# Rant coming....



## beckylynne (Oct 28, 2015)

It seems to be a general consensus amongst "real" photographers that people who take pictures for money (more often than not, wedding photographers) somehow aren't real photographers and lack the talent of someone who takes pictures of random things for fun and knows their gear really well.   Since when did the hobby or the art come before the business?  Photography was a business first..and became a hobby and an art form after.  Taking photos for money does not somehow make you a cop out.

If you hold a camera...and you take pictures because you love it,  or because it's your business, then good or bad...you are a damn photographer.

As a wedding photographer (which is a title that I use proudly) I'm constantly being challenged to improve my craft.  I need to be prepared for a million different scenarios, weather conditions, lighting conditions, I need to be fast with no second guessing.  I need to be a people person and deal effectively and professionally with many different people at the same time from bride, groom, wedding party,  and family to vendors.  I need to be an entrepreneur.   You don't have a ton of time to set up gear...lights...tripods...and a bride and groom to take tons of the epic wedding shots you would see on the cover of a magazine.  Those shoots are 99% of the time stylized and not real weddings.

Weddings also range in budget from $1000-$100,000...so yeah someones images of a wedding shot in a church basement with streamers hanging from a basketball net may not be as good as a photographer who had the opportunity to shoot a wedding at the Ritz...but they are no less a photographer.  Everyone deserves photos on their wedding regardless of budget.

If you feel so strongly that we don't know what we are doing and are total crap than GREAT!  Use that to fuel your craft.  You fortunately for us are not our target market.  Take all that pent up rage and go take a killer photo of a mailbox and post it on Flickr.

*end rant*


----------



## tirediron (Oct 28, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> It seems to be a general consensus amongst "real" photographers that people who take pictures for money (more often than not, wedding photographers) somehow aren't real photographers and lack the talent of someone who takes pictures of random things for fun and knows their gear really well.


 Huh???? Whazzat????   I've never heard anyone say anything remotely like that, and I would hope that anyone who thinks they have even the smallest clue about photography knows that wedding photography as craft, is one which requires great skill.  Granted there's the host of "facebook pros" who don't know an aperture from their ***hole, but, as far as the real pros go, the ones I know, know their gear inside out and backwards, and have a lot of skill and experience.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 28, 2015)

Bad morning? Just fire back at them. If they shoot their mailbox and get it wrong, they can take another shot (even on another day) as a wedding photographer, you have to get "the kiss" right the first time with no do-overs. If they don't get that, then know this, "you can't fix stupid".

Note: this is but one reason why I have no desire to shoot weddings.


----------



## beckylynne (Oct 28, 2015)

tirediron said:


> beckylynne said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to be a general consensus amongst "real" photographers that people who take pictures for money (more often than not, wedding photographers) somehow aren't real photographers and lack the talent of someone who takes pictures of random things for fun and knows their gear really well.
> ...


I agree that there are a ton of rookie weddding photographers out there..but frankly who cares?  Instead of people tearing them apart and telling them they have no business to shoot or aren't good enough to charge...let them be.  They are shooting the cheap weddings anyways.  They are shooting for the people who can't afford anything more than an armature with a so so camera.  More often then not I see these criticisms coming from someone who has never in their life shot a wedding anyways.


----------



## beckylynne (Oct 28, 2015)

ronlane said:


> Bad morning? Just fire back at them. If they shoot their mailbox and get it wrong, they can take another shot (even on another day) as a wedding photographer, you have to get "the kiss" right the first time with no do-overs. If they don't get that, then know this, "you can't fix stupid".
> 
> Note: this is but one reason why I have no desire to shoot weddings.


Meh lol.  I've been on this site for 2 days and the novelty is rapidly wearing off.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 28, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> I agree that there are a ton of rookie weddding photographers out there..but frankly who cares?  Instead of people tearing them apart and telling them they have no business to shoot or aren't good enough to charge...let them be.  They are shooting the cheap weddings anyways.  They are shooting for the people who can't afford anything more than an armature with a so so camera.  More often then not I see these criticisms coming from someone who has never in their life shot a wedding anyways.


 We should all care.  I'm not referring to the rookie who's just starting out and has done his/her homework, has some skills, necessary gear, etc, but to the HUGE crowd of "facebook fauxtographers" who've been told by someone that they take "great snaps", so immediately start booking paid shoots without the necessary licenses, insurance, skills or knowledge.  I care about those people a great deal because their incompetence and poor practices give all of us a bad name.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 28, 2015)

To be fair I've seen more wedding photographers look down on the normal Joe soap than the other way around. This is not aimed at you or at wedding photographers in general,(we are all just people and some people are nice, others are not) but it is the way I see it, the small few times that I have seen it


----------



## beckylynne (Oct 28, 2015)

tirediron said:


> beckylynne said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that there are a ton of rookie weddding photographers out there..but frankly who cares?  Instead of people tearing them apart and telling them they have no business to shoot or aren't good enough to charge...let them be.  They are shooting the cheap weddings anyways.  They are shooting for the people who can't afford anything more than an armature with a so so camera.  More often then not I see these criticisms coming from someone who has never in their life shot a wedding anyways.
> ...


I hear what you are saying.  I've lost business to them because they "know a friend" who will shoot my wedding for $500 bucks.  To those people though I say good riddance.  Red flag nightmare clients for sure.  Sometimes I creep back to see their TERRIBLE photos and they are raving about them.  Yes there are photographers who don't know their @$$ from an aperture.  But there are also clients who don't know a good photo from crap.  There is room in the world for all of us


----------



## beckylynne (Oct 28, 2015)

jaomul said:


> To be fair I've seen more wedding photographers look down on the normal Joe soap than the other way around. This is not aimed at you or at wedding photographers in general,(we are all just people and some people are nice, others are not) but it is the way I see it, the small few times that I have seen it


Fair enough


----------



## runnah (Oct 28, 2015)

This place ins't a good barometer for how "photographers" think about things. Out of the thousands of members there are only a hand full of working professionals. Most are hobbyists and even more are keyboard jockys parroting the same crap over and over. The rest are gear head who only come here to debate their brand of choice.


----------



## beckylynne (Oct 28, 2015)

runnah said:


> This place ins't a good barometer for how "photographers" think about things. Out of the thousands of members there are only a hand full of working professionals. Most are hobbyists and even more are keyboard jockys parroting the same crap over and over. The rest are gear head who only come here to debate their brand of choice.


Good to know....I was rapidly losing faith.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 28, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair I've seen more wedding photographers look down on the normal Joe soap than the other way around. This is not aimed at you or at wedding photographers in general,(we are all just people and some people are nice, others are not) but it is the way I see it, the small few times that I have seen it
> ...



There is one thing that I think holds true for the most part when it comes to wedding photos. A good wedding photographer will give images to the couple that they love and want to show others, or even look at themselves more often, and through word of mouth (at least in a moderate size town like where i live) they will get recommended by others.

A landscape (put in wildlife, macro, aeroplane show) photographer that gets asked and accepts to do a wedding because he/she has a 1dx may not, so your skill always shows through


----------



## runnah (Oct 28, 2015)

This is a funny but accurate video, very tongue in cheek. Most folks around here don't get past level 3.


----------



## jaomul (Oct 28, 2015)

runnah said:


> This place ins't a good barometer for how "photographers" think about things. Out of the thousands of members there are only a hand full of working professionals. Most are hobbyists and even more are keyboard jockys parroting the same crap over and over. The rest are gear head who only come here to debate their brand of choice.



Which are you


----------



## runnah (Oct 28, 2015)

jaomul said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > This place ins't a good barometer for how "photographers" think about things. Out of the thousands of members there are only a hand full of working professionals. Most are hobbyists and even more are keyboard jockys parroting the same crap over and over. The rest are gear head who only come here to debate their brand of choice.
> ...



I am here for the ladies.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 28, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> ..but frankly who cares?


 Everyone that should be ignored 



beckylynne said:


> Instead of people tearing them apart and telling them they have no business to shoot or aren't good enough to charge...let them be.


 Now what fun would that be; it would take away a large chunk of posts and joy out of our internet lives! 

You are in the initiation phase.  Soon you will either get sucked into the dark side, or join the Coffee House where folks know how to chill.  If you hurry, I hear there is a really nice jazz band playing there now  and the wild ones are over there doing the  and getting their  on.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 28, 2015)

runnah said:


> This place ins't a good barometer for how "photographers" think about things. Out of the thousands of members there are only a hand full of working professionals. Most are hobbyists and even more are keyboard jockys parroting the same crap over and over. The rest are gear head who only come here to debate their brand of choice.



Dang, I was kinda saying that first.


----------



## Vtec44 (Oct 28, 2015)

You'll rarely see an established photographer talk about or look down at other photographers.  Generally, photographers that belittle other photographers are not happy with where they're at (either personal or business).


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 28, 2015)

tirediron said:


> beckylynne said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that there are a ton of rookie weddding photographers out there..but frankly who cares?  Instead of people tearing them apart and telling them they have no business to shoot or aren't good enough to charge...let them be.  They are shooting the cheap weddings anyways.  They are shooting for the people who can't afford anything more than an armature with a so so camera.  More often then not I see these criticisms coming from someone who has never in their life shot a wedding anyways.
> ...



I still have not figured out why I should care.  I try, but just can't.  If someone is established, or better, or professional in every way, why should they care?  How would the


tirediron said:


> HUGE crowd of "facebook fauxtographers" who've been told by someone that they take "great snaps", so immediately start booking paid shoots without the necessary licenses, insurance, skills or knowledge.


 impact Ansel Adams or anyone in the list we gave here Who are your favorite photographers? | Photography Forum?


----------



## SCraig (Oct 28, 2015)

Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, I prefer for people I hire that claim to be "Professional" anything already know their trade very well.  I wouldn't hire a carpenter that got his first hammer a couple of months ago or a mechanic who got his first set of wrenches for Christmas.  I personally don't like the idea of hiring a so-called "Professional" photographer with only a few months beginner's experience, but that's where the world is at these days.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 28, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > beckylynne said:
> ...


 Again, I'm not referring to those who are doing it 'the right way'; learning their craft, using the right equipment, and establishing a proper business.  I care about them only insofar as perhaps I can help them in the same way that those ahead of me helped when I was first learning.  The ones who really affect us are, I stress, the "facebook fautographers", who just got a camera, haven't read the manual and haven't bothered to actually establish a busiess, and as mentioned elsewhere, think that "30 minute mini-sessions with 3 billion "edited" images on a disc" is professional photography.  Why do I care and how do they affect all of us?

I care because, IMO, these are the people having the greatest impact on the trend towards the acceptance of sub-par work being "good" and they affect us all, because our work, whether fiscally, artistically, or both, is being devalued as a result.


----------



## runnah (Oct 28, 2015)

SCraig said:


> Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, I prefer for people I hire that claim to be "Professional" anything already know their trade very well.  I wouldn't hire a carpenter that got his first hammer a couple of months ago or a mechanic who got his first set of wrenches for Christmas.  I personally don't like the idea of hiring a so-called "Professional" photographer with only a few months beginner's experience, but that's where the world is at these days.



Well its because cause you have those with the delusion that getting paid $20 to take photos of uncle bob's fishing boat makes you a "Paid professional photographer".

Professional = skill set, not the fact that you conned some idiot to give you money for crappy photos.


----------



## DoctorDino (Oct 28, 2015)

Of course good wedding photographers are "real" photographer. It's an art form in its own sense. I started as a landscape guy taking photos of random biz, but now that I've done weddings, it's easy to say they're a whole other world. 

Notice I did say "good" though. As @runnah mentioned above, just because you may get paid to do something doesn't make you an "expert" or "professional". Take my parents' wedding way back in the day for instance - they didn't have much money, so they gave a family friend $300 to shoot their wedding. He had a nice camera and looked like he knew what was up, but "something happened" to his film apparently, and they don't have photos of their wedding.

I consider someone a "professional photographer" when they not only get paid to do something, but their work is quality and satisfies the customer.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 28, 2015)

beckylynne said:
			
		

> It seems to be a general consensus amongst "real" photographers that people who take pictures for money (more often than not, wedding photographers) somehow aren't real photographers and lack the talent of someone who takes pictures of random things for fun and knows their gear really well.   Since when did the hobby or the art come before the business?  Photography was a business first..and became a hobby and an art form after.  Taking photos for money does not somehow make you a cop out.
> 
> If you hold a camera...and you take pictures because you love it,  or because it's your business, then good or bad...you are a damn photographer.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you might be experiencing a bad morning, beckylynne. I don't agree that there is any kind of general consensus that wedding shooters are not "real photographers"...in fact, my opinion is that MANY people think of wedding photographers when they think of the term "*professional photographer*". Weddings are one of the few very high-visibility, decently paid gigs left for regular photographers, now that digital cameras and computer darkrooms have cut out the costs of entry and lowered the cost of doing business for events, and since commercial clients have taken many accounts in-house. The easy money days are long,long gone. Small commercial accounts and individual jobs that used to be easy to get in the early 1990's are long since gone.

Wedding photographers run the gamut, from the uber low-rent ones with a body and an 18-55 kit zoom, to high-enders with staff and fantastic,well fantastic _everything_, and plenty of people who fall somewhere in between those extremes.


----------



## beckylynne (Oct 28, 2015)

runnah said:


> This is a funny but accurate video, very tongue in cheek. Most folks around here don't get past level 3.


That made me giggle


----------



## Designer (Oct 28, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> Take all that pent up rage and go take a killer photo of a mailbox and post it on Flickr.


I don't know the reason for this rant.  If it was something I wrote, I'm either sorry or misunderstood.  Either way.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2015)

Designer said:


> beckylynne said:
> 
> 
> > Take all that pent up rage and go take a killer photo of a mailbox and post it on Flickr.
> ...


I would say it's to do with this My first wedding... *gulp* | Page 3 | Photography Forum


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 28, 2015)

Interesting Rant.

If anyone peruses Craigslist one can find $99 to $499 wedding photographers.
they are real .. as mentioned they take horrible photos, generally.

But photographers (here on TPF) are a finicky bunch
we'll see photos on Facebook, here, etc that have bad posing, bad lighting, raccoon eyes, etc etc etc  except friends and the person in the photo are all ecstatic and happy about the photos.

I've always wondered how bad a photo has to be before someone on Facebook says something negative about it.  I've yet to see anyone say anything negative about a facebook photo that I think is just plain awful.


----------



## limr (Oct 28, 2015)

I'm still trying to figure out how photography was a business first.

I don't give a rat's arse about the rest.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2015)

I was married in June and there was no way i was going to hire a photographer after looking round the net for local photographers, all my friends volunteered to take them, 1 Canon, 2 Leica's and a Fuji Pro1 and i was very happy with what i got and they got a hog roast and free beer. All the family were in the first shots
Our Wedding - Gary Clarke


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 28, 2015)

My late uncle was a professional wedding photographer after he retired from Police Department. All the years I knew him, he always had 2 things on him... A gun and a camera. It wasn't until he passed that I seen the whole body of his passion. I was STUNNED at the quality and artistic style he developed. I knew at that moment I wanted to do less painting and a whole lot more picture taking. 

I have no idea why the OP is not liking the forum but I can say two things from experience. 

#1 - I admire the wedding photographer.

#2 - I have been a moderator on two highly successful forums (no more) and frequent two others not relating to photography. There are always a handful of rude and obnoxious posters that will bait and annoy the crap out of people. However, most people really are nice and try to be genuinely helpful. Keep in mind that it is easy to misinterpret posts as well, things always can read a couple ways. This is a good forum and I have been learning a lot. It can be fun too if you try and make it...aka coffee house.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 28, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> It seems to be a general consensus amongst "real" photographers that people who take pictures for money (more often than not, wedding photographers) somehow aren't real photographers and lack the talent of someone who takes pictures of random things for fun and knows their gear really well.   Since when did the hobby or the art come before the business?  Photography was a business first..and became a hobby and an art form after.  Taking photos for money does not somehow make you a cop out.
> 
> If you hold a camera...and you take pictures because you love it,  or because it's your business, then good or bad...you are a damn photographer.
> 
> ...


First, I have no idea where this rant is coming from.  After looking at the link you shared to MiniCoops thread, I'm even more confused.   Second, photography was an art first, and a vocation second, not the other way around.  Technically, it's just a artistic vocation.    Third, and this is just a general thing, your @$$hole is actually an aperture, let that one sink in.  Yep, if people can't "tell their @$$hole from an aperture", well maybe it's because they know something.  

As TiredIron pointed out,  there are the real, pro wedding shooters; and then there are the "I just got a Rebel for Christmas" facebook shooters.  They are not the same.  Being critical of someone who wants to monetize other peoples weddings without knowing how to even work their camera is no more egregious than being critical of a mechanic who can't even tell you which way tightens and which way loosens a bolt.  There's no point being offended if someone points out another persons shortcomings, especially if those shortcomings could cause both heartache for clients and a bad rep for the industry in general.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 28, 2015)

limr said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to figure out how photography was a business first.
> 
> I don't give a rat's arse about the rest.



going pro in photography - Google Search

There are about 50,000,000 hits on that search term. Fifty million!!! So, there is a huge push from many directions, encouraging people to become so-called_ professional photographers_.

As far as the link to Minicoop's thread about his first-ever wedding....I think gsgary brought that thread reference up, not the OP. But Minicoop's thread was really more about his own self-effacing attitudes toward the results he got in a rather pedestrian wedding held in a pedestrian venue with a non-traditional bride and groom, and some guy spitting Copenhagen juice into a beer can spittoon...kind of an all-in-good-fun thread...not every wedding is in a Ft. Lauderdale Hilton or held at the Regal Snooty Palace...he took the hand he was dealt.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 28, 2015)

tirediron said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Thanks for the explanation.  I think I am closer to understanding it more than I have been before.  What keeps me from jumping on board are the pro photographers that say what other's do has little or no impact on what they are able to do or what they are able to earn.  'I'm not competing with FB fautographers' type of statements. 



tirediron said:


> I care because, IMO, these are the people having the greatest impact on the trend towards the acceptance of sub-par work being "good" and they affect us all, because our work, whether fiscally, artistically, or both, is being devalued as a result.


  If there is blame for the trend, I would aim more towards the folks that accept it as opposed to the ones that create it (sub-par work).  Probably just a circle of confusion really meaning the same thing, equal blame.

I enjoy this discussion more than the 'what is art discussion'.  That one seems so RANDOM, as my teenager would say.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 28, 2015)

Was the client happy with them?   There has to be a t-shirt right?


----------



## Bebulamar (Oct 30, 2015)

I totally agree with the OP. I stay away from the wedding photographers. Never had anything to do with them.


----------



## Gary A. (Nov 2, 2015)

Here in the U.S., there aren't any standards, certification boards, licensing requirements, testing, et cetera to determine a level of photographic proficiency which is used to anoint a photographer as "Professional".

Therefore, as previous posters mentioned ... anybody can claim to be a pro ... anybody can 'con' others out of money ... and unfortunately, much of this happens, in the wedding photographer arena.

Tireiron hit the nail on the head when he referenced that a bad 'professional' photographer affects the reputation of all professional photographers. 

Other than that ... who give's a rat's ...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 3, 2015)

I know wedding photographers, some are good, some are better and some are great. They are professional photographers, they work this way, treat clients with respect and produce images. I don't know any crappy wedding photographers, it's not my field.   I know sports, I know good, bad and just plain picture producers. I've offered suggestions to some, even the ones that are beyond hope because they already think they are good enough at it.  I had a guy give me suggestions on how I should shoot football a few months back, I wouldn't have said anything to him, but he knows who I am and has for near a decade.  I have stopped being concerned what other people do, unless they get in my way, or they step out of line. 

Photographers get painted with the same brush far too often. Seems that we have become the favourite target of crime shows as well, I laugh every time some photographer turns out to be the serial killer on Criminal Minds.  Mind you, I do shoot lots of people.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 3, 2015)

"I have stopped being concerned what other people do, unless they get in my way, or they step out of line."

Bingo.


----------



## oFUNGUSo (Nov 4, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> .....
> 
> If you hold a camera...and you take pictures because you love it,  or because it's your business, then good or bad...you are a damn photographer......



this is exactly how I feel, and what i say.

Course, this is coming from a relatively inexperienced hobbyist with low end gear....so.....I've been told my opinion doesn't matter


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 7, 2015)

I know this thread is over a week old now, however I would like to add my own .02¢ worth in here, but it's a topic that I also have some strong feelings about.  Do be aware that I have only skimmed thru the responses here, so if I add anything terribly redundant, please forgive me.

I think that one of the biggest issues I've had with many so-called "professional photographers" is actually the quality of their work...as in "lack of".  I can't speak to the rest of the world, but here on the North Coast of Ohio, I've seen work from a few folks who call themselves pro's, a few who charge rather exorbitant fees, where, in my own personal opinion, the work is well beyond sub-par...in other words, it just plain stinks.  A while back for example, I was at a local photography club meeting where a local pro was a guest speaker and did a slide show of a wedding he had recently shot; while I can accept that "posed shots" are often stiff, there seemed to be no sense of symmetry to the arrangements of the subjects (the shots were REALLY unbalanced), the exposures were all over the place and with a several of the reception shots, the whites/highlights were SERIOUSLY blown out...this guy seemed to have no concept at all of how to use flash.  In fact, with one of the shots, the bride's face was sooooo washed out, she really looked like a freakin' vampire!  Yea...sure...a lot of wedding's often come of as being somewhat generic, but at the risk of being horribly brutal, this one really ended up looking like stills for a Steven King novel!  LOL!  Likewise, I've seen a lot of the so-called pros who have done some nature photography (something near and dear to my heart) where the "subject" (bird, deer, etc) was essentially this tiny little dot somewhere in the center of the image....it makes one wonder how a "pro" can't even afford to buy a longer lens.  Then of course there's "portrait studios" where it's hard to even consider the work as photography, as much as "assembly line work"...the camera never leaves f/8, the flashes are always in the same position, with the same power setting, the same 4 or 5 backgrounds are always used, etc....the ONLY challenge seems to be in tryin' to get someone's kid to actually smile while looking at the camera!

Conversely, I have seen a GREAT many images from novices and amateurs that is often great, if not just truly amazing!  I no longer have the URL, however one of my former college professors a few years back had shown me a website from a guy who used nothing more than a camera phone (yes, I said _camera phone_) and his work was...wow...totally spectacular to say the least.  The images were not only crisp and sharp, the compositions were almost surreal in their beauty.  Regardless of his choice of "gear", it was clear this person has a true passion for this thing we call photography...and thus, I think this is perhaps were the single greatest issue lies...passion.

While I mean absolutely no denigration to the work or efforts of anyone here at TPF, it's been my experience that there really are a lot of so-called pro's out there who have simply lost the passion for the art.  Perhaps they're simply more about the business aspect or maybe it's just due to a given individual having done this for soooooo long, that it's become "just a job".....for the amount of passion they have (or lack there of), they could just as easily be working the counter at Payless Shoes or dropping fries at the local McD's.  This is just my own not-so-humble-opinion, however whether it's photography or brain surgery or food service or car sales, any time  an individual looses their passion for what they do, their work ALWAYS suffers as a result.

On that note, personally I do freelance work as a photographer, graphic artist and even as a musician because it's what I LOVE to do.  If I don't love doing it, I do something else instead.  For example, -NO- I do NOT shoot weddings...I did that for a bit and *ABSOLUTELY HATED IT*.  That's _not_ intended as a slam for those who do like such work, it's simply my own view point...I suspect the sun will go cold and every star in the night sky will burn out before I EVER shoot another wedding!  For myself, it's NOT about the money...money is nice, but it's NOT the reason I became an artist.  And perhaps that's the other big issue...money.

Ok...call me "un-American", however I've never really seen money as the end all, be all priority that many others often do...and maybe that's one of the reasons I have seen so much sub-standard work.  I don't mean this as a slam to the OP (or anyone else), however as others have already suggested, most wedding photographers (decent or otherwise) can make some pretty decent coin.  I have no problem at all for someone who charges a fair and reasonable fee for their work...it's expected...however I think that it's possible that there's perhaps more than a few folks who do in fact do it for the money and not because of any sense of love or passion for what they're doing.

Then of course there's the subjective use of the term "professional".  Again this is my very own not-so-humble opinion here, however I do truly feel that the term professional is vastly over used these days...or at least over used for the _WRONG_ reasons.  Perhaps this is debatable, however I think there is still a tendency to associate the term professional (regardless of the profession) with a the sense that said professional actually knows what they're doing.  Indeed it _should _suggest or be indicative of a certainly standard of work regarding quality.  If you think about that carefully however, that's not always the case.  I've known doctors for example who really have absolutely no business at all practicing medicine (I could tell you horror stories about one doctor we had to deal with when my wife went thru chemo a few years back...).  It's unfortunate, but I truly feel the definition for the term professional has indeed changed over the years and, more often than not, often just means "someone who runs a business".

Perhaps this is more than a bit jaded, but with something like photography, I think the truth of the matter is that there ARE people who've gone out and started their own businesses...and perhaps they're even "successful" with said business.  However I strongly feel that one should also ask the question, is it _really _because their work as photographers is _that_ good, or is it simply because they're just proficient business people?  Let's be honest here - I think the reason a lot of these HACKS get away with it is because they can sell themselves to an otherwise ignorant public.  To use a music analogy here, something I learned a long time ago as a musician is that when I'm up on stage on a given Saturday night, the vast majority of people in my audience are NOT musicians.  They really do not know the difference between a Strat and a Les Paul (Nikon or Canon) and they certainly don't know the nuances between a Fender amp and a Marshall.  The -ONLY- thing they know is whether they liked my music and enjoyed themselves at the show.  Likewise I think the same is true for photography...I'm sure that well over 95% of my customers are NOT photographers themselves and the majority have little art training at all.  The ONLY thing they know is whether they like my work or not.  I do personally take a great deal of pride in that work and I always strive to provide my best at all times, however because of this lack of education on the part of the general public, I think it makes it A LOT easier for "business people" to get an upper hand, DESPITE the quality of their work.

Finally...and again I mean no offense to anyone here, however I also strongly believe there is the rather unfortunate belief on the part of many in the old adage "you get what you pay for".  Perhaps it was true at one time, however today such thinking leads to the belief that "if it's expensive, then it *MUST* be good" and conversely, "if it's inexpensive, it *MUST* be garbage".   The rub however is that's not always the case...particularly with something as subjective as "art", just as often as not, it's more about "perception" than it is about any sense of "quality"...it still rather amazes me really.  In my earlier days as an artist, I tried to keep my prints and such _reasonably affordable_.  Again I'm not greedy at all and I just don't like to rip people off just for the sake of making a buck.  The sad truth however is that I've found that I do in fact sell MORE prints, simply by raising my prices.  Same artist, same quality of work...hell, in some cases, the EXACT same prints, but by charging _more,_ there really are more people willing to buy them.  Stupid if you think about it, huh? I think this is why a lot of people who really are little more than hacks do in fact flourish...it's not because their work is superior in ANY way, it's because they charge a lot of freakin' bread and unfortunately a lot of people buy into that hook, line and sinker.  Ideally I truly believe a person's work should be judged on the _quality_ of that work and NOT what they charge for it, but for many that's not how their world works...and it's a cryin' shame in my opinion. 

In any case, yea...again a subject near and dear to my heart.  These are, as always, just my own opinions.  Please use them for what they're worth...


----------



## otherprof (Nov 7, 2015)

beckylynne said:


> It seems to be a general consensus amongst "real" photographers that people who take pictures for money (more often than not, wedding photographers) somehow aren't real photographers and lack the talent of someone who takes pictures of random things for fun and knows their gear really well.   Since when did the hobby or the art come before the business?  Photography was a business first..and became a hobby and an art form after.  Taking photos for money does not somehow make you a cop out.
> 
> If you hold a camera...and you take pictures because you love it,  or because it's your business, then good or bad...you are a damn photographer.
> 
> ...


Sorry - or maybe glad - but there is no such consensus. Most of the great photographers I can name were or are professionals who got paid for their work. I don't know anyone who looks down on them because they were paid for their photography, but do know a lot of "mailbox" shooters, including myself, who are inspired by them and would love to deserve some of the recognition they received.  I've seen great wedding photos posted on this site by professionals, and don't look down on the work or the photographers because of the subject matter. There are great photos of brides and grooms, just like there are great photos of ducks and daisies and, yes, mailboxes. Some of my favorite photos were taken as commercial environmental portraits, etc. And then there's National Geographic, etc. 
I once - one time - worked as an assistant to a wedding photographer. I was just holding a light, not even working as a second photographer, and I was a nervous wreck by the end of the shoot. As you pointed out, you only get one time to get it right, and I was worried I would create a problem for the photographer. 
When I use the word "professional" as in "professional wedding photographer," e.g., "professional" is an honorific term, and doesn't just mean they charge for taking pictures.


----------

