# are the enthusiasts better in all around photography than the pros?



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

if you are a pro shooting the same basic thing, all the time. you would i expect become excellent in the field you generally shoot. However i imagine you would gain less experience shooting other things. 

if you are a enthusiasts, shooting many things, would that make the enthusiasts better at all around photography than the pro?

yes, this is a troll thread.

:lmao:


----------



## sm4him (Apr 24, 2014)

NO.

/end thread.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2014)

Let's assume what is meant by 'pro' is a person who is really really proficient at his craft and knows how to use his tools as extensions of his artistic sense.
This person may be starting from ground zero at any specific niche but doesn't have the difficulty with technical obstacles that a less experienced amateur will/might have.

That being said, there are lots of people who charge money for doing photography who aren't 'professional' in that sense.


----------



## cookedpixel (Apr 24, 2014)

I don't think so. I've seen some gorgeous landscapes from a photographer that does portraits commercially. A mastery of composition and lighting breathes life into any subject.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 24, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Let's assume what is meant by 'pro' is a person who is really really proficient at his craft and knows how to use his tools as extensions of his artistic sense.
> This person may be starting from ground zero at any specific niche but doesn't have the difficulty with technical obstacles that a less experienced amateur will/might have.
> 
> That being said, there are lots of people who charge money for doing photography who aren't 'professional' in that sense.



so a enthusiast is considered a amateur no matter the experience or knowledge?


----------



## lambertpix (Apr 24, 2014)

I think the first place this argument starts to skid sideways is to generalize "the enthusiast" and "the pro".  I know there are some pretty fantastic "enthusiasts" out there, and if you matched them up against some of the "pros" that advertise $25 senior sessions on CL, I bet you'd have a very different result than if you matched up against pros that have really mastered the profession.  I just don't see how a sweeping statement like that can make any sense.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> if you are a pro shooting the same basic thing, all the time. you would i expect become excellent in the field you generally shoot. However i imagine you would gain less experience shooting other things.
> 
> if you are a enthusiasts, shooting many things, would that make the enthusiasts better at all around photography than the pro?
> 
> ...



Some "enthusiasts" are incredibly skilled, capable shooters, better than many professionals. Some "professionals" are incredibly skilled, capable shooters, better than many, or even most, enthusiasts. I know of one local "pro" who gets a fair amount of work, but shoots a lot of what I consider kind of sub-standard work. I've spoken with this person off an on over the last 10 years. Well-connected, got into it before "the flood of newbies washed ashore", but techically and artistically, wow...just not that well-schooled in a number of areas.

There are literally millions of enthusiasts, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of "pro photographers" today; the ability/capability/talent range stretches from abysmally poor to outstandingly capable, in BOTH the "enthusiast" and in the "pro" ranks. Just because somebody calls himself or herself a "professional photographer" these days, that descriptor means jack squat...it is entirely no form of a guarantee in today's world.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 24, 2014)

A label doesn't enter into it.  Nor does any monetization.  

If you're good, you're good.  End of discussion.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 24, 2014)

all men are created equal and all have the exact same skills. there is no difference, we are all the same.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 24, 2014)

Why are we trying to redefine "professional"? The Olympics doesn't define it as "someone good at what they do" and neither should we.

A professional photographer is someone whose profession is photography. 

I would assert that, compared to the most skilled of ametures, they are as good or better at ending up with the right shot, but less skilled at making every shot count. That certainly appears to have been the case pre-digital specifically because of shooting style. (pros shots many, many more pics than non-pros; and could pick the one they liked from the batch). 

But this varies heavily by individual.

(and yes, it's actually the attempt to redefine a word that has me contributing here, not the original question)


----------



## runnah (Apr 24, 2014)

Blah.

To me a pro is someone one not only gets paid to take pictures but is a master of their craft. Sadly photography is one of those things people think being paid $25 to shoot a bad portrait makes them a professional.


----------



## ronlane (Apr 24, 2014)

Haven't we already used that horse for glue?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 24, 2014)

I think the answer we seek is inside this can - it's marked WORMS. DO NOT OPEN. Huh. What a dilemma.. lol


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 24, 2014)

^^^ all of the above
though we're missing a photo of someone kicking a dead horse


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 24, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> Why are we trying to redefine "professional"? The Olympics doesn't define it as "someone good at what they do" and neither should we.
> 
> A professional photographer is someone whose profession is photography.
> 
> ...


  It's not a matter of people trying to redefine a word.  It's the difference between the strict denotation of the word vs. the connotation that sticks with it.       Just go to Wikipedia and search for "Profession" and you'll see what I'm talking about.  Maybe then you'll understand.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 24, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> ^^^ all of the above
> though we're missing a photo of someone kicking a dead horse


 Will this do?


----------



## KmH (Apr 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> so a enthusiast is considered a amateur no matter the experience or knowledge?


There are amateur/enthusiast photographers that have professional (expert) skills.

Paid photographers range from incompetent to expert.
Those paid photographers at the incompetent end of the range usually aren't able to continue as paid photographers for very long.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ all of the above
> ...



Now...I gotta say--the fellow in this video seems to be a noob at the ancient art of dead horse beating...I mean...just LOOK at his sloppy technique and improper posture/body positioning fundamentals....not to mention his utter lack of the correct and proper, industry-standard, professional-level dead horse-beating TOOLS!! Where is the blackjack with the red ring around it? Or the short truncheon with the gold ring around it??? I mean--this guy doesn't even have a simple lead pipe!!!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 25, 2014)

Ahh, yes, this horse is dead, but what if an enthusiast IS a professional? DUN DUN DUN...


----------



## nzmacro (Apr 25, 2014)

Doesn't matter who is doing it, as long as they love it, it shows. If money gets in the way, its time to rethink it, the results are what counts and the might dollar doesn't change those results.

May the passion be with you 

Danny.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 25, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > Why are we trying to redefine "professional"? The Olympics doesn't define it as "someone good at what they do" and neither should we.
> ...


OK

A *profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain.*

So it's a profession if you get "definite compensation" (pay). A professional photographer is someone who gets paid for photographs.

That's what I said before, isn't it?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 25, 2014)

according to that same quote, someone that that simply takes money to shoot pictures, without specialized education/training, is not a professional.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 25, 2014)

I specialize in shooting sports, but I have also spent my entire career working as a photojournalist and have shoot pretty much everything, or close to it. I know other long time professionals that do amazing wedding and portrait work but can't shoot sports, but also know that because they have a solid background in photography they could probably go out and get a couple of good sports images.  I think a lot of skilled photographers are capable of shooting a lot of different things, doesn't matter if they are considered professional or not.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 25, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Ahh, yes, this horse is dead, but what if an enthusiast IS a professional? DUN DUN DUN...



So then by this we can interpolate that it was Colonel Mustard with the lead pipe in the conservatory.

Brilliant!  Now all we need to do is get him on the witness stand so Matlock can get him to confess.



Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Virgil (Apr 25, 2014)

An offensive lineman for New England Patriots is no less of a pro than Brady...the lineman just doesnt make as much money as the QB.. You dont have to be great at every aspect of photography to be a legitimate pro.. Just saying


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 25, 2014)

I always finish reading these threads and wonder what the hell I am... Then I go and take some pictures and I feel better.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 25, 2014)

PixelRabbit said:


> I always finish reading these threads and wonder *what the hell I am*... Then I go and take some pictures and I feel better.



_Sylvilagus_ _floridanus_. Common name: _Eastern_ _Cottontail Rabbit_.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 25, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Sylvilagus floridanus. Common name: Eastern Cottontail Rabbit.



Lol that explains a lot doesn't it lol!


----------



## Overread (Apr 25, 2014)

Bacon

Your ability, skill and the adoration of your fans and peers is gained via the consumption of bacon.

A lack of bacon results in failure


----------



## Designer (Apr 25, 2014)

Furthermore, some "enthusiasts" concentrate on one particular "style" or technique, thereby negating your premise that they are more well-rounded.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 25, 2014)

PixelRabbit said:


> I always finish reading these threads and wonder what the hell I am... Then I go and take some pictures and I feel better.


same here


----------



## Stevepwns (Apr 25, 2014)

http://i.imgur.com/prKuD9O.jpg


I find this .gif very fitting for ALL is a better than b conversations.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 25, 2014)

Short Answer = Yes...No.....Maybe.....Maybe Not......Don't Care.

Long answer = "Pro" doesn't mean $#!% when it comes to quailty.  "Pro" is a misused often misunderstood term.  Photographers come in varying degrees of competence from the "I just use the P setting all the time" to the truely master photographers such as Helen who have forgot more about photography than most have learned.  In my experience the photographer with the higher degree of knowledge and competence in photography will generally produce the better results.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 25, 2014)

Designer said:


> Furthermore, some "enthusiasts" concentrate on one particular "style" or technique, thereby negating your premise that they are more well-rounded.



Is "Crappy" a style? I think I have that one down.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 25, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, some "enthusiasts" concentrate on one particular "style" or technique, thereby negating your premise that they are more well-rounded.
> ...



I think Crap'pe is - it's french, which makes it stylish.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 26, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> I think Crap'pe is - it's french, which makes it stylish.




So if I shop at Tar-jzay and Jacques Pen-yea, I'm automatically stylish?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 26, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> Doesn't matter who is doing it, as long as they love it, it shows.* If money gets in the way, its time to rethink it, the results are what counts and the might dollar doesn't change those results.
> *
> May the passion be with you
> 
> Danny.


sounds idealist and heartfelt, i could have sworn i buy my gear with money though..


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 26, 2014)

480sparky said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > I think Crap'pe is - it's french, which makes it stylish.
> ...



Sure, but only if you stop for lunch at Shae-Mcdonalds on the way home.. lol


----------



## sashbar (Apr 26, 2014)

A pro is usually good in his particular area, where he is, we'll - a pro. But he can be quite weak in other genres. A wonderful pro landscape photog can be hopeless as a street shooter, a forensic photographer who is a pro in shooting a crime scene, might have never ever shot a wild life because he knows nothing about birds etc. A technical prowess, as important as it is, is only a part of photography, and every particular genre of photography needs it's own specific knowledge and/or talent. You can not buy talent by just going pro, and you can not be a pro in all genres. One thing that is clearly better is their ability to organise the photography business. Having said that some amateurs are successful businessmen.  If you are a devoted enthusiast with deep enough pockets to devote a lot of time into your amateur photography, and I mean most of your time , you can be better than any pro, simply because you love it so much and work harder and aim higher. The only thing a pro will be better at in this case is how to monetise it. As we know a pro has to spend 80% of his time not on photography itself, but on the business of building relations with clients, promoting himself and selling his stuff. An amateur who does not need to earn a living has the luxury to devote all his time to the creative part of his hobby.

But this is all just theory. In real life most of us are lazy bastards, who lack ambition and put  a real effort only when our mortgage is at stake, so yes, forget all what I said, because in real life a pro is usually better.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 26, 2014)

^^^^
And there you have it.....every MWAC making a few bucks from stock, uncreative, standard poses is better than you.  So give it up......send me all your gear and find something new to do with your spare time.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 26, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> ^^^^
> And there you have it.....every MWAC making a few bucks from stock, uncreative, standard poses is better than you.  So give it up......send me all your gear and find something new to do with your spare time.



Yikes.  Ouch.  Sigh.  Ok, well give me your address and I'll get everything boxed up and...  HEY!  Wait a minute!   Lol


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 26, 2014)

A Pro makes money from photography.  Everyone else is an amateur. A pro can be the guy who shoots thousands of similar portraits of all the school kids that get published in the school yearbook.  Boring.  Not very creative.  But consistent, important and possibly very profitable.  Anyone who has sailed on a cruise ship knows the half dozen photographers who shoot and sell setups, table shots, dinner table and random shots around the boat and sells them to guests.  Not exactly extremely creative.  The point is a Pro is making money.  Now the enthusiast may be making interesting shots with very creative and new concepts, often better than the aforementioned Pros.  We can _ooh _and _ahh_.  But if he's not selling them he's still an amateur, enthusiast or whatever.    

PS:  I'm glad I'm a retired amateur photographer and don't have to work anymore.      Making a living from this seams fraught with problems.    If you're a very good photographer, you'll be competing with enthusiasts that also make very nice or even better pictures and willing to give them away cheap.  So you have to be a better businessman, know how to sell yourself and develop a niche to reduce competition.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 26, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> A Pro makes money from photography.  Everyone else is an amateur. A pro can be the guy who shoots thousands of similar portraits of all the school kids that get published in the school yearbook.  Boring.  Not very creative.  But consistent, important and possibly very profitable.  Anyone who has sailed on a cruise ship knows the half dozen photographers who shoot and sell setups, table shots, dinner table and random shots around the boat and sells them to guests.  Not exactly extremely creative.  The point is a Pro is making money.  Now the enthusiast may be making interesting shots with very creative and new concepts, often better than the aforementioned Pros.  We can ooh and ahh.  But if he's not selling them he's still an amateur, enthusiast or whatever.  PS:  I'm glad I'm a retired amateur photographer and don't have to work anymore.      Making a living from this seams fraught with problems.    If you're a very good photographer, you'll be competing with enthusiasts that also make very nice or even better pictures and willing to give them away cheap.  So you have to be a better businessman, know how to sell yourself and develop a niche to reduce competition.



Correcto. You're not a professional until you make your living doing it. Just because you cook at home doesn't mean you're a chef. You also don't have to be good to be a pro... So....


----------



## unpopular (Apr 26, 2014)

I don't think professionals are inherently not as good, but professionals I think are more limited, and these limitations may reflect overall artistic interests and views regarding what makes a good photograph based on their finding as a successful photographer.


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

&#8203;I like turtles.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 26, 2014)




----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

I...what did...how...where did that...I'm not...who...?


----------



## unpopular (Apr 26, 2014)

well, in Michigan we've got quite a few.


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

unpopular said:


> well, in Michigan we've got quite a few.



Well then, I imagine I also like Michigan. Now I just have to visit it to be sure.


----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> Well then, I imagine I also like Michigan. Now I just have to visit it to be sure.



It's just like Maine, except more cheese and worse beer.


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Well then, I imagine I also like Michigan. Now I just have to visit it to be sure.
> ...



I like cheese. But I also like beer. Not bad beer, though. Maine has less cheese but what it has is good, right? And turtles? Definitely oceans.

unpopular, your avatar says you are in Montana. I wonder how many "M" states we can throw into the mix here?  Eh, don't bother. Maine is going to win.


----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> I like cheese. But I also like beer. Not bad beer, though. Maine has less cheese but what it has is good, right? And turtles? Definitely oceans.  unpopular, your avatar says you are in Montana. I wonder how many "M" states we can throw into the mix here?  Eh, don't bother. Maine is going to win.



Do you like bean suppers? We seem to have a lot of those here.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 26, 2014)

I hate threads like this, and I'm tired of bribus starting them.

This one, in particular, has two hot buttons that always lead to 20 page threads and locks. The first is the mention of the mythical *professional*. The second is comparing two groups of photographers in a broad sense and applying a qualitative measure to them.

Neither of these course of discussion is productive, as they always lead to the same place... nowhere.


----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Neither of these course of discussion is productive, as they always lead to the same place... nowhere.



  Well as I always like to say, nowhere is at least somewhere sometimes elsewhere.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


sorry but im not sure what maine would win. i think the only worst state i've been to is ohio. Sorry to skip to the letter O. BUT... Now, i cant freakn stand ohio. yah, maine is stupid cold, grey, snowy, poor as hell, and yeah the tourist have beaches here, which us natives can use in the winter when they are gone i suppose.
Ohio, i dunno. i used to go there once a year, Other than the airplane museum, a dirty pond people actually think is nice to swim in, and the fabulous sites of Dayton and the local bowling alley i didn't see much. im still shocked they swim in that dirty pond and call it a state park. i didn't even dare go in the water.

OH WAIT. i can think of something good about ohio. 

*DRIVE THROUGH LIQUOR STORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
I never even had to get out of the truck to buy beer there!!


----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> sorry but im not sure what maine would win. i think the only worst state i've been to is ohio. Sorry to skip to the letter O. BUT... Now, i cant freakn stand ohio. yah, maine is stupid cold, grey, snowy, poor as hell, and yeah the tourist have beaches here, which us natives can use in the winter when they are gone i suppose. Ohio, i dunno. i used to go there once a year, Other than the airplane museum, a dirty pond people actually think is nice to swim in, and the fabulous sites of Dayton and the local bowling alley i didn't see much. im still shocked they swim in that dirty pond and call it a state park. i didn't even dare go in the water.  OH WAIT. i can think of something good about ohio.  DRIVE THROUGH LIQUOR STORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never even had to get out of the truck to buy beer there!!




That reminds me, yesterday I was driving down 219 and saw some lady texting and swerving, I got so mad I threw my beer at her.


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I like cheese. But I also like beer. Not bad beer, though. Maine has less cheese but what it has is good, right? And turtles? Definitely oceans.  unpopular, your avatar says you are in Montana. I wonder how many "M" states we can throw into the mix here?  Eh, don't bother. Maine is going to win.
> ...



Well, I AM a vegetarian, so bean suppers might be nice, actually! 



bribrius said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Well, bribrius, we totally agree about Ohio. I lived in Pittsburgh for four years and am dating a man whose mother comes from Michigan, so I am duty-bound to hate Ohio. Plus, nothing ever good happened to me in Ohio.

As for Maine, I like winter and I like the ocean. And I've been there enough times to know that I feel comfortable there. And yeah, you've got tourists on the beaches in summer, but what do I have in terms of beaches right now? The Long Island Sound? Or Jones Beach? God, I think I'd rather swim in a puddle than go to Jones Beach. To get to the better ones on the Atlantic, you first have to go through Long Island (shudder) and then you have to deal with all the rich snobs in the Hamptons. So don't talk to me about beaches 

Besides, the other M states don't cut it:

-Montana: Too far from the ocean. Mountains might be nice, but I'd rather have big water. Seems a bit too insular.
-Minnesota: I'd probably go because at least they're close to big water (lakes) and I don't mind that it will be very cold in the winter. My boyfriend hates winter, though, so he won't move there with me.
-Mississippi? I can't stress enough how I will never ever ever EVER live in the south again. 
-Michigan or Missouri? Too midwestern for me. I'm an East Coast girl. Quite frankly, I feel a little out of place everywhere, but it's the least pronounced on the East Coast. 
-Maryland? Too close to DC and too hot for me in the summer. I despise summer. Hate it with a passion.
-Massachusetts. I'd go to Mass with no problem. I love Boston and came >< this close to moving there at one point. If I remain with my boyfriend (which is highly likely) however, I won't be moving to Mass. He doesn't like the politics. 

That leaves Maine.


----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

Our beans are cooked in moose fat.


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> Our beans are cooked in moose fat.



Oh. Um. Okay, no then.


----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> Oh. Um. Okay, no then.



Yup everything is part moose.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



eh. I've lived in both Maine and Montana. in many ways, the two states are similar, but also very different. Missoula in particular reminds me of Maine in a lot of ways. We lived in Billings before we moved here. That's an entirely different experience. Not nearly as friendly.

People in Missoula are super nice. Pretty much my only complaint is the traffic. For a small city the traffic is terrible. That and the ocean thing.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 26, 2014)

huh. i lived in the miss once. wasn't bad. Delaware was kind of nice i only crossed over to Maryland on occasion though. usually to watch my uncle the taxidermist stuff animals or drown kittens in the water when the cat had kittens. he just tossed them into a bag and threw it in.
mass, i like mass actually. The politics in maine suck, not sure if you knew that. And i think it is against the law to be a vegetarian in maine. You might want to look at Vermont.  Newhampshire, is actually real nice, with better politics. have you thought of west virgina? w is just a upside down M. And west Virginia is gorgeous. poor, but gorgeous.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> And i think it is against the law to be a vegetarian in maine.



most certainly not in the midcoast region. lots of hippies around belfast.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> &#8203;I like turtles.



Me too, especially with lettuce & tomato. :lmao:
http://cdni.tutorialchip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Cool-Turtle-Wallpaper-520x325.jpg


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh. Um. Okay, no then.
> ...



I am cool as a moose. Just won't eat moose.




(God I SO need to start working out again and get those arms back.)



bribrius said:


> huh. i lived in the miss once. wasn't bad. Delaware was kind of nice i only crossed over to Maryland on occasion though. usually to watch my uncle the taxidermist stuff animals or drown kittens in the water when the cat had kittens. he just tossed them into a bag and threw it in.
> mass, i like mass actually. The politics in maine suck, not sure if you knew that. And i think it is against the law to be a vegetarian in maine. You might want to look at Vermont.  Newhampshire, is actually real nice, with better politics. have you thought of west virgina? w is just a upside down M. And west Virginia is gorgeous. poor, but gorgeous.



West Virginia...oh dear lord NO! I lived in Pittsburgh, remember? I know all about West Virginia. You say upside down M, but look closer - West Virginia is giving everyone the finger. They do have that funky Hare Krishna Palace of Gold near Wheeling, but really, no. Just no.

I've had no issue with food whenever I was there. I do eat seafood sometimes, so I'd be spoiled for fish and lobstah.

I'm amused that two threads have been derailed at the same time, and both now talking about the merits and demerits of living in Maine


----------



## table1349 (Apr 26, 2014)




----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> I am cool as a moose. Just won't eat moose.  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=72423"/>  (God I SO need to start working out again and get those arms back.)  West Virginia...oh dear lord NO! I lived in Pittsburgh, remember? I know all about West Virginia. You say upside down M, but look closer - West Virginia is giving everyone the finger. They do have that funky Hare Krishna Palace of Gold near Wheeling, but really, no. Just no.  I've had no issue with food whenever I was there. I do eat seafood sometimes, so I'd be spoiled for fish and lobstah.  I'm amused that two threads have been derailed at the same time, and both now talking about the merits and demerits of living in Maine



Wow, you're hot!


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I am cool as a moose. Just won't eat moose.  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/photographic-discussions/72423-enthusiasts-better-all-around-photography-than-pros-snapshot_20090808_5.jpg"/>  (God I SO need to start working out again and get those arms back.)  West Virginia...oh dear lord NO! I lived in Pittsburgh, remember? I know all about West Virginia. You say upside down M, but look closer - West Virginia is giving everyone the finger. They do have that funky Hare Krishna Palace of Gold near Wheeling, but really, no. Just no.  I've had no issue with food whenever I was there. I do eat seafood sometimes, so I'd be spoiled for fish and lobstah.  I'm amused that two threads have been derailed at the same time, and both now talking about the merits and demerits of living in Maine
> ...



:blushing:


----------



## unpopular (Apr 26, 2014)

speaking of M's....





(courtesy: wikipemedia)


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

Where is that?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 26, 2014)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > And i think it is against the law to be a vegetarian in maine.
> ...


sshhhhhh.
'im trying to discourage her we have enough implants and outa staters...


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Hey, I can fit in. You won't even realize I'm an outah-statah, ayuh?


----------



## runnah (Apr 26, 2014)

limr said:


> :blushing:





Well I was not expecting it!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 26, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > :blushing:
> ...



Your avatar + this post =


----------



## limr (Apr 26, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Okay, THAT is cracking me up! :lmao:


----------



## unpopular (Apr 27, 2014)

limr said:


> Where is that?



Missoula. I'm literally sitting only feet from that mountain right now.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 28, 2014)

Light is light what ever you shoot


----------



## daviddein (Apr 29, 2014)

bribrius said:


> if you are a pro shooting the same basic thing, all the time. you would i expect become excellent in the field you generally shoot. However i imagine you would gain less experience shooting other things.
> 
> if you are a enthusiasts, shooting many things, would that make the enthusiasts better at all around photography than the pro?
> 
> ...


I think so!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 29, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Light is light what ever you shoot



But film is better than light, and sound travels slower, and time is a fabricky wibbly wobbly thing, and Canada.

Sorry, I'm not good at this whole trying to sound smart thing.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 30, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Light is light what ever you shoot
> ...



Just saying if you know how to use a camera properly you can shoot anything


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> [...]and Canada.



I recently watched Stories we Tell.

I can't stop saying aboot now.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 30, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Light is light what ever you shoot
> ...



Sounded pretty smart to me.  Especially the fabricky wibbly wobbly thing.  Spacey Timey really.  The delicate tapestry of fate which is then used to form a toupee for the Gods.  Or something like that.  Ok, I need cheetos.  Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 30, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Just saying if you know how to use a camera properly you can shoot anything




Same thing with a Barret Browning .50. Less recoil on the D5200 though. Thankfully.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

Yes, enthusiast are better. Why? Because.

Pros tend to overdo the preachy of technicality; whereas, enthusiast are often untrained and more artistically driven than pros. Technical matters are hard qualities. Art is soft, and soft qualities tend to produce better results-- not just in photography, in many aspects of life. I think there was an intellectual masturbation thread floating around that expresses just this. The passionate ones will say shut up and shoot.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Yes, enthusiast are better. Why? Because.
> 
> Pros tend to overdo the preachy of technicality; whereas, enthusiast are often untrained and more artistically driven than pros. Technical matters are hard qualities. Art is soft, and soft qualities tend to produce better results-- not just in photography, in many aspects of life. I think there was an intellectual masturbation thread floating around that expresses just this. The passionate ones will say shut up and shoot.


troll


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> minicoop1985 said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



...you mean fish fingers with custard, right?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

bribrius said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, enthusiast are better. Why? Because.
> ...




don't think so. there is much truth to this, and it applies to much more than photography


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

oh. so you're just pretentious then?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

unpopular said:


> oh. so you're just pretentious then?




pretentious would be a pro knocking on all the amateurs. i didn't read beeb's thread, but to answer his topic question, I think that enthusiast are better for the simple reason that they are not corrupted by the teachings of others...obviously, a very blanketing statement, but i hope you get what i mean. 

there are pros that are better, but in general, I think amateurs are more passionate about there art; whereas, pros do it for work. and then there are those who are pros but jus living out their passion.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > IronMaskDuval said:
> ...


Perhaps. I haven't noticed a single tornado pic on here even though its a photography site, but they are everywhere else in the media. somebody is slacking...


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

bribrius said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...




negative, good sir. i just haven't had a nado visit my hood. i've had these severe storm alerts but nothing has come of them


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > oh. so you're just pretentious then?
> ...



So what exactly would be an amateur knocking another amateur then?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

unpopular said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



As I said, it was an over blanketing statement as amateurs are can be pretentious as well.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

I do get what you're saying. But what you're neglecting to take into account is function. An art object must be viewed within context.

For a professional, commercial photographer their view on what makes a good photograph will differ from that of an enthusiast. Certainly your bias runs both ways, but you cannot say one is inherently inferior than the other due to differences in the contextual standards for which the art object was created.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

(then again, as a formally trained artist, I must be intrinsically corrupt by my own education!)


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

unpopular said:


> I do get what you're saying. But what you're neglecting to take into account is function. An art object must be viewed within context.
> 
> For a professional, commercial photographer their view on what makes a good photograph will differ from that of an enthusiast. Certainly your bias runs both ways, but you cannot say one is inherently inferior than the other due to differences in the contextual standards for which the art object was created.




Come over and have a beer and we can discuss this waiting on these dang tornadoes.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Yes, enthusiast are better. Why? Because.
> 
> Pros tend to overdo the preachy of technicality; whereas, enthusiast are often untrained and more artistically driven than pros. Technical matters are hard qualities. Art is soft, and soft qualities tend to produce better results-- not just in photography, in many aspects of life. I think there was an intellectual masturbation thread floating around that expresses just this. The passionate ones will say shut up and shoot.



So professionals only care about the technical issues?  That's a pretty dim view to take.  Most of the working pros I know are quite good.  Good enough that there work clearly outshines the amateurs when displayed side by side.   Why; because not only does their work show consistent technical mastery, but it shows clear vision and understanding of the visual language.  Not only that, but to a man they are all passionate about photography.  They live and breathe it.  Many will try to keep time open just for "personal work"; the work they do just to feed their soul, rather than please a client.   Most of them also started out as passionate amateurs who built up a portfolio and worked their butts off to make a career of what they love.   I challenge you to find me a pro who isn't passionate about photography;  who got into it "for the money" rather than because of a love for photography.   

The difference between a pro and an amateur is that a pro has to deliver technically competent work; under a multitude of circumstances, on demand, and often following the vision of someone else (art director/creative director).  Most amateurs just want a pretty picture.  The idea of telling a story or conveying an emotion is often secondary, if considered at all.   Many amateurs have no interest in learning about art or visual language beyond "Rule of Thirds", and it shows in their work.   I've seen people so enslaved to the very basic understanding of ROT that pervades the photography community that their work suffers tremendously from it.  

Of course, there are plenty of incredibly talented amateurs out there who simply choose not to go pro.   Just as there are numerous half-assed shooters polluting the lower end of the price scale who have become convinced that mediocre images of pretty things is somehow indicative of their awesome talent.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, enthusiast are better. Why? Because.
> ...



Scatterbrained, I have much respect for you, but I didn't read your entire response, as my post didn't really have much meaning to it. What I can tell you, is that the difference between the graphic designers who work for me that were professionally trained and those that weren't is that the ones who weren't produces more and faster with a higher client satisfaction result. I was over blanketing, and my comments have many fallacies, but it was very general.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

I strongly do not think you can really separate the technical from the artistic, the issue with technical/creative is within that dichotomy itself and neglecting the reality that the techniques we use to create art are inherently technical.

Exposure is a perfect example of how people try to fit something that a photographer does have artistic control into a rigid and "proper" box. There really is no such thing as "proper" exposure; the concept is absurd. This is especially so when the dynamic range is beyond the technical limits of the sensor or film. *Something* has to go, making exposure into something less ridged and more "soft". 

I think this is one thing that makes a good photographer. You don't photograph light, you photograph the representation of light. You're not bound by it, you work within it.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, enthusiast are better. Why? Because.
> ...


if the rule of thirds enslaves the mind of the amateur (a learned behavior and your own example of training) then why wouldn't the hundred similar technical indoctrinations a pro learns enslave them even further?


" technically competent work; under a multitude of circumstances, on demand, and often* following the vision of someone else (art director/creative director)."

*ahh yes. a further testament.

I of course would not encourage anyone to NOT become educated and competent, careful of indoctrination of course.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > IronMaskDuval said:
> ...



People act as if technical direction came before the first stroke. Someone, some group created the rules of what's subjectively correct before art was ever made. Really?


----------



## unpopular (Apr 30, 2014)

Actually, the role of art has been historically much more rigid than contemporary views, and thus, what is acceptable as art likewise was traditionally much more "technical". I think it is very fair to say that, in at least the lay person's view, what is "art" still reflect to a great degree an appeal to the tradition of classical art.

In particular, it wasn't until the greeks was aesthetics even a concern in Western art, and even so, the concept was lost to a degree durring the dark ages. Art was serving primarily as communicative for much of history, and from this the foundation for aesthetics was laid, not visa versa.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

unpopular said:


> Actually, the role of art has been historically much more rigid than contemporary views, and thus, what is acceptable as art likewise was traditionally much more "technical". I think it is very fair to say that, in at least the lay person's view, what is "art" still reflect to a great degree an appeal to the tradition of classical art.



It's simply a human classification. To say that Picasso was classical or technical is anything further from the truth. Like science, if it doesn't fit, make it fit. Is that really technical? Surrealism as a technical art is absurd. You'd make a great drinking buddy. When are you coming over?


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the role of art has been historically much more rigid than contemporary views, and thus, what is acceptable as art likewise was traditionally much more "technical". I think it is very fair to say that, in at least the lay person's view, what is "art" still reflect to a great degree an appeal to the tradition of classical art.
> ...


he might be right here, sad to say. Though I would love to argue and troll this, I don't think id win it. I think you would have to go back to cave man days to avoid art being rigid. Even ancient rome and I think the Aztecs or mayans had special artisans that did the artwork. And of course if you didn't create properly for the king there is the chance you might be beheaded..


something else of course though, even the rigid standards taught today wouldn't be considered real "art " back then and it properly had a small fraction of the rules they have invented now. Many of these art teachers and rule teachers would most likely not be chosen by the king they would be cleaning royal the horse stalls.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


well, art of course came before technical direction. The primary is art, the secondary the direction which is more methodologies in which to have the art transpire through the mediums selected.  I think the problem becomes, if you throw out the technical direction (totally learned behaviors) you would have to conclude that the thousands of years developing the technicals wasn't a progression of human thinking and mastery but a misguided failure of it. which would also put those multitude of artworks in history in question as they were based on these learnings. Are we willing to contend that most classical art was based on failed progressions?

I think the easier argument would be, the technical side of the arts was administered by the powers in charge, with the multitude of the peasantry folk subjected to slavery or at least financial slavery and limited education. So the art was able to be controlled and developed under controlled condition limited from the average commonfolk. Where as now with more freedoms, accessibility, and at least basic learnings the tradition art held has now left the selective groups that have controlled its development and made its way into the populace which doesn't hold to such previous restrictions and methodologies. ONe could argue, the traditions of the past were stifling art and its development in this context and decided by the limited few that were allowed.. perhaps?


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 30, 2014)

CLIFF NOTES!


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > IronMaskDuval said:
> ...



Ok, so you didn't need to borrow that baseball bat with all the nails in it?  Sigh.  Fine, let me just put that back in the closet.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> CLIFF NOTES!



yeah I pity you. I didn't even read it. cliff notes for tornado pic maybe?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 30, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > IronMaskDuval said:
> ...


  The issue is that some get so "enslaved" to the ROT that they insist on composing every image on the "eyes" of the ROT, which can actually create quite stiff, tedious images.  The whole point of learning about design and visual language is so you can see for yourself what actually works in an image and _why_.  You can analyze a subject or scene and determine how you want to compose and light the scene or subject to best convey your emotion or idea.  The issue is that many amateurs never go beyond the ROT.  Oftentimes when confronted with the concept of design theory and visual language they will vehemently disparage the concept; often citing some absurd example of "contemporary" art as if that example alone renders nugatory centuries of study of visual language.  



> * following the vision of someone else (art director/creative director)."
> 
> *ahh yes. a further testament.


Yes it is another testament.  Oftentimes a commercial shooter has to meet the expectations of the client, not only in image quality, but in being able to convey the ideas presented.    If an AD calls you and says "I want an image that represents the oppressive burden of debt", what do you do?   Maybe a photo of a stack of unpaid bills?  How do you light them?  With dramatic, high contrast backlighting to give drama to the image, or with soft front light to render them less intimidating?  Where do you place them in the frame?  High and off center to give a sense of unbalanced weight, or low in the middle to give them a feeling of stability?   Where do you shoot from?  Up high to minimize their size or low and close to emphasize their looming size?   These are things a commercial shooter would think about that your average amateur wouldn't.    That doesn't meant that the "average" amateur wouldn't subconsciously work towards these same things, but oftentimes they can't elucidate why they did what they did, or how it works. This can make it difficult to reliably get results.    I will render for you Scott Kelby's "Crush the Composition" as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.    It's an hour long video that gets rave reviews from amateurs, yet it can be summed up in one sentence; "keep moving around the subject and shooting till you get something you like".  That's it.  It takes him an hour to say that and no real knowledge has been imparted.  Meanwhile hobbyists the world over lap it up, because that's about how far they want to go with their knowledge.  

Again, I'm not saying these are black and white differences, and like all things in life people fall all along the spectrum; but since the difference between pro and hobbyist is being discussed, it's worth pointing out that most often pros are the guys who worked to take their craft to the next level.  They may have started as amateurs, but they worked to get better,  to elevate themselves and their images.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 30, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> CLIFF NOTES!


Whose Cliff?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 30, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > IronMaskDuval said:
> ...


Would this be the Cliven Bundy approach to photography?


----------



## CdTSnap (Apr 30, 2014)

[sarcasm]Look guys, clearly im not a PRO but I am basically the best photographer out so..... [/sarcasm]


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 30, 2014)

CdTSnap said:


> [sarcasm]Look guys, clearly im not a PRO but I am basically the best photographer out so..... [/sarcasm]



Dude.. seriously, it's Nascar.  Drive straight, real fast, get to end, turn left, turn left again, then repeat.  One big circle after another.  Who's in car 43?  Who cares.  It's some guy named Bubba or Junior or maybe Bubba jr.  It doesn't matter, it's Nascar.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 30, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Would this be the Cliven Bundy approach to photography?



As opposed to the Al Bundy approach to photography?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 30, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Would this be the Cliven Bundy approach to photography?
> ...


Yep there is a difference....Al was the enslavie.....Cliven wants to be the enslavor.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 30, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> CdTSnap said:
> 
> 
> > [sarcasm]Look guys, clearly im not a PRO but I am basically the best photographer out so..... [/sarcasm]
> ...


Oh you don't know today's NASCAR too good now do you?  They now have some courses that are road courses.  Left & RIGHT turns all in the same race.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


no I cant keep going down this road. For one he is a smart cookie and I agree too much with him to play the other side, for two, arguing for ignorance isn't really my thing, and his wording is becoming more careful. I had this long thought out response, but really. why bother if I agree too much with the gentlemen. 
on another note. im trying to figure out why a church in one of my photos isn't level. buildings next to it are, staircase is, church isn't. Thought maybe lens diffraction or whatever but on two different ranges it isn't level. no idea. Maybe it really just isn't level im scratching my head....:scratch:


----------



## manaheim (Apr 30, 2014)

8 pages of this?

head->desk


----------



## bribrius (Apr 30, 2014)

manaheim said:


> 8 pages of this?
> 
> head->desk



.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 30, 2014)

This thread needs some eels.


----------



## unpopular (May 1, 2014)

bribrius said:


> well, art of course came before technical direction.



I sincerely doubt that cave men were worried about if their cave paintings were pretty. They had better things to do, like not getting eaten! Cave paintings, stone beakers and monolithic architecture are what initially defined what art is, not the other way around in some ethereal wishwash!


----------



## robbins.photo (May 1, 2014)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > well, art of course came before technical direction.
> ...



You know I was just thinking the other day that I needed to run out and pick up some more etheral wishwash.  I'm running kind of low.  Come to think of it I also need some more C-4.  Oh, and q-tips.  Ahh crap.  Think I need to make a list.  Back later... lol


----------



## unpopular (May 3, 2014)

be sure to handle that ethereal wishwash carefully. Proper storage of metaphysical materials is essential!


----------



## table1349 (May 3, 2014)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > well, art of course came before technical direction.
> ...



Oh if you only knew the truth......
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pEEVth8TR...-I/s1600/cave_painting_art_critic_cartoon.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OBOZFH8HNns/TWKg_9tiC8I/AAAAAAAAAwo/iMuhV18NTPU/s1600/cavemen.jpg


----------



## bribrius (May 3, 2014)

unpopular said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > well, art of course came before technical direction.
> ...


For someone that claims to be formally schooled in the arts im still trying to figure out what the hell you learned....

Prehistoric art - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


did you skip or fail art history?


:scratch::scratch:

you also just totally tried to flip sides in this. I said art came FIRST before the rules in those times, rules came after


----------



## manaheim (May 3, 2014)

I think that's probably enough.


----------

