# I have noticed something. Have you?



## Joshua_Lee (Sep 13, 2010)

I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)

Now what I have noticed is that anyone with an SLR now thinks they can shoot professionally within a few months of owning a camera. I would be glad to shoot you for free, but wouldn't think of accepting money at this point in my experience. Just yesterday a friends sister asked me if I would shoot her engagement and bridal portraits. I told her, "I would be glad to do them for free and if she likes them, then she could keep them. If not, then get a professional to shoot them. I just like the practice."

Do people jumping in quickly not ruin the reputation of professional photographers? I just wanted your thoughts. This spawned from a friend of mine who does photography with about the same experience as I have, and charges people for the shoots. 

I guess my question is to you all is. What defines a professional, or can art be defined? How off track am I in thinking this? 

Cheers,


----------



## tirediron (Sep 13, 2010)

My opinion is that a "professional" is one who makes all or a part of his income from photography.  It is by no means an indicator of skill.  I have seen many outstanding amateurs whose abilities put to shame professionals.

There's a common belief among professionals, and indeed many amateurs too I think, that the proliferation of inexpensive DSLRs has flooded the market with 'wanna-bes'.  Does it really hurt the "real" professionals all that much?  I don't think so, because at the end of the day, skill is what matters, and I suspect that 99% of the wanna-bes never get passed their first job.  What it does do is make choosing a really good photographer for your event more difficult.


----------



## AgentDrex (Sep 13, 2010)

So, yeah, me too, a buddy of mine told me he wants me to shoot his wedding after seeing some of my photos...I told him the same thing, you want to hire someone who has been doing photography for a lot longer than me, I am flattered, but seriously...don't bloat my already big ego by telling me such awesome stuff like I'm good enough to do professional style wedding photos...screw that!  Sure, I'd like the practice but I don't want to be the guy stuck capturing the memories...not yet...


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Sep 13, 2010)

It dosen't ruin the repuation at all, quite the opposite... it DEFINES the true professional.

Its open market capitalism.... and keeps the "professional" honest. If someone who's been at it for 3 months is getting money off of it.. .then more power to them.  If a professional is sitting back complaining about how people with 3 months experience are taking away customers... then that "professional" needs to take a big step down off of his ivory tower and come to terms with the fact that he isn't all that good.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Sep 13, 2010)




----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2010)

Joshua_Lee said:


> I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)
> 
> Now what I have noticed is that anyone with an SLR now thinks they can shoot professionally within a few months of owning a camera. I would be glad to shoot you for free, but wouldn't think of accepting money at this point in my experience. Just yesterday a friends sister asked me if I would shoot her engagement and bridal portraits. I told her, "I would be glad to do them for free and if she likes them, then she could keep them. If not, then get a professional to shoot them. I just like the practice."
> 
> ...



Your post contains several questions that have been beaten to death over the past two years or so. But yes, yes, and yes. Oh, no,wait, I mean, yes, hard to define, and it can be defined, and your observations have been noted. The current craze of MWAC and GWC photography has brought the standards of "professional" photography down to incredibly low levels, probably as low as they have ever been. We now have one- and two-year "professionals", who are entirely self-taught, having taken no classes, had no mentors, and read basically no books, starting up photography businesses.

Today, the web is FILLED with absolutely horrible MWAC and GWC shooters who cannot even handle something as simple as white balance, have no idea when to turn the camera vertical (if they ever do!), have no idea about composition or lighting or anything except how to run Photoshop actions. Entirely self-taught. Think about that. There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.

The Judge Joe Brown wedding photographer episode was a laugh riot.


----------



## bigtwinky (Sep 13, 2010)

I think its a mix of dSLRs being so cheap (compared to the film days) but also the fact that the majority of people now use various social media sites to display their images (myspace, facebook,...).  These places compress the crap out of images and they will look like crap, no matter who takes them.  Not many people print and mount.

So with the expectation bar set so low in terms of quality, add to that the influx of people with cameras..you get a very oversaturated market at the low end.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Sep 13, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Joshua_Lee said:
> 
> 
> > I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)
> ...


You should see the listings in the local Craigslist for photogs. Hell, just the other night I was out shooting and was talking to a guy with a new D3s, he was shooting on auto!  As a matter of fact, I was watching a parade recently and noticed that all of the DSLRs around me were in auto.     These are the same people advertising on CL as event and portrait photogs.  (just for fun I will sometime check the exif on these "pro" photogs images)   I think the sour economy hasn't helped as people see the camera as a quick way to make some extra money.  Entry level DSLRs have replaced Amway and Mary Kay as ways for uneducated jobless individuals to try and "make it" or just make ends meet.   The fact that most people know nothing about photography and are so awash in snapshots that they use them as a meter doesn't help matters as it encourages poor photography.  



bigtwinky said:


> I think its a mix of dSLRs being so cheap (compared to the film days) but also the fact that the majority of people now use various social media sites to display their images (myspace, facebook,...).  These places compress the crap out of images and they will look like crap, no matter who takes them.  Not many people print and mount.
> 
> So with the expectation bar set so low in terms of quality, add to that the influx of people with cameras..you get a very oversaturated market at the low end.


There is a similar effect in music that is termed the "MP3 effect", people have become so adjusted to listening to poor quality renditions of their favorite music that they begin to prefer it to higher fidelity alternatives.


----------



## tnvol (Sep 13, 2010)

I couldn't agree more.  A while back my wife paid someone to take pictures of her and my kids in a park and I was pretty shocked at how bad they were.  If they had been free pictures from a friend I could have delt with it better but she paid a couple hundred bucks for pure crap.


----------



## AgentDrex (Sep 13, 2010)

Re: MP3 reference:

Monkey Audio is pretty hi-quality...but for a compressed format, I happen to love OGG...


----------



## JG_Coleman (Sep 13, 2010)

I think, though, that a whole lot of this issue revolves more around "service" photographers. The idea of the crappy wedding photographer (just watched Joe Brown on YouTube...LOL) is a far cry from that of stock photographers, for example.

There are really two major portions of the photography business... 

A) The photographers that get hired to photo-document something. They are being hired to take photos.

and 2) the photographers who sell their photography as-is, from a portfolio and/or stock agency.

As far as the "as-is" photographers go, such as in stock photography, the quality of their work speaks for itself. Their "performance" as a photographer is simply a measure of their current portfolio. It's rather difficult, I think, to pull the wool over customer's eyes in this type of photography. They are getting precisely what they are paying for... and there really isn't much room for surprises there.

I don't think that beginners entering into the field can really spoil that type of photography too much at all... either they are genuinely good and get sales because they deserve them, are they are't that good and don't make sales. It's pretty cut-and-dry.

"Service" photography is a different story, of course... and that's already been covered.


----------



## mwcfarms (Sep 13, 2010)

I admit I am one of those people who bought a DSLR a while ago. Few months back. I had previously shot with a Minolta 35mm straight out of high school for my moms newspaper business doing their darkroom developing and ad copy. Pretty low key. Insert, college, kids, life and have only recently gotten back into the fray so to speak. 

Do I want to become someone who profits from my pictures. Yes. Will I charge for my time and services again yes. I don't think that a horrible idea. My time is valuable. Do I want to present myself in the best possible professional aspect. Absolutely. I am taking classes, and reading and practicing like a mad woman.  Always trying to grow. 

So I guess that makes me one of these people the OP is referring too. I am not a professional by certain standards but in a years time I hope to be making money from sessions that I am doing for free now to grow and expand on. Sue me.


----------



## Crushy (Sep 13, 2010)

I think with the bar set so lowly, over a period of time it will show who the truly talented people are, amateur or professional. Unfortunately in todays economy, those people might not have the time to have people wade through the mass of people claiming to be professionals.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Sep 13, 2010)

AgentDrex said:


> Re: MP3 reference:
> 
> Monkey Audio is pretty hi-quality...but for a compressed format, I happen to love OGG...



Yeah, I still listen to MP3s, but I use Creative Media players and Bose headphones, so it helps.  Here is what I was refferencing..


> Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford University, recently  completed a six-year study of his students. Every year he asked new  arrivals in his class to listen to the same musical excerpts played in a  variety of digital formats&#8212;from standard MP3s to high-fidelity  uncompressed files&#8212;and rate their preferences. Every year, he reports,  more and more students _preferred_ the sound of MP3s,  particularly for rock music. They've grown accustomed to what Berger  calls the percussive sizzle&#8212;aka distortion&#8212;found in compressed music. To  them, that's what music is supposed to sound like.


I recommend reading the whole article if you haven't already, it's quite interesting..... http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough?currentPage=all


----------



## AgentDrex (Sep 13, 2010)

I'm a professional amateur, maybe I should raise my bar a little, then I can be an amateur professional and later on just be a professional...


----------



## astroskeptic (Sep 13, 2010)

Derrel said:


> There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.



I would be willing to bet that a reasonably intelligent, motivated person with integrity could develop into a high quality pro using nothing more than the web as a resource; the fact that this may be a departure from tradition is irrelevant IMO. 

I think much of the dialog around here assumes pseudo-pros without integrity but let's not forget that many people do have high levels of integrity and IMO there is exactly zero problem with a person selling a service, regardless of its quality, as long as they do not misrepresent themselves. 

The problem you are all discussing, that of low-quality services flooding the market is something that, by assumption, a free market will take care of. It is certainly not unique to the photo industry. Digital cameras simply lowered entry barriers to the point where anyone can get into the game. Yes, the service supply side has gone way up and demand presumably hasn't changed so the inevitable result according to economic theory is price reduction. But the good news for you pros is that supply has only dramatically increased at the low-quality end of the service spectrum so hopefully if you're not competing in that end of the market, you're still in good shape.


----------



## israel09 (Sep 13, 2010)

I don't think how you learned Photography should affect your merit as a Photographer.

Web,Books,Class,Self or Whatever.  It will  never teach you to see art, art is defined by ones soul or mind, each is different.

All a class will teach you is how to use a camera and what the functions mean. Maybe some basic rules of composition.  

Actually using a camera on your own time and putting passion into to it can far surpass Class and text. 

Someone who just wants to become good at photography so they can look cool among others will have a harder time than someone who actually has a passion and loves it.

You can know what every function on a camera does but you can still be a crap photographer...... but if you have knowledge AND talent it may give you an advantage

BUT! if you are a passionate photographer, you can easily figure out what every setting does, it's COMMON SENSE and words.  not Quadratic Equations!!!!  The Simplicity of art  has a difficulty that is immeasurable when compared  to trivial camera functions and small rules of photography.    

You cant buy talent. You can only Practice it.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2010)

astroskeptic said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.
> ...



I want to go to a doctor who learned medicine all on his own, with no classes, no books, no mentors--just from the web.

I want to board a jet aircraft that is maintained by self-taught mechanics who learned all about aircraft mechanics from the web. No stuffy schools or mentors or certificates of accomplishment, just web-educated.

I want to hire a dentist who never went to dental school, never had a professor, never had an associate, but is a sole practitioner who learned entirely from YouTube videos.

I want the United State military (Army,Navy,Air Force,Marines, Coast Guard) to fire all the officers who attended the military academies,and who have studied warfare and battle tactics and strategies, and to replace them all with self-taught "leaders" who have learned from YouTube and back issues of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

I think we should all look toward hiring 20-something year-old carpenters with six months to two years' experience to build our dream house. Forget those old dudes who learned the business first-hand from actual master carpenters...a year's worth of YouTube videos is a far,far better education than learning from multiple masters and apprenticing to learn how the business is supposed to be done.

Yeah, "how" and "from whom" one learns has absolutely, positively NO BEARING on how qualified and well-taught a person is. Right.


----------



## dannystoria (Sep 13, 2010)

Scatterbrained said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua_Lee said:
> ...




I am an amateur photographer. I admit I don't know a lot about photography. And I'm probably one of those people that you would get mad at for using auto all the time. I am willing to learn and to get better but the problem I have run into is people not being helpful. I have tried to learn how to do different things and to get critique but all I get is criticism. That helps nobody grow. I was hoping to learn a few things from this forum on how to develop my skills but the more I look at the posts the more discouraged I feel. I wanted to post some pictures for you guys to critique but I'm afraid all I will get is what's good and what's not good. Not how to fix things or make it better. I think it's a shame because I am very passionate about photography and I want to share but I am afraid of being picked apart. I am all for CONSTRUCTIVE critique but not for being dogged for producing something someone might not like. Some people aren't yet pros at this and I think it would be good for people to keep that in mind.


----------



## israel09 (Sep 13, 2010)

Although I see your point Derrel. my post was just to state that not having a education about the subject doesn't automatically make you crap at photography. 

but imo the examples you gave were a little extreme when compared to photography as an ART. Though some of the skills you listed are technically an art in there own sense. But they completely in a different spectrum than photography. though your point is.   respected and taken

but someone really wants to learn and has passion will pick up a book and read it , they will find photographs and accomplished photographers that inspire them.


----------



## Whootsinator (Sep 13, 2010)

Derrel said:


> astroskeptic said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




You, Sir, are just plain silly.  I can't put it any other way. I don't even have the time or motivation to argue in depth with a post like yours. Ignoring governmental regulations, photography doesn't exactly decide whether someone lives or dies.


----------



## tnvol (Sep 13, 2010)

dannystoria said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



I agree.  It sucks that people can't be nicer when providing feedback on pictures.   Reading things like "This hurts my eyes" and how this is "dreadful" and that is "horrid" is kinda lame.  Not very constructive at all.  If looking at a poorly composed picture hurts your eyes, maybe you need to find a different hobby.  The internet let's anyone be a prick.  Sadly enough, some are allowed to be pricks because they can take good pictures.  It's the nature of message boards.


----------



## white (Sep 13, 2010)

tnvol said:


> I agree.  It sucks that people can't be nicer when providing feedback on pictures.   Reading things like "This hurts my eyes" and how this is "dreadful" and that is "horrid" is kinda lame.  Not very constructive at all.  If looking at a poorly composed picture hurts your eyes, maybe you need to find a different hobby.  The internet let's anyone be a prick.  Sadly enough, some are allowed to be pricks because they can take good pictures.  It's the nature of message boards.


All feed back is useful, even one word comments. Some people don't feel like writing a thesis, and we sure as hell don't get paid per word.


----------



## JG_Coleman (Sep 13, 2010)

Well, while I see where you're coming from Derrel, I think that israel09 raises the important point that photography differs very much from some of the examples you provide.

Doctors and military strategists must rely upon a thousand-year-old legacy of information just to educate themselves to the level of today's playing field.  Photography requires comparatively very little background knowledge.  Granted, entire shelves of books can be filled with worthwhile information on photography... but _entire libraries_ could potentially be filled with all of the knowledge that humans have amassed on the topic of warfare and medicine.  That's no small consideration.

If anything, the field of visual art is one of the few remaining fields  in this specialized world where autodidacts can still excel and impress  the world...  seemingly emerging from the shadows... previously unheard  of... with no formal education to be found in the records.  Some the  finest nature photographers of the past decades never completed their  freshman year of college.  If they did get a degree, it oftentimes didn't even relate to photography... psychology, business, etc.  Note that outdoor/nature photography is my interest, which is why I refer to it in particular.

But let's even think of "people" photography.  I've looked at whole lot of historic portrait photography.  I've sifted through hundreds of portraits in my father's genealogy collection... taken from many parts of the world during all eras of the camera's evolution.  Some are well-done... others scream," I was taken by the only guy in town that knew how to use a camera in a half-way decent fashion."

Let me just say this: contrary to what some would like to believe, there has been no era of history since the development of photography when so-so photographers weren't making damn good money here and there.

But, interestingly, people somehow seem to recall "back in the day" as this very idealized time when things were "as they should be".  Well... it was never really like that.

Even in 2,000 year old Taoist texts, there is speak of the dire situation that characterized the ways of the modern world.  How terrible things were becoming... how backwards things were... how degraded and without honor and respect and learning people had become...!  Surely, they thought, the world would soon come to an end.  Every successive generation, for dozens upon dozens of generations, has said the exact same thing in different words.  Yet, here we are.  Things go on...  And the generation that was harshly criticized by its predecessors becomes the new "good old day" for the proceeding generation... and so on and so on.

Sure... there are tons of crappy photographers out there.  Sure...  because of wide-spread access to the Internet, we see their work  unendingly.  Sure... some are able to swindle buyers into sub-standard  products.

But what else is new?  That's just business as usual folks... for the last couple thousand years.  To say that the over-abundance of affordable D-SLRs will over-turn professional photography is simply an over-reaction to change.  It reveals a latent insecurity on the part of professionals, really... either in themselves and their own ability to compete, or in the intelligence of their customer.

Either way, H. G. Wells said it best: "Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative."  Change is the nature of the beast...


----------



## LiveStrong2009 (Sep 14, 2010)

I guess I don't feel that people actually are considering themselves professional, they just wish to.  I think many realize that they are still amateur, however many have slightly more advanced skill and knowledge than the idiots who just point and shoot, without taking a second to consider composition etc...

Some of us like to try to advance our skills, but do not come close to calling ourselves professional.  It is almost a disappointment looking at professionals' photos because they have soooo many.  I look through my 3,000 photos from when my interest was sparked, and I can pull out ohhh 30 that are pretty good, 2 or 3 that I am really really proud of.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

Joshua_Lee said:


> I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)
> 
> *Now what I have noticed is that anyone with an SLR now thinks they can shoot professionally within a few months of owning a camera.* I would be glad to shoot you for free, but wouldn't think of accepting money at this point in my experience. Just yesterday a friends sister asked me if I would shoot her engagement and bridal portraits. I told her, "I would be glad to do them for free and if she likes them, then she could keep them. If not, then get a professional to shoot them. I just like the practice."
> 
> ...


 
You will never have any credibility in what you say if you exaggerate this much.

Obviously not everyone that owns a DSLR is trying to be a pro, this is simply absurd.

I will agree that a lot of people try to be a pro when they arent ready. The good photographers will still be the good photographers though, and the earth will continue to turn.

Just a few days ago my friend asked me to screen 3 photographers for an event he needs shot. It was two guys and a woman, and they all had websites with galleries. 

I looked at all three, and the woman's work was simply terrible compared to the other two. Poor lighting, poor composition, WB way off, etc.

Guess what she didnt get the job, based on my recommendation. 

I recommend you stop worrying so much about this.


----------



## Sharfy (Sep 14, 2010)

dannystoria said:


> I am an amateur photographer. I admit I don't know a lot about photography. And I'm probably one of those people that you would get mad at for using auto all the time. I am willing to learn and to get better but the problem I have run into is people not being helpful. I have tried to learn how to do different things and to get critique but all I get is criticism. That helps nobody grow. I was hoping to learn a few things from this forum on how to develop my skills but the more I look at the posts the more discouraged I feel. I wanted to post some pictures for you guys to critique but I'm afraid all I will get is what's good and what's not good. Not how to fix things or make it better. I think it's a shame because I am very passionate about photography and I want to share but I am afraid of being picked apart. I am all for CONSTRUCTIVE critique but not for being dogged for producing something someone might not like. Some people aren't yet pros at this and I think it would be good for people to keep that in mind.


 


Totally agree! we amateurs need a constructive criticism. If we are posting something that means we need ideas on how can we make our work better. So sad those comments which are disgraceful and not good came from amateurs also and some pro's who have superiority attitude (not all). There is always an improvement in us who are passionate and dedicated amateurs in photography. For me I will only get those good advices and filter those bad comments in evaluating my work. Don't let someone push you to limitations but say I CAN DO BETTER and I CAN IMPROVE what I love most


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I want to go to a doctor who learned medicine all on his own, with no classes, no books, no mentors--just from the web.
> 
> I want to board a jet aircraft that is maintained by self-taught mechanics who learned all about aircraft mechanics from the web. No stuffy schools or mentors or certificates of accomplishment, just web-educated.
> 
> ...


 
Derrel...

I think if you read your post again verry carefully you will see that these things are nothing like being a pro photographer.

These are jobs where peoples lives depend on them doing things correctly.

Edit:

Also most of these jobs are not something that people do for a hobby...


----------



## MissCream (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Joshua_Lee said:
> 
> 
> > I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)
> ...



He said ANYONE, not EVERYONE.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

MissCream said:


> He said ANYONE, not EVERYONE.


*From Dictionary.com
an·y·one
Any person at all; anybody: Did anyone see the accident? 

Usage note 
Anyone as a pronoun meaning anybody or any person at all is written as one word: Does anyone have the correct time? The two-word phrase any one means any single member of a group of persons or things and is often followed by of: Can any one of the members type? Any one of these books is exciting reading. Anyone is somewhat more formal than anybody

You are failing to comprehend the context of the word usage.

He meant "anybody", which means "any person".

Nice try though.

I am an English Major by the way...

*


----------



## MissCream (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > He said ANYONE, not EVERYONE.
> ...




Thats neat your an english major. Congrats. Your mom must be very proud of you.
Where I come from anyone does not mean everyone. Also your quote, Did anyone see the accident? Does not mean did everyone see the accident...


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

MissCream said:


> Thats neat your an english major. Congrats. Your mom must be very proud of you.
> Where I come from anyone does not mean everyone. Also your quote, Did anyone see the accident? Does not mean did everyone see the accident...


 
Thats what context is lol...

Words can be used for different things depending on the context.

Edit: In my opinion he used the wrong word, and thats why its a little confusing. I do know what he was trying to say though.


----------



## MissCream (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > Thats neat your an english major. Congrats. Your mom must be very proud of you.
> ...




Agree to disagree then? I think we went a bit off topic but I'm pretty sure he didn't mean everyone.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

"with an SLR now thinks they can shoot professionally within a few months of owning a camera"

^^ This part is the key.

What is before this is simply setting up the point he is making here.

You can add "anyone" "everyone" "anybody and it mostly means the same thing.

Something that is the opposite would change the meaning, like "nobody".

Hes just saying that people get their first DSLR, and then they think they can be a pro right away.


----------



## mrsmacdeezy (Sep 14, 2010)

Totally agree with you!!! I've only been at this a few months, but whatever I do for people will be free for a while... because I'm not anywhere near the level I'd like to be in order to charge. Some things may not be as bad as once in a lifetime events, like weddings. Weddings is one thing that really burns be up! I was looking at a friends professional wedding pictures online the other day, and I couldn't believe the amount she paid for those horrible pictures!


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

I have to agree entirely with the OP. I've had my DSLR for a bit and have been shooting in manual for a little over a year. So many times people have inquired if I do any professional work and I have to explain to them that me having an entry-level professional camera in no way means I produce images anyone should pay for.

I'm not as frustrated by peer amateurs that present themselves as professional as much as people who expect that having the camera magically means the photographs comes out at a professional level. 

..though, I suppose its these people who go to Best Buy, pick up a Rebel and jump on here to post about Watermarks, Pricing, and Website hosting >_<

:lmao:


----------



## Derrel (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I want to go to a doctor who learned medicine all on his own, with no classes, no books, no mentors--just from the web.
> ...



I think most of you are entirely,entirely missing the point; the totally self-taught, uneducated, unstudied, no-mentor, no training, no associate, single practitioner is bound to be less well-educated that a person who has followed the centuries-old traditions of learning from people with MORE experience. it does not matter if anything is life or death; what about the carpenter example??? What about the dentistry example--dentistry is largely cosmetic, seldom life and death...

I think it's pretty amusing to see the dumb questions being asked by people who are charging for photos. And even though photography might be considered a discipline where somebody can pick up a camera and turn out good work, the vast majority of such people are churning out absolute crap...horizontal framing of vertical subjects, dead-centered bullseye "compositions", laughable lighting,etc,etc. it's amusing to hear how so many people think that learning how to run the light meter and spin a dial is "photography". Of course, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and today's Facebook and MySpace "professionals" with six months to one year of entirely self-taught "skill" are pretty much nothing more than bottom feeders trying to make ends meet.

As the OP pointed out, there are a LOT of people who think that buying a d-slr is all it takes. They learn how to get the exposures right, but have zero skill at "photography". The point I was trying to make, which seems to be entirely missed is that there is a centuries-old tradition of learning; those with MORE skill TEACH those with less or no skills and no knowledge. THat is the way things have been done for centuries, and it's been proven to be the best method for passing on knowledge. THose who cannot understand that the knowledge of the group ALWAYS, always,always is greater than that of the individual really are not doing much thinking...and of course, they're making comments about the fallaciousness of my post!!

Maybe there's a reason so many of these untrained, self-taught, single-practitioners are making the big bucks doing the $25 family sessions via Facebook...


----------



## redtippmann (Sep 14, 2010)

Hey.... I do those $25 Facebook sessions

But I do agree with Derrel, these trends are getting real old real fast. I know a lady who is the exact definition of unskilled mom who bought a camera and now thinks she can do senior portraits. And people pay her $180 a session!


----------



## Sharfy (Sep 14, 2010)

I do watermarking when I post a picture I want to share just to protect it from posers and those who will use it. But when someone appreciate and ask me to take a shot on their events I never ask for money, will never ask that thing untill I know my real capablities. (but I love myself coz I learn from people and like in this forum)

Newbies who are posting questions and asking for opinion here are just starving for knowledge of photography improvement and I dont see problem with it. When you ask it means you are very eager to learn more.......

I am a newbie and I don't call myself a pro- I dont ask even single cent... a smile on my subject is the best payment I can recieved.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I think most of you are entirely,entirely missing the point; the totally self-taught, uneducated, unstudied, no-mentor, no training, no associate, single practitioner is bound to be less well-educated that a person who has followed the centuries-old traditions of learning from people with MORE experience. it does not matter if anything is life or death; what about the carpenter example??? What about the dentistry example--dentistry is largely cosmetic, seldom life and death...
> 
> I think it's pretty amusing to see the dumb questions being asked by people who are charging for photos. And even though photography might be considered a discipline where somebody can pick up a camera and turn out good work, the vast majority of such people are churning out absolute crap...horizontal framing of vertical subjects, dead-centered bullseye "compositions", laughable lighting,etc,etc. it's amusing to hear how so many people think that learning how to run the light meter and spin a dial is "photography". Of course, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and today's Facebook and MySpace "professionals" with six months to one year of entirely self-taught "skill" are pretty much nothing more than bottom feeders trying to make ends meet.
> 
> ...


 
4 out of 5 at least man...

People could easily die from poor construction by a carpenter. I am sure you will agree with that.

Your post was fallacious...

You failed to back up how the comparison was valid.

I do understand the point you are trying to make though.

I agree that it is not beneficial to the profession of photography to have all these self taught people with very little knowledge and experience.

What can you do about it though?

There was a reason I pointed out the differences in your comparisons of the other professions to photography. It's because those are all (or mostly all) professions that require licenses, certifications, or tests to do, because people could get hurt or die if they mess up.

What&#8217;s the worst thing that can happen if a photographer messes up? At the worst they would probably just hurt themselves, and even that&#8217;s not very likely.

Saying something like "photography while skydiving" or anything like that is dangerous doesn't count, because that&#8217;s like saying "chewing bubble gum while skydiving is dangerous". It would be the skydiving that is dangerous.

How can you require a license for something that is creative by nature, and subjective as to what is really good and bad?


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

There are certifications for photographers. All professional fields develop certification standards and procedures in order to establish and maintain said standards.

When I, out of curiosity, went up to a typical Mall Photography Studio and asked them if they are hiring and what qualifications are involved they mentioned a degree, certification, and/or an extensive portfolio.

Until a time nano-technology allows for direct transfer of memories from one individual to another, there is little substitution to learning from more knowledgable, experienced members of society.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 14, 2010)

OK sure I admit I am one of those people. I've had the camera for 6 months now and yes, I do charge people. But I know one thing that can separate me from the rest of the group (people who just bought cameras who think they can become professional):
1. I am a fast learner when it comes to ANY computer programs. I am THAT guy at work (engineering firm) where everyone asks question to when they have software question. 
2. I have messed around with photoshop for many years. Some of you have seen what I can do with Photoshop.

So my point is, digital photography involves heavily on post processing as well. So I think just because I've only shot for 6 months you could just say I shouldn't charge people. I know more PP than most beginners and some seasoned professionals.(I am putting my fire suit on.. let the flaming begin!)


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> There are certifications for photographers. All professional fields develop certification standards and procedures in order to establish and maintain said standards.
> 
> When I, out of curiosity, went up to a typical Mall Photography Studio and asked them if they are hiring and what qualifications are involved they mentioned a degree, certification, and/or an extensive portfolio.
> 
> Until a time nano-technology allows for direct transfer of memories from one individual to another, there is little substitution to learning from more knowledgable, experienced members of society.


 
Ya, but its not REQUIRED!

To be a medical doctor you are REQUIRED BY LAW to be licensed.

I highly doubt that there is any law, in any state, requiring a general purpose professional photographer to be licensed or certified in order to take pictures in exchange for money.

If I am wrong, by all means please tell me so, but remember to back it up with facts and details or it means nothing.

I say general purpose, because people like you will come back with some off the wall thing like...

"Well NASA requires this special license, and that you are a certified astronaut to take pictures in space".


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

Well, I can go down to mexico and practice medicine tomorrow.

Law isn't a good thing to reference as this is a global community.

"People like you" :lmao:


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

Certifications for occupations such as practicing medicine arrose out of necessity. Individuals who practiced medicine in the past made mistakes and caused more harm than good, so it was a necessity to produce licenses and certifications and then require them by law.

In medieval europe, if you wanted to enter a profession you apprenticed and eventually were of high enough quality to enter into a social standard by the guild into which you were allowed. I'm not equating taking a photograph to open-heart surgery, I'm simply trying to show the flaws in the logic that was being proliferated here.

So perhaps the law needs to catch up here, where the only regulation to date is business models, demand.. and you get what you pay for.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> OK sure I admit I am one of those people. I've had the camera for 6 months now and yes, I do charge people. But I know one thing that can separate me from the rest of the group (people who just bought cameras who think they can become professional):
> 1. I am a fast learner when it comes to ANY computer programs. I am THAT guy at work (engineering firm) where everyone asks question to when they have software question.
> 2. I have messed around with photoshop for many years. Some of you have seen what I can do with Photoshop.
> 
> So my point is, digital photography involves heavily on post processing as well. So I think just because I've only shot for 6 months you could just say I shouldn't charge people. I know more PP than most beginners and some seasoned professionals.(I am putting my fire suit on.. let the flaming begin!)


 
Don't listen to these guys Schwetty...

They are on a witch hunt for pro photographers that havent been to some fancy school, or that werent taught by some master.

Becoming a photographer doesn't require that you go visit Pai Mei...

At the end of the day whats really important is that you did a good job and that the customer is happy. How you get to that point doesnt really matter that much in my opinion.

Like I said in an above post, the quality of the work by the average pro photographer has probably dropped over the years. 

This is only because there are now so many more people that consider themselves professionals, and that many of these self-taught people have poor knowledge and abilities.

Thats not to say that you can't be self-taught and still be a good pro photographer.

The bad ones will be seen as bad, and the good ones will look all that much better because of it.

There was some woman on here a while back talking trash about some other pro photographer, and how she could take much better pictures. I told her something like "If it's true that you can take much better pictures, you should thank them for making you look that much better"

Cream always rises to the top, and if you deserve the jobs they will come to you. Its not that hard to stand out if everyone else is bad.

I don't understand why people get so upset and worried about what other people are doing.

The biggest challenge to overcome is within yourself, it is not other people.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> Certifications for occupations such as practicing medicine arrose out of necessity. Individuals who practiced medicine in the past made mistakes and caused more harm than good, so it was a necessity to produce licenses and certifications and then require them by law.
> 
> In medieval europe, if you wanted to enter a profession you apprenticed and eventually were of high enough quality to enter into a social standard by the guild into which you were allowed. I'm not equating taking a photograph to open-heart surgery, I'm simply trying to show the flaws in the logic that was being proliferated here.
> 
> So perhaps the law needs to catch up here, where the only regulation to date is business models, demand.. and you get what you pay for.


 
No the law doesnt need to do anything here.

Being a pro photographer is so much different from being a medical doctor for so many reasons.

If the U.S. was going to make a law saying that you need to be licensed to be a photographer, then they will need to pass many more laws as well.

Whats next? 

A law requiring a license to paint a picture and sell it?

What about a license to write a book? Lets also make it so the government has to approve the topic for "safety reasons". 

We can't have any free thinking going on now can we? That would be too dangerousyikes!

How about a law requiring a license to walk down the street while we are at it? Ya thats a good one, I would definitely vote for that.

I can't stand this mentality that everything needs to be controlled and regulated.


----------



## pbelarge (Sep 14, 2010)

There are BILLIONs of people in the world. That leaves a lot of _'room'..._


Let the new photogs take photos and charge. Generally there are those who are looking for bargain prices, we in this country have grown up learning to seek out the lowest price and bargain as consumers.

So...
Let the _new "photographer_" round up all of the bargain hunters and the _"professional_" can concentrate on those with discriminating eyes and a larger pocket book to fulfill each other's needs.


What this means is the newbie is saving the experienced from those who are just looking for a bargain. 

Do some slip through the cracks? Yes, so what. 

Who does this type of business really hurt? The marginal professional who got by with mediocre talent and now cannot compete...those will become endangered species, the REAL professional photographers will survive.

BTW:
Photography is no different than any other profession, meaning: The grass is no greener next door.


----------



## Joshua_Lee (Sep 14, 2010)

Man I love forums! I can't believe I have found a forum for photography and proper grammar in the same place. I will have to remember that next time I post a picture followed by a story. 

Couple of things:

To the guy who thinks I am worrying about this. It was just something I observed and not something I am worrying about. I personally know 3 people who have purchased a DSLR in the last year. All 3 now have websites and are charging for their work. Sorry if I may have exaggerated. Do you spend countless hours writing your local news telling them they exaggerate their stories. My exaggeration was to get my point across. Also, the reason for this forum is for criticism whether good or bad. It is what makes us better at what we do. We live in a society now that thinks it is disrespectful to reveal the truth to someone. They would rather have smoke blown up their butt so they do not feel bad. Me, you can be as mean or as nice as you like. I will grow off of the average of what you way. 

Most of you seem to agree on the original point I was trying to make. You see the above mentioned in every business whether it be landscaping, construction, design, service, etc. There is always someone out there that jumps into a profession based on little knowledge. They then charge cheap pricing undercutting the ones who actually do quality work. I guess they get away with it most of the time do to the general public's lack of knowledge in the product or service they are seeking. 

Thanks all who replied. I wanted your opinions and I got them. Outside of my 3 friends with DSLR's, I don't get to speak to other photographers very often. That is why I like this forum. It's full of information whether good or bad. It is up to us to weed out the good from bad.

Cheers,


----------



## bhee321 (Sep 14, 2010)

If someone see's your work.. regardless if your work is good or bad.. if they are willing to pay for that quality.. then so be it.  someone put a rock in a box and made a million dollars.. people were willing to pay for it.. so be it.. simple as that..


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

I'm on no witch hunt nor do I think everything needs to be regulated, it's simply unsettling to hear people lessening the value of a proper education in any field/profession. There are always exceptions, individuals who operate outside of the normal realm of perspective and thought, and thats when you get individuals with no formal education that push and extend the field. 

The point Derrel and other individuals are trying to explain is that this is becoming a statistical trend - people thinking they can supplement an education and experience with more expensive equipment and post processing. That's all, no need to flame on



Neil S. said:


> Thats not to say that you can't be self-taught and still be a good pro photographer.



I hope so, as I'm an individual who has never had nor have any intention of obtaining a formal education in the field of Photography. I am and will pursue my passion for medicine (formally, I'm not a big fan of mexico) and will educate myself when it comes to photography - so I'm hoping I can eventually be a decent photographer.

btw.. the reason I entered the discussion wasn't to demean or flame anyone, but the reaction to the OP's and Derrel's position, which is a valid one. In my year observing and learning from this forum I can honestly say Derrel is one of the most knowledgeable, informative, comprehensive and coherent contributors to TPF and the nitpick-y, narrow-minded responses to his post are frustrating when the point has so blatantly gone above the responder's head.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> No the law doesnt need to do anything here.
> 
> Being a pro photographer is so much different from being a medical doctor for so many reasons.
> 
> ...





mrmacedonian said:


> ...the point has so blatantly gone above the responder's head.



^


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> The point Derrel and other individuals are trying to explain is that this is becoming a statistical trend - people thinking they can supplement an education and experience with more expensive equipment and post processing. That's all, no need to flame on


 
First I would like to apologize to the OP. 

You are right that you were simply making an observation, and that my statement of "why do people worry so much about others..." was unnecessary.

That is just something I have seen a lot here, people complaining about how bad some pro is.

@ mrmac...

You make a good point here.

This is no different than some other professions though.

I remember my mother went through a phase where she thought she was going to be a professional writer. Then she went through another one where she was all set to be a professional watercolor painter.

Of course she is neither now lol.

Anything that is both a relatively inexpensive hobby, and a profession, is something that people will try and make money at. This is especially true if it requires no formal training or license.

I understand your point, what I don&#8217;t understand is what you propose that we do about it. 

It is what it is.

Please don&#8217;t say require a license to do it, because it will seriously send me over the edge lol...


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

No, I wasn't trying to suggest that we require a license for someone to take photographs >_<

My comparison to other professions that have established certification was one to show that it evolved to the point at which they are today.

My suggestion was that perhaps its a burden on the true professional photographers to establish standards then maintain them, accepting individuals that meet those standards under their reputation, hence my medieval guild analogy.

I don't think that photographs should be cookie cutter, but I believe you need to have a firm understanding of rules to break them, so it should be nothing to expect of individuals looking to break the rules and get paid to show an understanding of the foundation of the art in which they are calling themselves professionals.


----------



## israel09 (Sep 14, 2010)

I understood his point

But , When reading the first post I read it as "You dont go to school,,you suck!" lol

The internet has a mono-tone infliction , so I'm glad he cleared it up.  

It seems hes directed toward the people who charge for pictures just because they have a good camera and no will to improve themselves.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> No, I wasn't trying to suggest that we require a license for someone to take photographs >_<
> 
> My comparison to other professions that have established certification was one to show that it evolved to the point at which they are today.
> 
> ...


 
It seems to me that its more about the customers than the pro photographers.

As was already stated before, there are certifications that you can get. This has not stopped the massive influx of self-taught people from getting into the business.

As long as the customer is willing to pay less for sub-standard work, nothing will change.

To be honest I feel that this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion here.

You could compare this to being a musician. 

You could say that there are all kinds of people trying to make it in the industry taking the work from the real pros.

These same people (I have a cousin that does this) are usually just working small time gigs, like clubs and bars. Who really cares? I know I don't.

They arent taking away the record deals, or the stadium concerts from the real pros, so why does it matter?

No matter what we feel about it, complaining wont help anything. This I am 100% sure of.

I could tell you about 100s of things that I dont like in this world. I know that it wont change anything though, so whats the point?


----------



## AgentDrex (Sep 14, 2010)

Well, I have to say this, generally I think that Derrell's viewpoints are admirable and useful, but comparing the un-traditionally-educated photographer to an unlicensed doctor, dentist, carpenter, etc. is just strange.  The self-taught photographer is not going to kill someone if they don't know what they are doing with a certain technique. 

 Its almost like you're saying that you have no respect for people who teach themselves photography as a passionate hobby instead of shelling out money to someone who may or may not know what they are doing themselves just so the photographer can have a hobby...

I'm self-taught, which means I didn't take a Mass Communications course, but I did know enough to go to the correct areas to learn on my own without shelling out money which was better spent, IMO, on equipment that I could practice with.  I didn't need to pay anyone how to turn the camera on, take the lens off, point it at a subject and press a shutter button.

I did need to look for answers on the web for composition tips, f-stops, shutter speeds, etc., but I knew logically where to look, what to take in as good knowledge and what to dismiss as bullocks.

I do not misrepresent myself in anyway about where I got my knowledge or how "good" I am at photography.  I show people my photos, tell them I am a self-taught amateur and they seem to be impressed even more that I can take, what they consider, good photographs without "formal" training.  I believe formal training is really using a camera, having a true passion for it, and not putting the camera down until you start developing a real eye for it.

If people get upset that others with expensive DSLRs are making money by simply leaving their camera on AUTO, yet other people who know all the intricacies of the relationships between shutter speed, focal length and aperture do not make a dime off of their photos, then I believe they should probably get out there and start marketing themselves quickly. 

The reason those Auto users are making money is they are letting their expensive-a55 camera do everything for them and they have more time to go out there and sell themselves.  The geeks on the other hand that know all the facets of photography have most likely spent more time learning, on their own, all the facets of photography and have no clue how to market themselves.

Going to school does not necessarily make a good photographer.  A passionate person makes a good photographer, regardless whether they are self-taught or "formally" educated.

If you don't like Auto users making money, then go out and start marketing yourself.  Just make sure your photos look better than the person making money off of photos done in auto mode.

That's it, flame away on me now.


----------



## misstwinklytoes (Sep 14, 2010)

Those d@mn evil MWC!  How dare they take mediocre pictures of people!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 14, 2010)

Im a DWC!  Darn proud of it LOL :lmao:


----------



## tnvol (Sep 14, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Im a DWC! Darn proud of it LOL :lmao:


 
I am too.  I have fun with photography and will continue to do so.  Snapshots and all.  lol


----------



## mrmacedonian (Sep 14, 2010)

@ADrex

Well I mentioned that business is what regulates professional photography but my point was different, so I didn't want to go on any tangents.

Since you mentioned it, I wanted to mention that I looked at Photography degree curiculums around Columbus (Ohio State University, Wright State University, Columbus State Community College) and even in the case of CSCC, the community college, which offeres a 2year degree in Digital Photography, has significant requirements in marketing, business, and communication for just these reasons.

I believe an important distinction is being missed in this threat -- a *good* photographer versus a *successful* photographer; not mutually inclusive.

Business has a lot to do with poor/average/mediocre photographers being _successful_.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> THose who cannot understand that the knowledge of the group ALWAYS, always,always is greater than that of the individual really are not doing much thinking


 
This is not always true in my opinion.

Bruce Lee was arguably the greatest martial artist of all time.

He felt that the individual martial arts of his day were too limiting, and just created his own.

It is called "Jeet Kune Do" or "_Way of the Intercepting Fist_".

This style of martial arts removed many of the restrictions that others have long had. It is about tailoring your fighting style to your strengths, and it&#8217;s very effective.

This is why he said things like "Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water".

Long story short, the individual martial arts knowledge of one man was greater than that of billions of others throughout the ages. 

This is how I see it at least. Feel free to disagree if you wish.

One thing that is a fact here is that you CAN break the mold and create something beautiful. Bruce Lee and countless others have shown us that throughout history.

I would never agree that you can only learn from others, and a collective.

That sounds like the Borg to me lol! Bad news.

Edit: I know you were saying that the group is greater than an individual. What I mean is that Bruce Lee did something new, and his martial arts knowledge surpassed that of the rest of the world at that time. At least in my opinion.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Sep 14, 2010)

redtippmann said:


> But I do agree with Derrel, these trends are getting real old real fast. I know a lady who is the exact definition of unskilled mom who bought a camera and now thinks she can do senior portraits. And people pay her $180 a session!


 
So what you are saying is that she *CAN* do senior portraits.... because people are paying her $180 a session.

If she only "thinks" she can... people wouldn't be paying her.

I think a lot of you guys aren't seeing what is going on here.... If you are that much better of a photographer than these newbs... then why would what these newbs be doing bother you?  

I got offered $200, a free bridal suite, free dinner for my wife and I, all the booze we could drink, and a free tank of gas to do a wedding (I turned it down) based off of what someone, whom I've met 3 times in person, saw I had posted on facebook.

You may THINK that an amature who just baught a DSLR a week ago isn't able to do "photography"... but the paying customers say other wise.


----------



## misstwinklytoes (Sep 14, 2010)

Yep, Boom, you're right.

People pay for what they want.  If they don't want to pay $500 and are willing to accept the level of skill of a $180 photographer, they'll do it.  

A lot of people feel that way.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

Photography is more art than a technical skill.  If you have an IQ larger than your own shoe size,  and you can read a manual and a book, you can quickly understand and put into practice the basics of photography.  As compared to other professions being cited in this discussion, it's relatively low on the "how hard is it" scale in terms of being able to get a proper exposure.

The hard part is developing an eye for what makes a good photograph in many cases, especially as it relates to natural light photography.  If you take things to the next level and use lights, things become even more complex, but still... nothing on the order of flying a commercial airliner or conducting an organ transplant.

But I must agree that if you want to learn quickly, reduce the number of mistakes you make, and avoid future bad habits a mentor is a great way to go.  It's a time honored tradition, and one that has worked well for countless generations.  As with any artistic medium, studying under the guidance of someone respected in the field or whom you admire is a great way to learn how to do things.

The internet is actually a great resource and you can apprentice under more than one accomplished photographer by making use of the medium.  To say someone is "self taught" by the internet isn't really accurate.  The content on the internet was posted by someone else.  The internet by its very nature is interactive.  It's not like the information just happened to populate itself out here.  If you have access to images, technical information, and even better, the photographers themselves to ask questions of, that is in fact mentoring.  You can post images using techniques detailed online, ask questions, get critiques, and take what you've learned to your next shoot.  To dismiss the internet as a learning tool is pretty short sighted, IMHO.  I find it amusing that so many people who use the internet daily find every opportunity to bash it as a medium in general.  In reality the internet has revolutionized the dissemination of information.  It is the most powerful information tool our civilization has ever built.

I used the internet to find people in my area I could work with directly.  I found a 13 year wedding photographer that's very highly respected in our region who was willing to take me in and show me the ropes.  We've shot many times together and I've sat for hours picking his brain.  We've become good friends, and we met via the internet.

I've joined several groups that conduct studio photography instructional sessions that I found on the internet.  This is where I first learned about studio photography and was able to get hands on experience.  I met many very talented people this way, and again, have made many friendships... some virtual and others "real world".

I don't believe the professional landscape is any more polluted today than it was years ago.  As JG Coleman noted, it's common for those with more experience to dismiss out of hand the new generation.  How many times have we heard stories of the "good old days" by people who compulsively live in the past regardless of the topic?  When I was in the Marines, our instructors constantly reminded us just how much harder things were 20 years before us.  They too were told by their instructors how only real Marines were produced before their time... it's an endless cycle, one born of an over inflated sense of self worth and ego.  As many of us age we assume our skills, experiences, and knowledge are superior to that of the next generation when in reality it's the next generation that brings a new perspective and forces evolution.

Imagine how boring music would be if the Beatles never came on the scene... or Elvis... or Lady Gaga...    They pushed the envelope doing things their predecessors thought were ridiculous, talentless, and even the work of the Devil in some cases.  Not all new artists will be revolutionary thought leaders, most will wither and die on the vine... as they always have.  Some will eek out a meager existence doing ho-humm work, some will excel... some will lose interest and move on to other things.

It's the natural order of things.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Sep 14, 2010)

Joshua_Lee said:


> You see the above mentioned in every business whether it be landscaping, construction, design, service, etc. There is always someone out there that jumps into a profession based on little knowledge. They then charge cheap pricing undercutting the ones who actually do quality work.


 
That is not true... they are not "under cutting"... they are keeping them honest, be hit landscaping, construction, design, sevice, etc.... 

If a landscaper charges $2,000 to install a lawn... and I post on craigs list that I want a lawn installed and get a bid for $500.. and they do the job to my liking, then the landscaper that is charging $2,000 is over charging. 

You also see in every business someone who thinks that they have the right to charge someone X amount of dollars even though someone out there is willing to do it for less... and then they will complain that "they aren't getting the quality"... which honestly, is total bull crap 95% of the time anyway.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Sep 14, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Photography is more art than a technical skill.


 
I submit that photography is more business than art skill....

Art is subjective.... in order to be sucessful at it, you need to be able to set your price right, market yourself right, advertise yourself right... and follow through with what you say you are going to do.

I could go our right now with my camera phone... point it straight down and the pavement and take a picture of a rock, print it out on canvas... and with some clever business skills, could sell that picture to thousands of people.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I would never agree that you can only learn from others, and a collective.
> 
> That sounds like the Borg to me lol! Bad news.
> 
> Edit: I know you were saying that the group was greater than an individual. What I mean is that Bruce Lee did something new, and his martial arts knowledge surpassed that of the rest of the world at that time.


Bruce Lee learned from others in his youth, it is what gave him his base of knowledge from which he built his own skills.  Bruce Lee wasn't born a martial artist.  

My argument is that the internet can be a tremendously useful tool for learning... a tool which our elders didn't have the benefit of using "back in the day".

Back to your point.

I remember my mom telling me that computers (including calculators) were useless and crippled a persons critical thinking.  She believed that engineers used slide rules, pencil and paper to figure things out.  She was an engineer for AT&T "back in the day".

My buddy who works for his dad's company had to pull his dad kicking and screaming into the modern age.  His dad, an engineer, used a drafting board to design his companies hydraulic pumps.  My buddy brought CAD into the organization, much to the angst of his father, years ago.  Of course now it's the accepted standard and his far more experienced father was dead nuts wrong... as was my mother.  However, my buddy learned his trade from his father, he only expanded upon that base of knowledge using new technologies and processes foreign to his father.

In an ideal setting the old and the new feed off of each other and help each other to grow, learning isn't a one way street.  But unfortunately many conceited elders think that their way is the only way and therefore their learning ceased many years ago.  They've become stagnant.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > Photography is more art than a technical skill.
> ...


Assuming one uses photography to earn a living.  I don't and likely never will.  I've taken money for photography in the past, but that doesn't make it a business for me.  I have no aspirations of being a full time photographer.  I have a profession that pays the bills, photography is a hobby of mine.  If at times that hobby can help pay for itself, great.  If not, no loss.

So don't assume all people in this discussion are interested in photography as a primary source of income.

But yes, if you want to run a studio and use photography as a primary source of income, then business skills are likely more critical to your success than being a highly accomplished artist.

I was posting under the assumption that this discussion was centered around the skills necessary to take a high quality image.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 14, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> You also see in every business someone who thinks that they have the right to charge someone X amount of dollars even though someone out there is willing to do it for less... and then they will complain that "they aren't getting the quality"... which honestly, is total bull crap 95% of the time anyway.


 
It's obvious you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. :lmao:


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > I would never agree that you *can only learn* from others, and a collective.
> ...


 
Obviously Bruce Lee learned from others, that&#8217;s clearly not what I said.

"Only" is the key word here.

Another good example of this is Miyamoto Musashi, who is the most legendary Japanese swordsman of all time.

He was said to have possibly trained at a school for a short time, but stopped going at a still young age. Legend has it that years later he went back and defeated the whole school single handed. This may or may not be true though, there isn&#8217;t a lot of solid information on it.

He did things his own way, and was able to live to an old age because he was undefeated with the sword, ultimately dying of natural causes at 61.

He created and perfected a double sword fighting style, that when used correctly is extremely powerful. This was not the norm for that time period.

He became so good that he killed many opponents with nothing but a wooden sword. 

This was versus men with real metal Japanese swords (Katanas) mind you, that would have sliced his wooden sword through in an instant.

This meant that he was winning on the 1st strike, and didn&#8217;t need any more than that.

There was even an instance where he killed a Samurai (who had a sword) with nothing but a wooden boat oar.

He was a wanderer, and did not subscribe to the structured, collective way of doing things.

He was mostly self-taught, and broke the mold of the time with his double sword fighting style.

He was also the greatest swordsman in all of Japanese history.


----------



## Aayria (Sep 14, 2010)

I've learned that it's much more important and edifying to focus on making your own work speak for itself, and to stop comparing it to every other person with a camera.  Make your work stand out, and charge what you feel it deserves.  Unless you are looking for a market of people who care more about the best "deal" than they do about the final result.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


I know you like to play a game of semantics when someone comments about your statements, however let's look at the operative statement that prompted my response.



> Edit: I know you were saying that the group was greater than an  individual. *What I mean is that Bruce Lee did something new, and his  martial arts knowledge surpassed that of the rest of the world at that  time.*



You brought up the subject of Bruce Lee to support your comments.  My comments were directed at this statement, obviously.  I simply reminded you that even Bruce Lee had a mentor at some point in his life and his talent evolved from there.


----------



## Aayria (Sep 14, 2010)

I see your bruce lee, and invite Chuck Norris to roundhouse kick this thread into oblivion.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

Aayria said:


> I see your bruce lee, and invite Chuck Norris to roundhouse kick this thread into oblivion.


Chuck Norris got his butt kicked by Bruce Lee.

:lmao:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2sTawLSNUQ[/ame]


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

inTempus said:


> You brought up the subject of Bruce Lee to support your comments. My comments were directed at this statement, obviously. I simply reminded you that even Bruce Lee had a mentor at some point in his life and his talent evolved from there.


 
You do have me there.

Touché

What I was trying to say though, is that it is possible to teach yourself. Even as far as to become the best in the world at something. 

In fact how could you ever attain that status without elevating yourself there? Other people arent going to make you the best at something, you have to do it yourself.

I am sure you can agree with that.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> In fact how could you ever attain that status without elevating yourself there? Other people arent going to make you the best at something, you have to do it yourself.
> 
> I am sure you can agree with that.


I do agree, completely.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 14, 2010)

Joshua,
 A good discussion your post spawned! Lots of spirited, earnest,passionate replies--something this forum needs more of, I think.

   Anyway...I keep mentioning books on this web site. I recently bought a classic, Ernst Wildi's book "the Medium Format Advantage". Wildi was one of Hasselblad's best spokesmen and ambassadors for many years, and his skill with the Hassy,and his mastery of medium format photography was pretty widely acclaimed "back in the day". I would suggest this book to those who want to learn more about how cameras and lenses can best be used. The book contains many very nice diagrams and illustrations,and very clear explanations of technical matters.

    Continuing, photography books are a huge resource, with many thousands of titles available. In my original reply I mentioned those who are self-taught as having "no books". It seems like people missed that. There are many new social media "professionals" who seem to have read not a single book about photography, posing, business, or any other photographic sub-field. Unlike the world wide web, books are created by companies that have editors, and most books are the work of more than one or two people, and IMO, books are more trustworthy than web posts and web videos, especially WRT to technical matters,and matters of esoteric importance. I have seen many,many,many web posts detailing how to do one thing or another--wrongly. While the web is very handy,and **is** a wealth of knowledge, it is also a wealth of misinformation. Cases in point: bokeh, aperture number versus size, which way is "up" and "down" in aperture, depth of field, depth of focus, Guide Number. Those six terms are often used 100 percent, totally INCORRECTLY. Hundreds of times a week, by people who are self-taught and or inexperienced.

Anyway, a good discussion your post spawned Joshua!


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Sep 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Cases in point: bokeh, aperture number versus size, which way is "up" and "down" in aperture, depth of field, depth of focus, Guide Number. Those six terms are often used 100 percent, totally INCORRECTLY. Hundreds of times a week, by people who are self-taught and or inexperienced.


 
Does using those terms incorrectly make their pictures any worse?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> What I was trying to say though, is that it is possible to teach yourself. Even as far as to become the best in the world at something.


 
What I haven't seen entering the equation, is the fact that some people are naturally gifted. I will always argue, that if there is not some degree of talent/creativity/gift, no matter how hard you try, you will never be "the best" at anything.

However, I do see it as a sliding scale from true genius at one end, and absolutely clueless at the other. For example, a baby photographer could have quite a sucessful business by simply following Anne Geddes' lead, that photographer may never, ever, develop their own style, and become the next Anne.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

I agree, the internet can be a source for misinformation.  But I've also seen books and magazines printing erroneous and often times completely inaccurate information.  

I've been a firearms collector for many-many years.  I invest in high quality and often times rare firearms.  I've gone to countless shows, owned hundreds of firearms, and spent God only knows how many hours studying the mechanics and even the history of some of the most notable designs ever made.

I have found many published reference books with completely inaccurate information in them.  I know the information is inaccurate from hands-on experience with the firearm they're discussing, yet there it is - in black and white - presented as if it were Gospel. 

I've also read a number of magazines published by large and well respected companies that printed out-right wrong information or gave advice many others with considerable experience consider to be "bad".

It happens.

People make mistakes and novices often find themselves behind the keyboard.  Just because someone finds their way into print doesn't make them 100% right on any given subject.  You have to consume knowledge with a inquisitive eye.  Ask questions, try things out, see what works for you, find other texts that support or refute the copy in question.  If something doesn't work, as many times it may not, figure out how to make it work.  That's how we learn.

But yes, the internet gives an unedited voice to the masses.  That doesn't negate your responsibility to consume the information responsibly, nor does it automatically mean the posters opinions are invalid, inaccurate or worthless.  

I remember when the main stream news media outlets were bashing the internet news bloggers.  They dismissed their reporting as being irrelevant and not properly vetted... all the while the same major news organizations were being called to the mat for unscrupulous reporting practices (editing images, planting stories, publishing unvetted stories, etc.) themselves.

There is just as much good information online as there is in any print media.  Heck, there's probably more because it is unfiltered, unapproved and often times spontaneous.  There are some very talented people out there sharing information that otherwise would never be shared simply because they have access to the internet.  I see it as an invaluable tool.

But please don't take this as a rip on print media, it's not.  I see value in information regardless of the source and I have many great books on photography that were worth every penny paid.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 14, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Cases in point: bokeh, aperture number versus size, which way is "up" and "down" in aperture, depth of field, depth of focus, Guide Number. Those six terms are often used 100 percent, totally INCORRECTLY. Hundreds of times a week, by people who are self-taught and or inexperienced.
> ...


Not necessarily, but it does make them poor instructors.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 14, 2010)

Ya I got to agree that some good stuff was put down here, all around.

Good info on photography, business, learning methods, life lessons, etc.

To be honest this isnt really what I expected at the start of this thread lol.

Bravo to the OP :thumbup:


----------



## JG_Coleman (Sep 14, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > What I was trying to say though, is that it is possible to teach yourself. Even as far as to become the best in the world at something.
> ...


 
I have mentioned this very thing in a similar past thread... some people are simply pre-disposed, for one reason or another, to excel at certain things. They make leap and bounds in progress at rates that are almost unimaginable even to people that have trained for a long time.

These people are rare... no doubt. But, think about this: there are 6.6 billion people in the world! So even if the "natural-born" photographer is only a 1:100,000 phenomenon... that still means there are 66,000 of them out there! Hell... even if they occur at an astronomically low ratio of 1:1,000,000... that still means that there are about 6,600 of them out there... ready to completely blow your mind as far what they are capable of doing without much, if any, formal training and with what seems to be scant experience.

Even if we said... hey, they only occur every 1:10,000,000... that _still_ means that there are almost 700 of them out there, each with access to the internet, each with more tools at their disposal than ever before to reach the public.

Rare is a relative term... and we are packed into the world like sardines!


----------



## Joshua_Lee (Sep 14, 2010)

So I guess the general consensus is this:

Photography is basic supply and demand. The photography industry is driven by what every industry is driven by and that is what the consumer is willing to pay for a service or product. What is art to a professional photographer may not be art worthy of buying to a consumer and the other way around. Only an elitist photographer would think that his/or her work is only worthy of being photography based on experience and schooling. Which makes since, because I have seen photographs by professionals in a studio that I wouldn't pay $2 for. Also, brought to my attention by my wife, we paid $3000 for our engagement, bridal, and wedding photos and may have 5 out of them all that we really like. Also, some people are naturally gifted and have an eye for things that others do not. They don't need training in order to succeed. Ex. A parent pays hundreds to thousands of dollars for their child in baseball training, all the while the best kid on the team has never needed to be trained and is still better than that parents kid.  So the natural ability argument makes since. I also agree though, even with natural ability practice and training will make you that much better. Some great theories were put on this forum, but like everything else in this world, the majority will decide. The majority being the paying customer. So I guess at the end of the day, kudos to my friends who people are paying for their photographs. Time will tell if it pays off or they lose business. Quality not price will distinguish who survives in the photography world.  That being said, me personally, I am still going to wait to take on the stress and responsibility of a professional photographer. Thanks to everyone for your comments!

Cheers,


----------

