine through in your photographs. You can't fake it.
|
|
|
|
Melanie Reynolds
(K=9096) - Comment Date 6/9/2006
|
Wow, that first paragraph is hardly even read-able! LOL Sorry folks, I'm a little tired today.
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 6/10/2006
|
Thanks Melanie. I can see you're really into photography and I hope there's someone to help you develop your technical skills more.
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 6/10/2006
|
Interesting to see this same type of discusssion here.
What makes one a professional vs an amateur?
My response was to state that many pro's are so virtue, they seek payment for their services. An Amateur implies lack of knowledge or ability which is unfortune as I have seen many of the latter with greater skill & better techniques, than many of the pros.
In that digital like film camera's with automated modes produce better photographs (technically) but even the best require time to learn to use these auto-features. My favorite wwas a Minolta 9000 which I shot normally in manual mode when it was stolen I acquired the use of a N8008 but when I bought the N90s body as a replacement, it was because of the rear curtain function of the N90s. I am having to relearn its automated features as they are different from the Minolta & the N8008 body didn't have them.
|
|
|
|
Joseph Ramos
(K=24) - Comment Date 6/20/2006
|
It is easier for an amature to take a reasonable photo with todays technology, but there is that bit of difference that experience produces which cannot be programmed into a cameras computer.
I've been shooting professionally for 18 years, people mostly, and I've learned a thing or two of how to elicit the expressions I need, to set the situation so I meet the clients wishes, and most importantly, I've learned how to trust my self. Most amatures will blunder into things hoping for a few good pics and are sometimes presented with a lucky accident of a great shot.
We all were amatures at one point, but today the difference seems to be that the availability of technology is inticing even more new photographers into the market, amature or pro, a beginner is a beginner.
What we need to keep in mind is our craft. There will always be new compitition, the cool new photographer on the block, whatever, remember to pay attention to your work, continue refining your skills and techniques because ultimately you need to have satisfied clients in order to continue. Fads fade, be the one your clients can count on for consistent work and innovation, use the fads where you can to stay in the stream, but be consistent.
Joseph
|
|
|
|
Chad Parish
(K=6440) - Comment Date 8/26/2006
|
I dont think the issue is so much with people who just bought their digicams from Walmart as is the newcomer who has more technilogical savvy then pure behind the lens knowledge. These days a person who understands all the ins and outs of photo editing software like Photoshop has the ability to create images that given an old Canon AE1 they could never reproduce. Conversely, some of the more traditional film photographers who have years of shooting experience are now having to learn a whole new side of the biz. My old photo instructor back when I lived in Tokyo informed me he was taking a course in digital editing and felt like a beginner again despite that he is a brilliant photographer from the old school and has many years of working in the professional world under his belt. He was feeling the pinch of competing against younger kids with less camera knowledge who could simply out edit his own more traditional darkroom work. We see it here on UF quite often, a increasing reliance of our photo editing software as opposed to working with what we actually caught in the raw (I am as guilty as anyone). Yet there is a silver lining to this trend, if it is simply the next evolution of professional photography then the very technology making life more difficult for more traditional photographers also helps to keep out the non-technical masses with their digicams from Walmart.
|
|
|
|
Simon Meeds
(K=182) - Comment Date 9/7/2006
|
"The average quality of your competitors' work is actually going down which should give opportunities to people who do have the skills to produce quality to really set them apart from the crowd."
An anecdote will suggest this may not always be the case...
I used to know a professional photographer who had a "High Street" studio with a shop front. His passion was industrial photography, but studio photographs of people and their pets paid the bills.
One day a woman walked into the studio and asked to have some photos taken. My friend took the photos. Having processed them he found one was grossly out of focus, but he decided to show it to the customer anyway along with the better ones. She chose the out-of-focus one.
My friend, always with a wry sense of humour, placed a copy of the said awful photograph in his shop window. From then on everyone who came into the shop asked to have their photo taken just like the one in the window! Eventually, feeling a little guilty I think, he removed the photo from the window.
Customers may "know best", but they don't always know what is "the best" (or the worst) when they see it. Thw quoted statement makes the incorrect assumption that the customer will always buy the best product.
|
|
|
|
Gerhard Hoogterp
(K=4863) - Comment Date 9/8/2006
|
That goes to show that "best" is a rather subjective idea which is open for a lot of discussion. See also the discussion about the BIP award in some other forum.
Different people look for different qualities in a photo. Maybe she liked the fact that her wrinkles didn't show due to unsharpness.. Maybe she thought it was artistic and done on purpose.. It would have been interesting to find out why she took that specific picture. Now it's just a fun story..
|
|
|
|
Simon Meeds
(K=182) - Comment Date 9/8/2006
|
Gerhard,
Thank you for your comment. You are correct in part in your comment, however, I believe the story still makes my point. Had the customer been knowledgeable about photography she would have known the difference between an out-of-focus image and a soft image (which is an in-focus image with diffusion). If my friend had valued his integrity more than his income (who can blame him for not doing?) he might have explained to her the shortcomings of the image, but he might have lost her as a customer.
My point is that the customer will not always value photographic expertise over the final effect - I don't blame them for that, but that favoured final effect may be to us, who claim to know about image making, may be banal or even objectionable. A straight, "chocolate box" image will often gain more fans (outside of the photographic circle) than a well crafted, moody shot of the same subject. Even if this is not the case, showing either of the images independently to a non-photographer will produce an equally positive reaction.
Therefore, a "snapshooter" with a quality, easily controlled, camera may, in certain circumstances, have as much or more success finding an audience than a photographic "expert" with whatever equipment he has available to him.
I wish it were not the case, but it is. The answer is that if we wish to be professional (I wouldn't say I'm there yet), we have to target an audience, and if that's a mass audience we may have to lower our own standards a little, not in terms of quality, but in terms of aesthetics.
|
|
|
|
Titia Geertman
(K=5582) - Comment Date 9/16/2006
|
I've seen many pro's make lousy and dull to look at photos and many amateurs make wonderful, expressive photos. And you're suggesting that only the pro should be qualified to earn money, just because he/she knows how the shutterspeed etc. works? I'd rather have an amateur with an eye for composition, but no knowlegde of technology take my pic than a pro who knows everything about technology, but not a thing about how to make an interesting photo.
As for the example above, I must honestly say that I find the sunset far more interesting to look at than the blue river on the side.
It doesn't interest me at all how a photo is made as long as the end result tickles the eye and warms the heart.
Digital or analog, it's not the camera that makes the photo, it's the one who's looking through the viewer and he/she may be skilled technically up to his/her ears, if that person hasn't got 'the eye', the result will be not worth looking at twice.
Well, that's my opinion.
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 9/23/2006
|
Thank you all for making this such an interesting discussion. I do agree with you Titia. It doesn't really matter if a beautiful shot is made by an amateur or pro. I was only surprised of the fact that art/photography is the only profession you can practice without really having attended an art-school or having a diploma. And I don't agree that you really can see the difference between an amateur and a pro nowadays. There a lots of amateurs that continously make beautiful shots just like pros. I just think that pro's should get a chance first it's only fair. I also support creativity above technology but also professionalism over amateurism.
But the lines between these have become more blurred nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Chad Parish
(K=6440) - Comment Date 9/24/2006
|
Stefan, when you refer to professionals and amateurs are you distinguishing between those who get paid for their work versus those who do not? There are many amateurs by that literal distinction whose work easily rivals those of professional photographers. Or are you instead meaning profesional as someone who can take beautiful pictures in a consistant fashion as opposed to someone who gets the occasional nice image?
In the first case I would disagree, Bobby Jones was an amateur golfer for the most of his career but he was in no way inferior to any of his professional peers (he was better actually). This is the same in photography, it is the end product and ability not the act of taking in money that marks a good photographer.
In the second case I would agree.
|
|
|
|
Vincent K. Tylor
(K=7863) - Comment Date 10/15/2006
|
" I'd rather have an amateur with an eye for composition, but no knowlegde of technology take my pic than a pro who knows everything about technology, but not a thing about how to make an interesting photo."
Respectfully speaking Titia, any professional that knew nothing about composition or how to take a photo, would not be a professional very long. And yes the higher-end cameras, lenses, filters etc. do make a difference. Perhaps not so much here, as a 72 DPI J-peg, but for larger print/publication purposes, believe me it often does make a huge difference. Each lens I use cost me $1500.00. My scanner alone is a $47,000. Camera $2000.00. Lets have photographer "A" take a nice landscape with his nice $600.00 digital camera, with no polarizer, no tripod, no stopping down, just basically some snapshot if you will, and then compare that image as a 9x12 300 DPI calendar with the very same location by photographer "B", shot with professional equipment, tripod, f/8, quality polarizer, bracketed etc etc and see who produces the superior imagesfor that calendar company.
Yes some amateurs do have a more natural eye for composition than established pros, but that alone does not cut it in the professional world. It's a package deal here. You must have the complete package of a good eye, solid high-quality equipment, a willingness to go the extra mile by using that tripod when possible, bracketing, different shutter speeds, properly using ND grads, polarizers to balance a scene and many other important factors here.
Furthermore, the efforts needed to "get the shot" are usually quite a bit different between the snapshooting amateur verses the professional. Sure, the snapshooter CAN and at times will get the better, more colorful image. But in the long run, we all know the guy that gets up earlier and stays out later, that also shoots the same scene in a variety of ways is the one that will capture the greater number of winning images in the long run. And by using the higher-end equipment he will also have the quality images when blown up and examined by these often very particular end-using publishing companies.
They photographers that do have all of the technical skills along with quality equipment along with that natural eye as well as a willingness to work tirelessly in the field, editing room, lightbox etc. are basically the Michael Jordans in the photo-world. Galen Rowell's, Ansel Adams and many others. We know who they are. And none of them got where they did by taking shortcuts or compromising quality along the way. Nice and interesting discussion by the way.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 10/15/2006
|
" any professional that knew nothing about composition or how to take a photo, would not be a professional very long. "
Wrong. Different markets ask for different skills. Many PJs for example don't need technical skills, they just need to have a nose for being at the right place at the right time.
If they can get first to the scene of a major car crash they are the ones who sell the pictures of victims being pulled out of burning wrecks to the papers. Those publishers couldn't care less if those pictures are a bit overexposed or poorly composed, as long as there's enough blood and gore it sells copies at the newsstand.
Same with many other photographers. A portrait photographer with decent marketing skills can sell himself well to schools to produce photos of the kids for the school yearbook for example. A few such contracts more than make up for a lack of skill which causes him to loose business from state portraits made in studio.
The photographer producing pictures for the marketing brochure can get away with a lot of flaws as well. Just bracket heavily, shoot a thousand frames all a little bit different, and let the customer select the ones they want.
The customer doesn't want him to create a single masterpiece and present that as their only option, they WANT those thousand images to choose from and as long as they're all in focus (which any decent camera should be able to do) they're happy and let the DTP guys fix things like lighting and exposure to match the rest of the brochure.
Yes, a pro in general needs a basic set of skills. But marketing and opportunity are for many of them far more important than being more than average photographers.
The landscape photographer has a harder time (especially if he doesn't know composure and natural light/timing), but even there the customer will often want to do things to the image (like overlay photoshop filters to change colour ballance and things) that mask certain imperfections.
I'm not saying there are no pros who are exceptionally skilled, of course there are.
But it doesn't require exceptional skills to become a pro or even to survive and thrive in the market as long as you pick your market segment in a way that allows you to get away with those deficiencies.
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 10/15/2006
|
"Many PJs for example don't need technical skills, they just need to have a nose for being at the right place at the right time."
I agree with you Jeroen. I don't think any graphic designer asks 'Is this photograph made by an pro or amateur?' before they buy the image. There's no real difference between the work of an amateur or pro anymore. Lots of the great photographers are self-taught. And there are some newer (commercial) amateur photographers like Abdul Kadir Audah whos work doesn't differ from the pro's. All u need is an creative eye and a good camera/tripod to do the job. So I'm still not sure what it is that separates the pro from the amateur.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 10/15/2006
|
to me the only thing that technically separates them is that the pro derives the majority of his income from his photography (rather than people like me who do it as a hobby and once in a while might sell something to cover part of the cost).
A professional thus will run his photography as a business, including marketing and shooting on assignment rather than shooting for the fun of it and being pleasantly surprised if someone likes an image enough to actually want to pay to see it.
So with 1 (on average) image sold for a case of beer a year and no marketing effort I'm definitely an amateur. Steve Kaufmann who sells most of his work to people like National Geographic, and uses parts to illustrate his books is a fine example of a pro (and an excellent photographer to boot).
To me skill level or equipment therefore plays hardly any role in deciding whether to brand someone a professional or not (though a professional will be more likely to have highend equipment as it makes him more versatile, and being a business expense he is more likely to be able to afford it).
|
|
|
|
Vincent K. Tylor
(K=7863) - Comment Date 10/15/2006
|
Jeroen, you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
You start off by quoting me saying this:...
"any professional that knew nothing about composition or how to take a photo, would not be a professional very long."
Jeroen then replies to my quote by saying:..."Wrong. Different markets ask for different skills. Many PJs for example don't need technical skills, they just need to have a nose for being at the right place at the right time. If they can get first to the scene of a major car crash they are the ones who sell the pictures of victims being pulled out of burning wrecks to the papers. Those publishers couldn't care less if those pictures are a bit overexposed or poorly composed, as long as there's enough blood and gore it sells copies at the newsstand."
*** First of all Jeroen, you contradict yourself with this statement. Photo journalist (PJ's as you refer to them) ARE professional photographers. Helloooo out there Jeroen! Having the "nose for being at the right place" as you say, IS part of what it takes to make it professionally. Like I stated above, it is a package deal here. For you to actually say, "Those publishers couldn't care less if those pictures are a bit overexposed or poorly composed, as long as there's enough blood and gore it sells copies at the newsstand." is outright embarrassing Jeroen. You really do not have a clue do you? You better believe they do care. Oftentimes more than one photographer will get to those types of locations at the same time. When they do, which images do you suppose the publishers will purchase and use? Yep, the ones taken correctly and with the better equipment. Plain and simple. Additionally, please show me ANY legitimate newspaper, tabloid, magazine or anything else that regularly publishes poorly photographed images. Go ahead, lets see what you can find.
Additionally Jeroen, have you ever taken notice of just what kind of equipment these professional photo journalists and paparazzi's use? I can tell you this, it sure aint your mommy's snapshot camera. These 500mm quality lenses alone weight almost 10 lbs and cost over $6,000. That's just one lens. And why do you suppose they use such big, bulky and expensive lenses for shooting celebrities, professional sports and other real world catastrophes? The answer is simple; it's because it allows these ones to get closer to the subject than what a non-professional, average-Joe snapshooter could do. Same with being out there more often, as well as knowing where to go. This IS professional photography too. Sorry if this is a revelation to you. That's strike one for ya.
You then continue with your silly ramble Jeroen by saying:..."Same with many other photographers. A portrait photographer with decent marketing skills can sell himself well to schools to produce photos of the kids for the school yearbook for example. A few such contracts more than make up for a lack of skill which causes him to loose business from state portraits made in studio."
***Are you really serious here?? Do you really believe that some guy off the street with no experience could just waltz in and land the big school job? Of course not. But then, notice again how you contradict yourself, since you said a "portrait photographer" could do the yearbook for example. Well that would mean he has experience with portraits, not just some dude off the street, Jeroen. The fact is a professional portrait photographer would not remain one very long if he did not know what he was doing. If he blew school portrait assignments, weddings and other kinds of job opportunities he'd be looking for another line of work soon enough. Sure, he could get the shots for aunty Mary's kids or even his own family. Occasionally he could also take a nice image here and there for somebody else too. But true professional portrait photographers would have the entire package deal with better cameras, lenses, lighting and knowledge of how to put all those things together. And this is exactly what they do! Sorry Jeroen, strike two now.
Jeroen continues his silliness by now saying:..."The photographer producing pictures for the marketing brochure can get away with a lot of flaws as well. Just bracket heavily, shoot a thousand frames all a little bit different, and let the customer select the ones they want. The customer doesn't want him to create a single masterpiece and present that as their only option, they WANT those thousand images to choose from and as long as they're all in focus (which any decent camera should be able to do) they're happy and let the DTP guys fix things like lighting and exposure to match the rest of the brochure."
***First of all by bracketing heavily, as you say, you most likely aint no Joe snapshooter. How do you bracket may I ask? There's another contradiction. (You keeping track of all those?) And how do you suppose the professional landscape photographer happens to create those "masterpieces" as you call them, by the way? They usually are the product of hard work along with knowledge and experience on how to shoot those scenes, with the proper equipment. Additionally, because he is a professional, with solid, quality equipment, his masterpiece will also be usable for all kinds of purposes, rather than just some 72 DPI, Usefilm j-peg. Furthermore, most stock agencies will not even consider a photographer if he does not have a minimum of 500-1000 images, all at high resolution, which means either 12 megapixels or higher, or slide film scanned with high resolution scanners. Snap-shooters usually have neither of these. The reason these successful stock agencies such as Getty, Corbiss, Pacific stock etc have such stringent requirements is because they wish to weed out the amateur that THINKS he is a pro from the true professionals. You could have the greatest sunset ever captured with your Nikon Coolpix 5000 Jeroen; and guess what these professional agencies will tell you to do with it? Thanks but no thanks, is what you will hear. Sure, some Joe blow off the street might find the local church down the road would be willing to use that great sunset for some brochure or other non-essential application. But once again you could consider such uses as non-professional, just as you would find other non-professional uses for portraits. So if you are counting, that would be strike three.
You then begin making a little sense with your next comment. You said:..."Yes, a pro in general needs a basic set of skills. But marketing and opportunity are for many of them far more important than being more than average photographers."
*** Yes, a professional does need a basic set of skills. The more skills and ability he has, the more work he will receive in return. Pretty simple. And yes, "marketing" IS an important part of being a professional as well. What good is it if all a pro did was post his work here, or show it to his family. You need to learn what the market is looking for as well as spend time involved in that marketing process. None of which the average snapshooting amateur does much of or knows much about. It's when he does get involved in the entire PROCESS of shooting professionally, editing carefully and marketing thoroughly that allows the professional to be a professional and hopefully remain a professional. It's a full time job. But one that has tremendous advantages too. Not too many people can say they are doing what they truly love. Most professional photographers are doing just that!
|
|
|
|
michael carrozza
(K=1425) - Comment Date 1/19/2007
|
as an amature, and hobbyist my opinioon wont count for much. but i consider photography to be an art. and as in any art just like playing the violin the more knoledge, skill, and natural apptitude for that art, the better you are. these are the things to me that determine a master a there art. i would glady accept advice from a highly skilled hobbyist as i would from some one who is paid.
while it seems theres allot of anger twards the lack of willfully paying customers. i personaly think that the digital market has meerly given people who normaly wouldnt have gotten into photography due to film hassles. (ie the average film user from home normaly would bring there film to a fast photo place. wich never would give them stunning results. and even if it did the hastle of transfering that into digital media wasnt worth most peoples time just to share there passion"
anyways the point im trying to make is. as a hobbyist and amature, as you can tell from my photos. id never presume to be on par with a paid professional. even if that paid professional was meerly incredibly skilled at taking photos without the knoledge of iso's f stops and all the things im just starting to learn about. when i say paid professional im refering to some one who gets paid for there photos to be used in magazines advertisments tv or whatever. and keep in mind that no one gets into an art as a profeshional every one starts out as a hobbyist at first. picaso didnt start painting to make money he most likey did it for the joy and passion of creating stunning images, and sharing his vishion to others.
as far as i can tell a amature such as my self. can never compare to the work of a true master weather there a paid profeshional. or a highly skilled hobbyist who dosnt make a cent off his art.
as a side note despite the increase in ease to use of a digital camera. even in my own works the more i know about how the camera actualy works the better my ohotos become. like Rovato di Notte's night photos for example my fogy night shots dont hold a candle to his skill and artistic aptitude. simply using default setting will only get you limited results. my photos as proof, just using a night setting on a camera and crossing my fingers dosnt make me a pro or on par with a pro. if i had the money to aford a camera that was so great that the default setting produced professional like results. there still is a certain amount of knoledge required to finding a camera like that, after all you have to know what your buying. granted you could just get lucky, and even if you did get licky theres definetly a natural ability for photography to produce stunning works.
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 1/25/2007
|
I do not look at a photograph if its been taken by a professional of or, this is an Art and the Art is a gift not a trade, if the gift is not 100% given to the person , non of his money or degrees will enable him to take a good photograph_ the one who will take and present a great photographs is the one who have the feeling of Arts, there are times after times those cheap cameras have made wonderful images, because those who handle them are very gifted people
|
|
All of the best
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 1/27/2007
|
I understand Ali but should there be no art schools anymore then? Because if only talent and feeling are needed to sell a photo why put so much effort and years in a photographic study?
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 1/28/2007
|
By all means I agree with you as per the proper education of this Art, I also have seen people studying fine Art and then they go into the field of teaching Art but they are not so gifted to paint while there are painters who never been to school doing very impressive work.
Yes, again when both the gift and the educations go together then it’s the right bath been achieved here and the Artist will not only produce great job but will also assist in promoting that Art to others with his educational background.
At the other hand, look at most of those great painters and some of those great photographers, how many of them been to school?
This makes Art is a gift to the person himself.
I like this thread, and I thank you for your response
|
|
Wishing you all of the best my friend
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 1/30/2007
|
Yes i agree with you. Creativity can't be taught it only can be bettered. After all the only thing art colleges learn is how to develop your technical and artistic skills. They can't create something that's already there.
|
|
|
|
Patrick Ziegler
(K=21797) - Comment Date 2/4/2007
|
An interesting discussion indeed, I hope you all do not mind if I go ahead and throw my two cents in.
It is true, the latest revolution in photography has brought about some very good amateur photographers and the pool of pro photographers has become somewhat diluted. Ask any small town studio owner who has fed his family for the last two decades by doing weddings, senior portraits and sold and processed film. The business has changed for these folks.
The key is to change with it. Film sales are down. Everybody has a cousin or a brother or a friend with the latest 8 or 10 MP rig who his willing to shoot the wedding and hand over a CD full of images and collect his $500 tip.
This guy got paid and technically, that makes him a pro. Chances are however, if he tries to make a career out of it, he’ll have a tough road to travel unless he educates himself; or, until life educates him.
Never the less, there will always be another cousin or brother or friend willing to step up to the plate.
If you are going to keep yourself and your family fed by being a “Pro” photographer you are going to have to offer something more than a CD full of jpg’s.
You have to know a little more than how to take a picture. After all that is only the beginning of the process. It doesn’t take much hardware or skill to make a nice image, size it down and post it here on UF.
It takes a little more to deliver framed portraits and a complete set of albums to a client in a timely manner after the wedding.
Wide format printing service is another value added service pro’s can offer to walk in customers. Having the knowledge to print well and being able to explain to customers why it is a bad idea to make a 40X60 print of that vacation moment they captured with there 4MP Casio.
Framing shop services are defiantly a way to augment your business. It is a business all unto its own. You can bill you customer all the way from image capture to framing and matting.
Photo scanning, retouching and restoration are also some services that can bring additional value to your business.
The point I’m trying to make is the main-street studio photographer has to deliver packaged, professional looking products day after day. He also has to be imaginative and come up with ways to offer value added services as well as market himself and know how to run a business.
The digital revolution has raised the quality of amateur photography and it should also raise the standard for professionals. You might have to take a look at that 39MP Hasselblad and think about what advantage it could offer your business.
Now I have talked about the main-street studio photographer which is just one type of professional photographer. But I have to think these guys most affected by the changing times.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 2/26/2007
|
"What worries me a bit about those cheap digital camera's is that anyone these days can make a great photo without even having the knowledge or skills to know how to do it."
That's not necessarily a great photograph. What you mean is that it's not a terrible photo. It's more difficult to see the effect of camera-shake, even with older non-stabilized digicams. It was one of the things that struck me about them, at first. The autofocus might work well. There is auto-adjustment of the histogram. And the colors are saturated. That's not a bad thing. In bright sun, colors really are 'over-saturated'. Some of the mistakes are removed with digicams. In some ways, they are more forgiving than film cameras, or older less expensive film cameras and lenses, at any rate.
The film is still going to prove superior for resolution than digital. But digital is becoming good 'enough'. And digital, particularly in a 'raw' format, demands some digital manipulation. One can't just pull out the polaroid. One has to go to the 'darkroom' for every photo. If I had my choice, I'd prefer film. But it's very expensive. Film selection seems to be dwindling, and so gets more expensive.
And that leads people to say that a pro gets the shot every time. That's where the amateur goes wrong. But if it's a quick action shot, the pro doesn't know what he gets until he has the film developed. Not every photo is a carefully lit and posed portrait, or a landscape at just the right moment at sunset. And sometimes the pro must head to the darkroom to, like a sculptor, tease out the art innately found in his photo.
I would say that a pro would know a 'system'. He or she knows what to shoot, what sells, and who to approach. Those phony 'stringer' photos of the war in the middle east, for which everyone from AP to UPI to the London papers were criticized, were sent either via an unmoderated 'system', or to certain photo editors. A pro knows about these, and an amateur may not. He knows who to contact about magazine photos, who might need some 'disposable' photographer for an ad campaign, and so on. Or a pro has the equipment, the capital equipment, to produce. He has a studio ready to go. Others, above, have suggested that can be a tough go. But that would be a professional, running it, not an amateur.
I would think that a pro also knows about focus fields, lighting, certain unexpected results, and how to use a camera in a way that amateurs probably couldn't, and furthermore could care less. But that says nothing about 'vision', or just lucky shots. One would just have to think, and not think it superstition, that a pro is knowledgable about his camera kit, and that the worst, the floor, photo he takes is always going to at least 'look good'. His bad photos may not be interesting. But they won't be bad photos. And that alone, has to be worth money.
Then again, just good 'enough' is the rule in so many businesses. And if that's so when it comes to purchasing photos, perhaps other 'channels' need to brought up, or increased, instead. I suspect an amateur can produce, good 'enough', particularly on a subject that doesn't really interest him or her. You'd expect a pro could do better and that such, more to the point, would matter to that catalog, or that magazine, or that promoter, etec.
|
|
|
|
Stan Pustylnik
(K=6768) - Comment Date 3/2/2007
|
Digital is revolution. From 30 coworkers in my company 6 are photo addicts like me. I re-discover how bad are my photo skills every time after opening upscale magazines.
I'm outdated....
|
|
|
|
|
