# Rookies are killing the business!



## bratkinson (Mar 7, 2013)

Thankfully, I'm not a pro.  I'd go broke if I was.  My concern is for those who make their living behind the lens.

A couple of weeks ago, I <forget the name> posted that he was being undercut for album covers, etc for a musician he frequently photographed.  Hence, the musician went with the cheaper source.  Then, about 2 weeks ago, JaneJ posted in the Canon Lens forum she was looking to get a new lens.  It came out in that thread that she's been doing wedding photography for 2 years and has done 77 weddings with nothing more than kit equipment and kit lenses!  She had posted a link to her website and one person commented about the unusual coloring and other quite non-professional 'enhancements' to the photographs.

I hadn't seen any posts from her since, so we probably scared her off.  I was curious, however, and did a search.  Back in October 2011, she posted she had bought a T3i or something like that and was getting blurry pictures.  She also indicated she had already done 32 weddings at that point with her kit equipment.  THIRTY TWO!  What utterly floored me was that she was shooting everything in "A"!!!  She couldn't figure out why things were blurred shooting at 1/60th, and letting the camera make all the decisions, including where to focus!  And now, 2 weeks ago, said she's done 77 weddings!

Apparently, ignorance is bliss for JaneJ as well as her customers.  

Then you read, I think it was here, about a pro travelling 200 miles for a shoot in Denver and the customer hated their work, changed the one picture he liked and posted it on his website without crediting the photographer...then wanted her (I think it was a woman) to come back for another shoot!  

There was a recent thread (here?, Photographyonthe.net?) suggesting photographers should be licensed or certified in some way to at least show they are competent and not some MWOC that just got a camera last week and goes out shooting weddings.  The more I think about it, I think it should be implemented.  Once upon a time, a pro had to do everything in manual (there was no other settings!) and be proficient in the darkroom as well.  Nowadays, $500 for a kit camera and the free software that comes with it, an existing home computer and they call themselves "Pro"s.  

I've long since learned that doing what you love is far more important in life than doing what pays the best.  I used to have it both ways as a computer consultant.  But these days, unless one has a wall full of certificates in this or that, and a piece of paper that says someone paid $100K or more to put you through school, there's no work to be had.  And, of course, what comes from that is failed multi-million dollar projects, systems that don't work 100%, and on and on.

As for professional photographers, the problem seems to me, at least, of how to let 'the world' know you are out there _*and*_ can do far, far better than some weekend warrier with a brand new T3i and no clue how to use it.  Considering the trip-to-Denver photographer, those that can afford quality fail to recognize it and even berate those who 'do it right'. 

Because I don't have all the 'paperwork', I've had to leave the computer world and find employment outside the field.  In the world of photography, the day of the 'good enough and cheap enough' looks like it will spell the eventual doom of truly professional photography.  Ain't technology great??? ... NOT!!


----------



## Benco (Mar 7, 2013)

I see what you're getting at but as I see it it's not the rookies that are killing the business but the customers expectations. If customers are not wanting to pay a decent rate and are happy with a cheap, crappy product then what can be done? not much. It's not just photography; furniture, food, any number of consumer products are the same, you should take a look at what's expected of jobbing artists...shocking.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 7, 2013)

Low prices exist because people just don't know better (on either side of the buying equation).  So to a certain extent, the way to combat that is to educate people so they at least recognize what a quality product is, and then educate them that getting that level of quality comes at a cost of experience, good tools, proper organization, training, and time.  I've worked in a number of different fields and the refrain is more or less the same, in terms of a field being flooded by more-or-less incompetent newbies.  In each field, there's a stratification by price-points.  The low end gets hurt by continual entry of new competitors, the mid-range doesn't care that much since the client base is more-or-less different, and the upper level doesn't care because their customers won't even consider the low-end.  

It's a major part of a business strategy to know which client base the business is interested in pursuing, and to tailor the marketing message, sales process and production process to be very good at addressing the needs and wants of that particular niche.  It is possible to make money at each price point, IF you understand the dynamics and are organized to capitalize on the characteristics of that level.  For instance, at the low end, money can be made IF the product/service is "cookie-cutter", high-volume, fast turnaround, and money is made at many small transactions completed quickly.  The mid-range is usually characterised by lower volumes, somewhat more choice and customization, and more focus on a niche market.  The high-end is about prestige, bragging rights, exclusivity, ridiculous margins, and insane amount of pampering.  This is true whether we are talking photography, restaurants, carpentry, home-building, software, or clothing.  

Businesses are money-making machines.  They are designed to harvest crops (money).  Successful businesses know their climate, which crops will be good to grow, what is needed from a production point of view to seed, grow and harvest that crop, and know who they will sell the crop to.  Unsuccessful businesses try to use the wrong tools to grow the wrong crops in the wrong places and harvest at the wrong time.  But...  the crop is the one they knew, the place is the one they had, and the tools were what they already were using.  Sorry - business doesn't work that way.  At least, successful business doesn't work that way.

Professional photography isn't doomed by all the newcomers.  Because the art of business is to provide something people want, at a price they are willing to pay.  Marketing grows the "want" and establishes what is a "reasonable" amount to pay.  And that is where the professional needs to focus their attention:  Who's the customer that you want to have, how to attract them, how to persuade them that they are getting an incredible deal, and how to efficiently deliver on the promises made.  Actually, business has always been about that.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 7, 2013)

There's a storm a-brewing...


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 7, 2013)

Usagani Photography | Our own wedding photography nightmare


----------



## runnah (Mar 7, 2013)

Well there are always going to be people who buy Yugos and those who buy Porsches.


----------



## Designer (Mar 7, 2013)

I've been trying to get people to read (not about photography) and understand for about 20 years to no avail.  The buying public simply cannot be made to understand nor even care about truth, quality, worth, or anything that requires a little bit of education.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 7, 2013)

Cheap digital cameras, cell phones, and the inability of the average person to tell the difference between good and bad.  There will never be any kind of "licence" to be certified as a professional photographer.  People will still hire photographers because they understand that skill and experience still matters in most situations, the rest of the world doesn't really care if someone has two weeks with a camera or 20 years.  When I see that someone is shooting weddings at $2000 for 6 hours work, I wonder what they are getting for for $2000.  My son is getting married and asked me to see if I could find a good wedding photographer, as I was involved in the wedding.  After looking at 3 web sites with a combined 10 years experience "creating the images that will last a lifetime bs"  Packages starting at $2000.  I told him I would shoot the wedding, and any photos I was in, I would hand the camera off.  I have no doubt that I can shoot the wedding without any concerns and that what I produce will be far better than some $2000 professional wedding photographer could turn out.  Weddings are formula, show up, set up and shoot.  I have seen some quite amazing wedding photography that portray professional experience and skill.  I have seen some that are pure unskilled crap.  Like every area of photography there is consistent good and there is consistent bad, unfortunately the gap between the two is getting closer and not for the better.

Before all the professional wedding photographers jump down my throat on this, if you are running a business full time as a wedding photographer and doing a great job at it, I respect that.  But the majority aren't doing that, they are weekend pretenders, same as the weekend sports and portrait types.  It always looks like easy money until it's the only money.  There is a lot more to this business than owning a camera, I'd like everyone that is playing weekend professional to have the opportunity of not having a pay cheque for 6 months and using money from photography only.  They would see how much fun the job really is, when it's all you have.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 7, 2013)

Designer said:


> I've been trying to get people to read (not about photography) and understand for about 20 years to no avail. The buying public simply cannot be made to understand nor even care about truth, quality, worth, or anything that requires a little bit of education.



Well, used to be bread and circuses, and now it is football and politics.  "Most" people have an area that they are pretty good at, and the same people are woefully ignorant in a different area.  The number of people who are competent in a number of different fields have always been few, relative to the size of the population.  I know professional writers who have no clue how business actually works.  I know successful lawyers who have a very poor grasp of basic biology.  I know engineers who build large, complex structures and have never read for pleasure.  And so it goes...


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 7, 2013)

me and the wife don't really see those super cheap photographers as any problem at all. why not? its simple. 
 we dont do portrait sessions with unlimited pictures on CD for $50. the people that are looking for $50 sessions cant/wont pay $200 for 10-15 pictures on CD anyway, so we dont care if there IS someone willing to do the work for that much less. we are not out any business because of it, because it was never business we would have taken in the first place. we have, on rare occasion, given special deals to co-workers, and we regularly offer discounts to fire/EMS and Military. 

There has, and always will be, people willing to do all manner of work cheaper than someone else. Photography is not unique in that aspect. This is where a good business plan, good marketing, the right target audience, and a quality product are needed. If you feel that the "cheap" photographers are taking business from you, or keeping you from getting business...then you have failed in one of the aforementioned areas. 
the solution is to stop blaming other people for the failure, and find/correct the inadequacies  in your own business practice. 

Like a lot of other people, we struggle. I work a regular job along with helping my wife with her photography business to pay the bills and our sons physical therapy and Dr. visits. at the end of the day, for better or for worse, the responsibility is ours to take care of our household. we dont place the blame on anyone else. when things don't work out well, its because we failed to plan for something, or made a mistake somewhere. we correct it and move on.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 7, 2013)

Without any reference to the previous comments, I would like to add  this.

1)        Technology has elevated even the basic picture taker so that there may not be a discernible difference (to the uneducated eye) between a real beginner and a middle of the road-er.
     (I've seen a couple of experienced wedding photographers who, in 30 years, haven't managed to improve their skills.)

2)       Even mediocre pictures look a tremendous amount better when formatted into a nice looking album. (like a nice frame)  I was at a local album-maker (who hosts a local photo club) and looked through their collection.  Most of the albums looked good to excellent but, when I looked at the individual pictures they were poor to middling. Presentation means a lot.


----------



## runnah (Mar 7, 2013)

Buyer beware.
You get what you pay for.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
A sucker is born every minute.
Save a minute waste an hour. 

I can keep going...


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 7, 2013)

runnah said:


> Buyer beware.
> You get what you pay for.
> A fool and his money are soon parted.
> A sucker is born every minute.
> ...



by all means, please continue sir.


----------



## runnah (Mar 7, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Buyer beware.
> ...



I lied, that was all I had.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 7, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Buyer beware.
> ...



A photo is worth a thousand dollars plus expenses.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 7, 2013)

I have found with my own wedding photography business that I attract the clients I want through referrals, (previous brides) the way I do my consultations, and the way I conduct business. 
Here are some things to consider:
-Image and professionism is everything. When I am shooting a wedding, I have to remember that my work is everywhere. The guest book has my images all over it and I need to treat all the guests like my next potential clients. Those guests are my next clients!!!!! 
-I always try to sell a canvas or some large print from the engagement session for a display piece at the reception. 
-Always have business cards handy to anyone who asks for them, especially if you are at a new venue! The staff can be your best friend and will refer you for just the way you conduct yourself. Treat them kindly.  
-I do my consultations at my home. I make sure it is clean, organized, and ready for them before they arrive. I have the contract printed BEFORE they arrive so there is no delay if they are ready to sign. First impressions are everything. 
-I show past wedding images and video footage (I use Proshow Producer) on my big screen tv, before I start discussing pricing and contracts. I always tell them what I have to offer, and how the day will unfold BEFORE I tell them how much. 
-I ALWAYS show a ton of samples. You can NOT sell it if you don't show it!!!!! I would never purchase a $1000 album if I could not see it first. Show them what they will get. Yes, you will have to spend some money and a good amount of time creating samples, but the return is HUGE. 
-I like to show a large variety of sample for different price points. So everyone has an opportunity to purchase something. My mark-up is still the same! My goal is to put high quality products in their hands. I want every aunt, uncle, grandma, and grandma to walk away with something. I give a discount to the b/g if they purchase products for family members. 
-I am not a sales person! I show it, and then it sells itself. These are the things I show. Albums, (high end flush, photographic, 4x4 mini Kiss and press) metal prints, different sizes of canvas, large professional framed prints, 3x3 and 4x8 accordian albums, standouts, custom image boxes, and custom DVD's with their images from the wedding. 

So, in short....rookies are NOT killing the business. Only the person behind the business can kill the business! Plus, your business has to be alive first before you can kill it.  Hope this helps someone.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 7, 2013)

runnah said:


> Buyer beware.
> You get what you pay for.
> A fool and his money are soon parted.
> A sucker is born every minute.
> Save a minute waste an hour.



Yes, but all that moaning about the uneducated customer is a waste of time because, for most people, buying a wedding photographer's time is a one-time thing and they just don't have the perspective to understand why a more expensive photographer may be better or why a newbie may be worse.

You have maybe one shot at educating them, if you are lucky, and if you don't or if they decide wrongly from your view, it's not their fault. 
They are making the decision based on what they know and their own life circumstances.


----------



## runnah (Mar 7, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Buyer beware.
> ...



Right, but I've seen brides that spend months researching a floral arrangement and then 5 min on craigslist looking for a photographer.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 7, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> Thankfully, I'm not a pro.  I'd go broke if I was.  My concern is for those who make their living behind the lens.
> 
> A couple of weeks ago, I <forget the name> posted that he was being undercut for album covers, etc for a musician he frequently photographed.  Hence, the musician went with the cheaper source.  Then, about 2 weeks ago, JaneJ posted in the Canon Lens forum she was looking to get a new lens.  It came out in that thread that she's been doing wedding photography for 2 years and has done 77 weddings with nothing more than kit equipment and kit lenses!  She had posted a link to her website and one person commented about the unusual coloring and other quite non-professional 'enhancements' to the photographs.
> 
> ...



I have been going on about this type of Rant for a long time (as I am sure you are aware of). With me, the issue is more the ethics of the "photographers" that think they can just pick up a camera and then go PRO... but I have come to realize that many of them even lack the knowledge to know what good work is (or they figure, everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't I?) My main problem has been the people who charge for crap... because it DOES lower the consumers expectations of what to pay, and what they will receive... and the consumers don't know any better either (or they are after a POS bargain).

It is frustrating! But the real pro's will keep going, and the others will either go out of business, get caught not paying taxes, get tired of the hassle, (or their SO will stop supporting their photography habit).. and quit! (we can only hope, right?)


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 7, 2013)

_"There was a recent thread (here?, Photographyonthe.net?) suggesting photographers should be licensed or certified in some way to at least show they are competent and not some MWOC that just got a camera last week and goes out shooting weddings.  The more I think about it, I think it should be implemented.  Once upon a time, a pro had to do everything in manual (there was no other settings!) and be proficient in the darkroom as well.  Nowadays, $500 for a kit camera and the free software that comes with it, an existing home computer and they call themselves "Pro"s.  

I've long since learned that doing what you love is far more important in life than doing what pays the best.  I used to have it both ways as a computer consultant.  But these days, unless one has a wall full of certificates in this or that, and a piece of paper that says someone paid $100K or more to put you through school, there's no work to be had.  And, of course, what comes from that is failed multi-million dollar projects, systems that don't work 100%, and on and on.



_This is my whole issue with the "certification" route is people think, oh great, now photographers will be qualified and skilled etc. etc.  but the reality is like your second paragraph. schools will just crop up all over the place raking in money hand over fist training people to "pass" the test. they will know how to pass a test but they won't be truly qualified to be a photographer, and people will pass over skilled knowledgable quality photographers for these inexperienced certificate wavers who only know how to pass a test. just don't think testing will be the cure all people think it will be.

A few people hit on it above. a lot of the public just isn't going to pay the price for photos. people have gotten used to paying the cheapest price for things. they ***** about quality and how they hate junk and foreign made goods and then they will turn around, go to the store and look for the cheapest item and throw it in the cart. so you have a society built up around just buying whatever is the cheapest option. and you have people out there going well if i just charge them 20 bucks, that's better then nothing and i'm making some money. Photography as a profession is changing and you have to adapt or get trampled. as much as people are complaining there are people out there who are making good money so it is possible. you have to just change with the times to make your business succsessful. complaining about who is responsible won't solve the issue, trying to force in some standard isn't the issue either.




To imagemaker, I would suggest taking a look at more then just 3 photographers. It's your son's wedding, you should be sitting in the pew watching yoru son on what should be the happiest of his life and should be high on the marks for one of your happiest days, spend it with your son and family celebrating the event and not stuck behind a camera working.


----------



## Mully (Mar 7, 2013)

All this might be true for wedding photographers, sport shooters, real-estate and assorted other grab your equipment and go shoot it. I never face much of this as I work with ad agencies and graphic design companies and most of what I do is in-studio.  I have though watched for years the erosion of this profession and glad I got in this at a time when it was a lot easier to establish yourself.  I asked an art director friend one day if he has used anyone new lately and his reply was " I have enough photographers to last me several lifetimes" Photographers send agencies promo stuff all the time and some get up on the walls and when asked if they have used them the answer is no....just liked the shot but would not take a chance on a real job.  There are many clients that are very loyal and have been so over the years, it's about doing good work and being a friend.  The Ad business is not easy to break into so I don't feel threatened by new photographers, if you run your business right you can't afford to stay in business very long doing it on the cheap.


----------



## andywag (Mar 7, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> [h=2]Rookies are killing the business![/h]




I have not read the rest of the thread so don't really know what other replies have said but all I can say is - NO they are not.

In some cases (seems like a lot of cases in the US at least) then the guy or mom with camera is thinking they can run a business - give it a go at 50 bucks/quid a throw and quickly find they cannot survive/are not good enough/ get no customers or whatever and then disappear into the distance.

In other cases "rookies" do things properly, learn the business, learn the technical/artistic side and when ready they go for it with good product and a reasonable price.

Neither one is "Killing" the business.

The first fulfills a need for customers who cannot afford a "proper" photographer and would never normally have used one anyway. They also would not know a good shot if it jumped up and bit them.
The customer who has used photographers in the past and thinks they will get the same standard of finished product from the G/MWC soon finds out they don't. 
In my experience they then have to come back with their tail between their legs to a "proper" business and get the shoot redone. 
Hardly killing the business in my experience.

The second example above of the rookie who approaches things properly is not Killing the business. They are helping the business by bringing fresh ideas and keeping the rest of us on our toes.

If people think that the G/MWC are killing the business then they should be looking at their own business first.

Look at how you are approaching your own business/marketing. Look at the customers you are aiming your services at and off course look at the product/service you are selling.

BMW/AUDI/Jaguar/Ferrari etc did not moan about Toyota etc "killing the business" and I don't honestly know why many in the photographic community moan about the G/MWC's quite so much.

There is a huge market out there. A market which is a mix of knowledgeable  people who can tell the difference between a good and bad shot and are willing to pay a proper price for the good and those who think that a blurry shot with bad post processing is great as long as they get all the shots on disc for 50 quid.

That is not killing the business - that is the world as it is.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> bratkinson said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully, I'm not a pro.  I'd go broke if I was.  My concern is for those who make their living behind the lens.
> ...




See, I dont see this happening for the fact that the mentallity today is diffrent. It seems in the past. people would decide to do photography as a profession and they would work towards doing it full time to support yourself. Now people are coming in and not expecting to support themselves. there only goal is to make a little money on the side. If your goal isn't to do this full time then you don't have that push and need to better your skills. you don't have the push to learn proper business practices and such because "ohh its just some side money" no biggie. I origonally thought that well once enough time has passed people will know there's no money to be had. or that they wont make a ton of money and it would dry up. But if your just coming into it with the mentallity of just earning some beer money. you don't really care as much. for everyone that fails there will be 3 to take there place and it will just be a continuos revolving door of bodies.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 7, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> _"There was a recent thread (here?, Photographyonthe.net?) suggesting photographers should be licensed or certified in some way to at least show they are competent and not some MWOC that just got a camera last week and goes out shooting weddings.  The more I think about it, I think it should be implemented.  Once upon a time, a pro had to do everything in manual (there was no other settings!) and be proficient in the darkroom as well.  Nowadays, $500 for a kit camera and the free software that comes with it, an existing home computer and they call themselves "Pro"s.
> 
> I've long since learned that doing what you love is far more important in life than doing what pays the best.  I used to have it both ways as a computer consultant.  But these days, unless one has a wall full of certificates in this or that, and a piece of paper that says someone paid $100K or more to put you through school, there's no work to be had.  And, of course, what comes from that is failed multi-million dollar projects, systems that don't work 100%, and on and on.
> 
> ...




I know I should just sit back and enjoy, my son and his fiance asked me months ago if I would shoot their wedding for them and I had said no at that point.  I had asked a friend of mine who is a professional wedding photographer, but he was booked, he recommended the 3, after seeing what was being offered for the money I told my son I would do it.  I wouldn't be comfortable sitting back and enjoying the wedding, unfortunately I am one of those photographers that "can't turn it off"  I won't go to any sports events unless I'm working either.


----------



## Double H (Mar 7, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I have found with my own wedding photography business that I attract the clients I want through referrals, (previous brides) the way I do my consultations, and the way I conduct business.
> Here are some things to consider:
> -Image and professionism is everything. ...



I agree with everything about your post, and I run my business in much the same way. I am fortunate that I have found a price-point that attracts the type of clients who understand you get what you pay for. My business is 80-90% referral.


----------



## KmH (Mar 7, 2013)

> Rookies are killing the business!


Nah! The rookies are essentially committing business suicide en-mass. That's why there is a stunning amount of 'churn' at the entry-level of the business.

pgriz explained it all pretty succinctly. 
There have always been rookies.
The Internet just makes it easier to see/hear about all of them.

Few of the rookies are able to stay in business, even to just make some money on the side. The big irony is, the vast majority of those that think they are making money, on the side or otherwise, actually aren't making any money.

The rookies, like the lady who had done 77 weddings using basic entry-level gear, serve a  market segment. In that market segment. The price is more important than the quality of the product.

No doubt, many of the rookie's customers discover that because they concentrated on price, they kind of shot themselves in the foot because the product they get is low quality.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 7, 2013)

If "rookies" are getting in the way of your ability to conduct business, that's a much bigger commentary on _your _lack of ability than _theirs_.

I think it's also misguided to assume that someone who shoots with "less than pro" gear can't turn out professional results that clients are happy with. The reality is that many can...


----------



## IconicPhotosUK (Mar 7, 2013)

What would you consider as a "Pro"? 

Someone who does this full time,  someone who has years of experience, someone who knows their equipment inside out? I am a professional web developer by trade and do the photography as a side business and hobby (see signature). 

I have seen the same thing happen in the world of web development, anyone with a bit of spare time on their hand can now learn to develop a website with ease and even if they don't want to build from scratch there is software out there that will give them a good base to start from. 

What stands out however is quality. Someone with years of experience will know what works well and looks good, they are able to fine tune their work to make it stand out above the crowd. I guess with todays photographic equipment being so good its easy for someone who is learning to develop reasonably good photographs.

The internet has also helped to drive down prices, with so many people being able to create similar photographic styles there is a large supply of photography and I guess the rules of supply and demand come into effect. I suppose one approach is to look for exclusivity in the work, try and take photographs that stand out in some shape or form.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> If "rookies" are getting in the way of your ability to conduct business, that's a much bigger commentary on _your _lack of ability than _theirs_.
> 
> I think it's also misguided to assume that someone who shoots with "less than pro" gear can't turn out professional results that clients are happy with. The reality is that many can...



100% correct about the gear, it's been said on this forum and pretty much everywhere, it's the person holding the gear, not the gear.  Entry level digital body and good glass can produce great quality images in the right hands.


----------



## IconicPhotosUK (Mar 7, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > If "rookies" are getting in the way of your ability to conduct business, that's a much bigger commentary on _your _lack of ability than _theirs_.
> ...



Completely agree, don't forget as well that taking the photograph in some instances is only the beginning. Post production work in Photoshop will only help to enhance the image even further. If you can master some of those skills as well you can create some nice artwork.


----------



## invisible (Mar 7, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Usagani Photography | Our own wedding photography nightmare


That was an interesting read. And how cool was it to have Mark Zuckerberg as one of your guests before the explosion of Facebook?


----------



## .SimO. (Mar 7, 2013)

From an amateur standpoint,  reading comments from veterans and professionals at times on here deter me from ever wanting to be anything else but a hobbyist.  I received my first DSLR the beginning of last year and haven't put it down since.  I study, read principles and concepts but more importantly, I go out and shoot.  It is honestly harder for me to even ask questions on here sometimes because of the mindset some have categorizing all new photographers as "wanna be pro's". Just wanted to reference my current standing and how much it takes to post my "opinion" on here.  

 I personally think if you are threatened by someones terrible work and they are getting business, then do something about it. If this is truly your profession, then you will do more than just complain to put food on the table.  Start hosting local events, courses.  Do something as a professional would.  Just because you are a professional photographer, this doesn't make you a business professional.


----------



## texkam (Mar 7, 2013)

Yawn. This has, is, and will continue to go on, ...and not just in the photography world. Get over it.

+1 on Mark Zuckerberg at Robin's wedding. I think Mark used Robin's photographer at his wedding too.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kashmirhill/files/2012/05/Mark-Zuckerberg-wedding.jpg


----------



## spacefuzz (Mar 7, 2013)

Rookies arnt killing photography, they are elevating it. 

With the DSLR photography has become more prevelant, and therefore the volume of the work output has increase. This increase leads some people to spend more time than others and increase the quality of their work.  This elevates the top end of the field and provides incentive for people to push further. If you look at the best pro work today its loads better than what I have seen from the 80's.  Some of that is tech, but I believe most of it is due to the higher level of competition. An analogy would be football (american) in the 1930's represents no where near the level of play in the current seasons. It just keeps building on itself. I think a large part of the dissapointment comes from with increased competition you cant hang out in mediocrity and hope to succeed, you have to work for it. 

/flame away.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 7, 2013)

.SimO. said:


> From an amateur standpoint,  reading comments from veterans and professionals at times on here deter me from ever wanting to be anything else but a hobbyist.  I received my first DSLR the beginning of last year and haven't put it down since.  I study, read principles and concepts but more importantly, I go out and shoot.  It is honestly harder for me to even ask questions on here sometimes because of the mindset some have categorizing all new photographers as "wanna be pro's". Just wanted to reference my current standing and how much it takes to post my "opinion" on here.
> 
> I personally think if you are threatened by someones terrible work and they are getting business, then do something about it. If this is truly your profession, then you will do more than just complain to put food on the table.  Start hosting local events, courses.  Do something as a professional would.  Just because you are a professional photographer, this doesn't make you a business professional.




Yes it's true members will attack some people who want to become pro. But in general it's all in how they are going about it. I had asked several questions before I opened shop and don't think I was ever once attacked because I did my homework before hand, the ones that usually get attacked are the ones that have allreayd opened their doors and then come in asking questions they should have allready known before hand. It really comes down to how you go about things as to how you are responded too.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 7, 2013)

spacefuzz said:


> Rookies arnt killing photography, they are elevating it.
> 
> With the DSLR photography has become more prevelant, and therefore the volume of the work output has increase. This increase leads some people to spend more time than others and increase the quality of their work.  This elevates the top end of the field and provides incentive for people to push further. If you look at the best pro work today its loads better than what I have seen from the 80's.  Some of that is tech, but I believe most of it is due to the higher level of competition. An analogy would be football (american) in the 1930's represents no where near the level of play in the current seasons. It just keeps building on itself. I think a large part of the dissapointment comes from with increased competition you cant hang out in mediocrity and hope to succeed, you have to work for it.
> 
> /flame away.



The consistency and quality of my photography in the 1980's was just as good as my photography is now, it wasn't changed by the digital age or the change in the number of people shooting now.  If anything I was more selective of how I shot and what I shot back then, shooting and processing film was more costly than buying one card these days.  Now I shoot more at events and the gear has helped with working in low light, mostly in conditions that could not have been shot on film with avaliable light. My competition back then was the same as my competition now, professionals working in the same field as me.  The ones professionals can't compete against are the ones that shoot for free or very little, because they can.  

People will take free photos every time even if they are crap.  It's free, and any professional that says this doesn't affect them in some way, is lying.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 7, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> The consistency and quality of my photography in the 1980's was just as good as my photography is now, it wasn't changed by the digital age or the change in the number of people shooting now.  If anything I was more selective of how I shot and what I shot back then, shooting and processing film was more costly than buying one card these days.  Now I shoot more at events and the gear has helped with working in low light, mostly in conditions that could not have been shot on film with avaliable light. My competition back then was the same as my competition now, professionals working in the same field as me.  The ones professionals can't compete against are the ones that shoot for free or very little, because they can.
> 
> People will take free photos every time even if they are crap.  It's free, and any professional that says this doesn't affect them in some way, is lying.



There might be some minor impact... Hell, even if it was a big impact it still doesnt change the fact that someone's ability to succeed with a business depends on them, and how they manage their business.  You can either work hard and succeed despite the cheap competition,  or you try and fail. We refuse to let other peoples business practices (or lack thereof)  be an excuse as to why we arent making six figures a year taking pictures.  We will succeed or fail on our own merits or shortcomings.  Some people will indeed take cheap/free every time.  Some will do their due diligence and take a quality product.  We work with the business we can get,  do the best we can with it,  and keep trying to find new ways to bring in new clients. Noone is going to do it for us.  And noone is going to catch us if we fall. 
But we take responsibility for our situation, when things are good as well as when things are bad.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 7, 2013)

IconicPhotosUK said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



There's a whole generation of professional photographers who've never developed a roll of film, or were subject to the restrictions of a darkroom. I'm not saying that's bad, at all, but becoming a pro today doesn't require a great deal of the knowledge that was required 20 years ago. I cut my teeth in a darkroom 35 years ago, when each press of the shutter mattered.

I'd like to see what some of "today's pros" (for lack of a better phrase) could without software to edit with, or with only the most basic of adjustments permitted...


----------



## invisible (Mar 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I'd like to see what some of "today's pros" (for lack of a better phrase) could without software to edit with, or with only the most basic of adjustments permitted...


What for? What matters is the final image. (This coming from someone who is a Photoshop zero, and also kind of old school.) I can understand the frustration of (and can relate to) those who had to do it the hard way; the reality is that the world has changed, and it will keep changing. Challenging the new generation to do it the old way would prove absolutely nothing.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 7, 2013)

invisible said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see what some of "today's pros" (for lack of a better phrase) could without software to edit with, or with only the most basic of adjustments permitted...
> ...



it might have been harder to do, with a bigger learning curve, but sometimes i think its just comes off a bit condescending and pompous when film people rag on digital people for using editing software as if changing the way a photo looks after the shutter was pressed is somehow a concept newly invented in the digital age.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> IconicPhotosUK said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



As much as I agree with this and have said in the past that the majority of today's photographers both amateur and professional wouldn't know how to do any of this.  Even if you just took away autofocus.  It is the new reality, that what used to be a skillful part of being a photographer is now simply done by a piece of electronic equipment. The satisfaction of putting everything together manually, having to follow focus on a moving subject is something that the new generation doesn't understand.  Many people have said to me, "I have a lot of respect for the photographers that had to shoot sports with manual focus"  I appreciate hearing that, not just because I was one of those guys, but for all the photographers that did it that way.  Autofocus is a great thing, it just doesn't require any skill.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> IconicPhotosUK said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



I would have no desire to learn how to develop film in a darkroom, BUT learning how to edit properly in PS and LR is quite a skill in itself. I am not saying that it is harder by any means, but learning how to really master editing is no easy hill to climb.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 7, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > IconicPhotosUK said:
> ...



Processing film is a piece of cake, you could learn how to do it in 15 minutes.  I've been using PS since 1992 and am still working on it.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 7, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Processing film is a piece of cake, you could learn how to do it in 15 minutes.  I've been using PS since 1992 and am still working on it.



Film is a piece of ....  printing on the other hand is a real skill, and IMO, one equal in complexity and skill to modern digital editing.


----------



## LouR (Mar 8, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > IconicPhotosUK said:
> ...



Don't equate Autofocus with things like Photoshop. I've been shooting at one level or another since I was 11 or 12 and I'm 58.  Never set foot in a darkroom and I don't think I should have to to know what to do before I press the shutter as well as after. My "style" includes a lot of editing and/or manipulation and it's not very simple most times.
As far as the OP, I don't think it's the amateurs or the MWCs as much as it is the consumer.  In the last year or so that I worked at a high end portrait studio, clients expected CDs of their sittings, retouching included most times, for the cost of the sitting.  They would try to order just 1 8x10, declaring they would "just scan it for other copies" in total ignorance and sense of entitlement because they paid money.  They see the digital cameras come out and think things will be perfect and are in total awe when I would have to show them head swaps to come up with a decent image of their darlings among the 100 or so taken. In short, consumers are clueless and they "hurt" the business as much as any rookie with a dslr.  As long as the consumers' expectations aren't very high, those who don't have a lot of talent and knowledge will continue to make money. In turn, they won't see the real need to improve and bring their level of expertise up.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 8, 2013)

invisible said:


> What for?



Um, because I'd be interested in seeing what they come up with, that's "what for?"...



> What matters is the final image.



Exactly the point. 

So many people are pissing and moaning and lamenting about how "rookies" are destroying the business. Well, here 'tis, ladies: A l_ot o_f them are putting out a _genuinely _good product, and they're able to do it because of the software that's available today. I'm not saying that's good or bad... 



> This coming from someone who is a Photoshop zero, and also kind of old school.) I can understand the frustration of (and can relate to) those who had to do it the hard way; the reality is that the world has changed, and it will keep changing. Challenging the new generation to do it the old way would prove absolutely nothing.



Sure it would. It would demonstrate an actual understanding of photographic principles which, let's be honest, ain't exactly as important today as they were 35 years ago. While I do think that many of the "new generation" (even "rookies") are putting out fine product, I think someone who learned photography before the "spray and pray" concept of shooting came along will produce consistently better images, simply because they have a better understanding of not only _what _they're doing, but _why _they're doing it...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 8, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I would have no desire to learn how to develop film in a darkroom, BUT learning how to edit properly in PS and LR is quite a skill in itself. I am not saying that it is harder by any means, but learning how to really master editing is no easy hill to climb.



I don't think it's harder at all today. Photography today is far easier than it was when I first picked up a camera back in the mid-70's. Back then, if you wasted a frame, it cost you. Back then, your quiver of editing tools in a darkroom consisted of manipulating contrast, brightness, dodging and burning. You couldn't open up a program and put someone's head from one picture onto someone else's body in another picture.

Because photography is so easy, a lot more people are doing it. When I got my first "real" camera, a Canon FTb, I knew exactly two other kids my age who had anything even remotely similar. Nowadays, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who's got a DSLR around their neck. That's great, and I'm all for it, but I actually hesitate to call a lot of what I see "photography". In my view of what photography is, and was, what we have today is something where the camera is reduced to one very small aspect of the photographic equation. "Back in the day", n_othing w_as more important than when that mirror flipped...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 8, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



I'm not ragging on anyone, nor do I think it's necessarily condescending.

What's changed is the degree to which a photo can be manipulated. Years ago, if you took a crappy photo, all you could ever hope to have was a crappy photo. Nowadays, if you have a crappy photo, you can actually make it look pretty good. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies less and less as technology marches forward. That's all well and good, but we shouldn't harbor the illusion that the proficiency of photographers could easily suffer as less actual photographic skill is required...


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > invisible said:
> ...



Sure,  you can do a lot more with a photo now. But OOF is still OOF. Plus,  even with photoshop, it still takes a bit of working knowledge to spin straw into gold.  On top of that,  i doubt many people that dont bother to take the time to learn their camera are spending the money on photoshop or lightroom and actually learning how to use them properly. I would guess that for them,  garbage in garbage out still applies.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 8, 2013)

With film photography there were real obstacles; only people who had both enough interest and access to darkroom equipment could actually get to learn. 
(in the 'olden' days, only a small percent of high school students went to college and, almost by default, college educations, college students and colleges were better, on the average, then they are now.)
So, when you 'did' photography or were a photographer, you had the interest, the opportunity and the drive to know things.

Now, you can pickup a camera and all the knowledge of the past 50 years is embedded in the technology and all you have to do is make a few decisions and the image is there.

And, in regards 'decisions', many of the decisions you had to make in film days are actually still open to change. The iso, the exposure, the contrast, B/w or color, etc all can be managed in post-processing.
It's not that you were smarter before, it's that the decisions were out of your hands when you pressed the shutter button.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I don't think it's harder at all today. Photography today is far easier than it was when I first picked up a camera back in the mid-70's. Back then, if you wasted a frame, it cost you. Back then, your quiver of editing tools in a darkroom consisted of manipulating contrast, brightness, dodging and burning. You couldn't open up a program and put someone's head from one picture onto someone else's body in another picture.
> 
> Because photography is so easy, a lot more people are doing it. When I got my first "real" camera, a Canon FTb, I knew exactly two other kids my age who had anything even remotely similar. Nowadays, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who's got a DSLR around their neck. That's great, and I'm all for it, but I actually hesitate to call a lot of what I see "photography". In my view of what photography is, and was, what we have today is something where the camera is reduced to one very small aspect of the photographic equation. "Back in the day", nothing was more important than when that mirror flipped...



I think it also has to do with lowered standards. 30-40 years ago being a photographer meant something beyond being able to shoot in auto and using PS actions (not like people could have used PS actions back then anyways.)

The photography industry in my city is rather pathetic. Most are weekend warriors turned full time professionals, even though their quality is not as "professional" as I would assume someone who shoots full time to be.

But unfortunately the consumers have no choice but to go to these kinds of photographers because that's all there is. It's a vicious and moronic cycle.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 8, 2013)

Everyone is going on about how it was 20-40 years ago, it's closer to 10-12 years ago that digital and the software started to change, I was shooting and processing film in 2001(the last year for me)  Decisions on film when shooting, lots of times we could walk into a situation where we had 1600asa film in the camera, had shot 10 frames and the next job was outside, you would re-roll the film back into the cassette and hope to not roll the leader back in, mark the roll, put in a roll of 400asa, shoot that.  When you needed the 1600asa again, cover the lens and fire off 12-15 frames so you didn't double expose anything.  It was always a challenge, and did require a different skill set.

You wanted to add someone to a group photo, shoot the person in the same light, cut them out, paste them on the print and make a copy neg, it was genius in the eyes of most people.  I hear the word photoshop every day now.  If someone is taking pictures they have some kind of editing software, some don't take the time to play with it, but most have something installed on their computers.  The average camera owner can learn enough on how to fix mistakes in a couple of hours.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't think it's any 1 thing, it's multiple things all together.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 8, 2013)

All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much.  Old school or new school,  film background or purely digital,  we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago,  that will define our business and work.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 8, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Everyone is going on about how it was 20-40 years ago, it's closer to 10-12 years ago that digital and the software started to change, I was shooting and processing film in 2001(the last year for me)  Decisions on film when shooting, lots of times we could walk into a situation where we had 1600asa film in the camera, had shot 10 frames and the next job was outside, you would re-roll the film back into the cassette and hope to not roll the leader back in, mark the roll, put in a roll of 400asa, shoot that.  When you needed the 1600asa again, cover the lens and fire off 12-15 frames so you didn't double expose anything.  It was always a challenge, and did require a different skill set.
> 
> You wanted to add someone to a group photo, shoot the person in the same light, cut them out, paste them on the print and make a copy neg, it was genius in the eyes of most people.  I hear the word photoshop every day now.  If someone is taking pictures they have some kind of editing software, some don't take the time to play with it, but most have something installed on their computers.  The average camera owner can learn enough on how to fix mistakes in a couple of hours.



I think those "photographers" that are learning to fix their images in a couple of hours are the ones that bring me my daily laughs as I see their new businesses pop up on FB. No matter how much Lysol you put on ****, it is still going to smell like **** unless you clean it up the right way first.


----------



## spacefuzz (Mar 8, 2013)

Gee whiz if I listen to the talk here all I have to do is close my eyes and click with my dslr, BAM award winning photo destined for the cover of national geographic. 

Lets be serious, the film days I remember were a pain in the frickin butt. Carrying around all that film, worrying about running out, the slow learning curve as you wait to get the results back, egad what if you lose a roll!. I mean I give people like Galen Rowell mad props for carrying 50 rolls of film up the face of half dome, but give me my DSLR and 64 gig memory card on a hard climb any day over film.


----------



## GoldenBokeh (Mar 8, 2013)

wow, it's a very complicated subject. I can totally relate to the fact that going around with a simple camera and bad retouching/editing skills and taking pictures of people in their wedding is a no way to go about it. But that's usually the way people start.  

I choose I different path just because of what was written here- I can't charge anyone right now unless it&#8217;s something that I know that I can do really well, better than others. But that's because I have a job and photography for me was a hobby that became professional (sold some pictures, opened  a website, people start to offer me money for pictures) 

I think that some things would never change &#8211; people that don&#8217;t understand quality will always buy cheap and pay dearly for getting bad products and people that just want to make money will continue to sell with no guarantee without regards to the impact on others.

But that's the thing-this will never change. So you just have to see how you rise above all this and show the world how extremely good you are and why you are worth it. No need to get angry with things you have no ability to change.  I would focus that energy in reading one more photography technique


----------



## Rafterman (Mar 8, 2013)

If you're a lousy photog, charge a low price and cater to the cheapskates, because they're the only ones who will hire you anyways. If you're good and produce quality work, charge a premium price and cater to the people who know good photography (or at least can afford good quality, whether they know it or not.) If I remember correctly, the photographer for our wedding just over 6-years ago cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000 for the day (about 4 to 11pm), plus another $500 for all the proofs (about 650 images) on a DVD and a $300 extra tip my in-laws gave him because he was simply stellar. This is certainly not cheap, but the images he took were unreal. UN-REAL. Today, if a friend or coworker on a budget asked me about hiring someone to shoot their wedding, I'd tell them to have the cheapest ceremony possible and dump their cash into a good photographer. The most gorgeous ceremony or location won't look its best if a newbie is behind the lens. Why would you want to look back on crappy pictures for the next 50-years of your life?

One of my neighbors does weddings on occasion. Photography is not his primary job and he shoots with a Canon Rebel T2i. I was far less than impressed by the galleries on his website, and wonder why anyone would hire him to shoot their wedding? Then again, he only charges about $800 to 1,000 for an entire 6 to 8-hour day. Not sure what he charges for proofs or prints, but I wouldn't hire him myself personally or recommend him to anyone I know. He's a fantastic neighbor and friend otherwise, but just doesn't cut it as a pro to me.

In photography, like many other professions, people will either pay for quality or they won't. DSLRs certainly have created many more weekend warriors, but results are results, no matter how you get them. When my car gets dirty, I vacuum, Armor All, and wash it myself at home. I don't pay a detailing service $40 to do it. It's just not worth it to me to pay for that service. The same goes for photos. If you don't care much about quality, get cousin Eddie to shoot your senior photos for $50, don't pay $500. Just remember that you get what you pay for!

To conclude, remember that no amount of equipment will produce truly memorable images if you don't have an eye for photography. The camera is a tool and nothing more. Buying a $5,000 rifle does not make me a sharpshooter. Buying a set of Wüsthof knives does not make me a chef. Buying a Ferrari does not make me a race car driver. The HUMAN makes the images. You guys and girls out there who have that natural instinct and are truly skilled will be just fine, because the riff-raff will (in most cases) not make it, and you'll be left standing.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 8, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much.  Old school or new school,  film background or purely digital,  we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago,  that will define our business and work.



But it _does _matter when looking at an historical perspective.

I remember when I bought my first Canon. It was an _investment_. Each frame you shot had a dollar amount attached to it because you were shooting film. Darkroom chemicals were a recurring expense. Paper was a recurring expense. The expense of getting _seriously _into photography back then far exceeds what's required today, and that kept the number of available, viable photographers at a relative minimum. _

These _days, though, anyone with a $600.00 DSLR has the potential to shoot some _really _nice photographs. A person can shoot 50 frames for the same cost as shooting 5, or 500. The relative low cost of an initial outlay has allowed the hobby to become a cottage industry for people who don't necessarily have the desire to be full-blown "pros".

It's not the people who've adversely affected the industry but, rather, the industry itself through technological advancements...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much.  Old school or new school,  film background or purely digital,  we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago,  that will define our business and work.
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much.  Old school or new school,  film background or purely digital,  we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago,  that will define our business and work.
> ...



My point is.... Why does any of this have to be a negative impact at all?  Times change,  technology changes, public opinion changes.  This is true for any field.  We adapt.  As producers and as consumers. As businesses and as clients. Those that can adapt flourish. I dont personally look at any of these technological changes as a negative impact, just something else i have to adapt to.  Its the same reason i dont give a second thought to cheap photographers.  We adapt, we survive.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 8, 2013)

In any profession you go into things change, technologies change, you adapt or you get swallowed up.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 8, 2013)

Rafterman said:


> INot sure what he charges for proofs or prints, but I wouldn't hire him myself personally or recommend him to anyone I know. He's a fantastic neighbor and friend otherwise, but just doesn't cut it as a pro to me.



And he doesn't have to, because you're not going to hire him.

Obviously, though, the product he produces has a target audience, and that audience is hiring him. If he, and others like him, weren't there, do you think the people that have hired him would've hired a $5,000.00 a day photographer instead?

Not a chance in Hell...



> If you don't care much about quality, get cousin Eddie to shoot your senior photos for $50, don't pay $500. Just remember that you get what you pay for!



You're assuming cousin Eddie, apparently simply because he's a cousin and not "Eddie's Photography", can't produce quality images. That's a myopic, and very often incorrect, assumption...


> To conclude, remember that no amount of equipment will produce truly memorable images if you don't have an eye for photography.



And someone is going to have an eye for photography whether they're paid $1,000.00 or $10,000.00. My daughter shoots weddings for $500.00 a pop. I think she's good, but that may just be the proud Dad talking. She's working all the time, though, and she's shooting for people who wouldn't be hiring a $5,000.00 photographer. She's found a niche, and she exploits the Hell out of it, and she makes decent money doing it. The reality, though, is that her "eye" doesn't change with the amount someone writes on a check...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 8, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



I'm not saying it has a negative impact. I'm just saying it's different...


----------



## Rafterman (Mar 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> You're assuming cousin Eddie, apparently simply because he's a cousin and not "Eddie's Photography", can't produce quality images. That's a myopic, and very often incorrect, assumption...



That was actually a reference to the National Lampoon's "Vacation" series of movies. If you haven't seen any of them, Cousin Eddie is a bumbling idiot who possesses zero skill in anything he does.



Steve5D said:


> The reality, though, is that her "eye" doesn't  change with the amount someone writes on a check...



That's exactly what I meant though. She has the talent for it and could possibly charge more, but she has made the choice to fill a niche. Equipment is irrelevant in her case because she is producing, in your eyes, quality work. There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 8, 2013)

Rafterman said:


> She has the talent for it and could possibly charge more, but she has made the choice to fill a niche. Equipment is irrelevant in her case because she is producing, in your eyes, quality work. There is nothing wrong with that.



Oh, not in my eyes. The way I see her talent is of no consequence. The people paying have the opinions that matter, and she's working all the time. Equipment is relatively irrelevant in many cases. She could go full-bore, full frame high-end stuff, but she does just fine with a 20D and a couple of lenses, and her clients are very, very happy...


----------



## spacefuzz (Mar 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much.  Old school or new school,  film background or purely digital,  we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago,  that will define our business and work.
> ...



Like in any industry, adapt or get left behind.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 8, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> Thankfully, I'm not a pro.  I'd go broke if I was.  My concern is for those who make their living behind the lens.
> 
> A couple of weeks ago, I <forget the name> posted that he was being undercut for album covers, etc for a musician he frequently photographed.  Hence, the musician went with the cheaper source.  Then, about 2 weeks ago, JaneJ posted in the Canon Lens forum she was looking to get a new lens.  It came out in that thread that she's been doing wedding photography for 2 years and has done 77 weddings with nothing more than kit equipment and kit lenses!  She had posted a link to her website and one person commented about the unusual coloring and other quite non-professional 'enhancements' to the photographs.
> 
> ...



If a rookie with a newly purchased DSLR, whether its a T3i or 5dMKIII can steal a customer from a professional with years of experience, then its the professional who isn't doing something right. I'm not saying I support people going out doing things like the lady you described, but it is the professionals responsibility to market themselves appropriately. As a professional dive instructor I regularly charge 50-100% more than what the competition does, yet my classes are filled for months out. This is all because I bring a quality skill-set  and know how to sell my product in a market that is extremely competitive and filled with instructors who want to under-cut competition. 

This argument is no different than when people in local shops say "Amazon is putting me out of business!" Pawning off your own poor performance/lack of marketing abilities onto some third party is no excuse. Get your game face on and realize that being able to sell yourself is the best insurance against any form of competition, internet based, or noob-protog alike.


----------



## katerolla (Mar 8, 2013)

I photograph wedding for a living and it&#8217;s no skin of my back, I charge $1000 plus for my packages, I&#8217;m sure JaneJ doesn&#8217;t charge half of that for her weddings and I wouldn&#8217;t be interested in charging half that to use my equipment, my travel time, meetings with the bride before and after the wedding and my editing time, besides I have noticed that brides paying a little more do their homework and by the time they come to see me they know a little more about good quality than the lower budget brides. Moral to this is that everyone has a place here, JaneJ may pick up the brides that I have no interest in working with and I&#8217;ll pick up the brides that prefer quality over budges


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 9, 2013)

Wow...I never expected this kind of response to my original post! It's an extremely interesting read.

What I come away with is a number of things. Among them, Imagemaker likened to not having autofocus, where would the pseudo-pros be? Steve 5D mentioned the technological advancements moving the industry along. 

Certainly, the ever moving technology cycle affects all industries. In computers, 30 years ago, I worked with an older man who had been in computers since the mid 50s, when they hadn't even been HEARD of by most people. By 1980, his skills were obsolete, as was his knowledge of state of the art computers. I vowed never to fall into that trap. While I kept my skills reasonably up to date, in the last 20 years, it's been the age barrier as well as 'paper' barrier in the computer industry. That's only a microcosm. 

But all industry has gone the way of evolving technology...from automobile manufacturing to hi-production farming to fast food. Like many, as a teenager, I worked part time at Burger King in the early 60s. No calculators, no adding machines, nada. We knew the prices of all 15-20 items on the menu, added the totals, and took the money and made correct change. These days, give any clerk $2.83 for a $2.73 tab. Or $5.10 for $4.85 tab. They will stare at you in complete wonder. Technology changed it all. 

To most, technology 'can do it all' these days. Hey, they can take a picture with their phone, and have it up on Facebook 30 seconds later! Some 'pro' guy with an expensive camera should be able to produce prints that quickly too, right? LourR hit the nail on the head when he said 2 screens above that consumers are largely clueless. They really DON'T have a clue what goes on AFTER the shutter clicks. Why can't 'we' (yeah, I shoot RAW and LR and PS the pix) turn the photos around in a few minutes. Or, why do pros charge for every print, or CD. Why can't they get every shot on a CD? These days, clueless consumers know that PhotoShop can do miracles, but they think it can be done in 3 or 4 clicks and it's "Done". 

I guess what I was 'aiming' at in my original post is in regards to the clueless consumers. Yes, they get what they pay for. But they don't understand why a $300 quality pair of shoes from a 'real' shoe store is any different than the $25 pair they bought at Walmart the day before. They are willing to buy on the cheap not realizing they will lose in the end. Hey, I'll admit I bought a 'cheapo' screw on telephoto extender and screw on macro to go with it and, of course, got burned.  I was clueless, too.

Certainly, there will be countless consumers that are satisfied with c**p pictures from their weekend-warrier $300 wedding 'pro' shooting in auto-everything mode. And there's obviously a market there. I suspect that more and more, the trend is towards 'save a buck' and they REALLY don't know any better. 

And yes, there is an upscale market for albums, engagement shoots, formal shots, etc. But to my thinking, that market is ever shrinking. It's up to the professionals to show them WHY they need a REAL photographer, not just someone with a fancy looking camera.

Anybody want me to shoot their wedding for $300 with my fancy camera? I know how to turn it on and which way to point it...(travel expenses extra).


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 9, 2013)

togalive said:


> If a rookie with a newly purchased DSLR, whether its a T3i or 5dMKIII can steal a customer from a professional with years of experience, then its the professional who isn't doing something right. I'm not saying I support people going out doing things like the lady you described, but it is the professionals responsibility to market themselves appropriately. As a professional dive instructor I regularly charge 50-100% more than what the competition does, yet my classes are filled for months out. This is all because I bring a quality skill-set  and know how to sell my product in a market that is extremely competitive and filled with instructors who want to under-cut competition.
> 
> This argument is no different than when people in local shops say "Amazon is putting me out of business!" Pawning off your own poor performance/lack of marketing abilities onto some third party is no excuse. Get your game face on and realize that being able to sell yourself is the best insurance against any form of competition, internet based, or noob-protog alike.



I kind of disagree. If a group of expensive  photographers have a kind of monopoly on the market in a certain area, maybe a small town or something, then consumers have little choice but to choose one of those photographers lest they want to go through the hassle of trying to find someone to travel, which would probably be more expensive. 

So if a cheap, cheap photographer shows up and several consumers flock to them, I really can't blame the professional because the consumers were only going to them because of lack of cheap (fauxtographer) options.

It's kind of a specific situation but that's how it was back home in small town USA.

I also don't think the Amazon example is applicable. Nowadays in brick and mortar shops I am not paying for the product. I am paying for the expertise and convenience. However...many consumers buy online because you can find the exact same item for cheaper. Convenience isn't an issue for them. Back before the Internet, consumers had no choice but to go to those family owned stores because that's all they had. Now they have more options. In the case of retail, I don't think it's necessarily the marketing that should be amped up. I think the entire business model needs to be adapted to the current climate.

It's not applicable because you can go to three different photographers and find three entirely different products. Comparing the perceived quality of three photographers is harder than comparing a $200 iPod on Amazon against a $300 iPod at Mom and Pop's Electronics. The markets are too different.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 9, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> togalive said:
> 
> 
> > If a rookie with a newly purchased DSLR, whether its a T3i or 5dMKIII can steal a customer from a professional with years of experience, then its the professional who isn't doing something right. I'm not saying I support people going out doing things like the lady you described, but it is the professionals responsibility to market themselves appropriately. As a professional dive instructor I regularly charge 50-100% more than what the competition does, yet my classes are filled for months out. This is all because I bring a quality skill-set  and know how to sell my product in a market that is extremely competitive and filled with instructors who want to under-cut competition.
> ...



and on the other side of that...(and another kind of specific situation) but...
how many of those people that flocked to the cheap photographer previously got ZERO photos done because they could not afford the "pros" prices?
which begs the question...at what level of quality are "some photos" better than "no photos"? or at that point, is quality even a factor?


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 9, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> and on the other side of that...(and another kind of specific situation) but...
> how many of those people that flocked to the cheap photographer previously got ZERO photos done because they could not afford the "pros" prices?
> which begs the question...at what level of quality are "some photos" better than "no photos"? or at that point, is quality even a factor?



It was like that too lol.

Now, in the city I live in, the professional is still kind of limited by the consumer because the cost of living here is sooooo low that even though there are 300,000 people, most who want photos have been "spoiled" by the $50 phoographers. Basically, a cheap photographer will get 10 clients a week while a $300 photographer will get one making the cheaper photog more lucrative.

The whole system in this area defies everything right in the world of photography.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 9, 2013)

togalive said:


> bratkinson said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully, I'm not a pro.  I'd go broke if I was.  My concern is for those who make their living behind the lens.
> ...




Do many people just go out and buy dive equipment and within a few days open up "professional" dive operations, without knowing how to use the equipment?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 9, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > and on the other side of that...(and another kind of specific situation) but...
> ...



As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money.  I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250.  If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else.  Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 9, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



My thought has always been quality over quantity, because there is no such thing as a 10 minute head shot. $50? After taxes, gas, time, communications, etc....=$-0 profit. I am the same way with my own shopping experiences. I would rather spend more money, and have amazing customer service than a rushed half a** job. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more short term cash flow, but the bottom line will not be very lucrative. Everyone will have a different bottom line, but honestly why would I spend 5 times the amount of time with 15 clients when I can create the same experience for 1 or 2, with the same bottom line? It is all about a strong business plan and realistic goals.


----------



## jonnydonut (Mar 9, 2013)

It was really bad a few years ago. I think we're starting to reach and equilibrium as consumers are starting to see the difference between pros and amateurs. It is certainly a very saturated market now. We were all rookies once.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 9, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



Assuming that there are 1-2 clients willing to pay what you want.  I would rather take the money from 15 clients than sit at home waiting for the 1-2 clients to maybe call. Why not just take all the work?


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 9, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I kind of disagree. If a group of expensive  photographers have a kind of monopoly on the market in a certain area, maybe a small town or something, then consumers have little choice but to choose one of those photographers lest they want to go through the hassle of trying to find someone to travel, which would probably be more expensive.
> 
> So if a cheap, cheap photographer shows up and several consumers flock to them, I really can't blame the professional because the consumers were only going to them because of lack of cheap (*fauxtographer*) options.



You're shooting any validity of your argument in the foot with the last sentence above. You're essentially saying that someone who charges a lot less cannot, by virtue of that, be a proficient photographer. That's just silly. I know plenty of people who are amazing photographers who actually charge very little, simply because they care more about shooting pictures than they do about getting paid to shoot pictures.

If the pros can't market themselves and up their game to retain their customer base, it's not the inexpensive guy's problem, and it's not his fault. It's a shortcoming (and not an insignificant one) of the pro who charges a much higher rate.

Honestly, I see the whole idea of "protecting professional photography" as an immense load of crap. It's not one person's responsibility to ensure that someone _else _is able to earn a living. Adapt, or get out and do something else. But whining about how someone else is hurting your business, when your own view of that person is that he's a talentless hack, is nothing but an admission that you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place...


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 9, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> You're shooting any validity of your argument in the foot with the last sentence above. You're essentially saying that someone who charges a lot less cannot, by virtue of that, be a proficient photographer. That's just silly. I know plenty of people who are amazing photographers who actually charge very little, simply because they care more about shooting pictures than they do about getting paid to shoot pictures.
> 
> If the pros can't market themselves and up their game to retain their customer base, it's not the inexpensive guy's problem, and it's not his fault. It's a shortcoming (and not an insignificant one) of the pro who charges a much higher rate.
> 
> Honestly, I see the whole idea of "protecting professional photography" as an immense load of crap. It's not one person's responsibility to ensure that someone else is able to earn a living. Adapt, or get out and do something else. But whining about how someone else is hurting your business, when your own view of that person is that he's a talentless hack, is nothing but an admission that you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place...



I was referring to my specific experience. I'm not speaking of a correlation between being cheap and being a bad photographer. I'm saying that in the area where I used to live the cheap photographers are not very good. I never said all cheap photographers aren't good. I guess I wasn't clear about that.

Sometimes the customer base can't be marketed to if the intrinsic nature of the competition fits the needs of the customer base better.

The best marketing in the world will not get someone who is looking for a deal to pay $300 for a services that is so seemingly accessible and cheap nowadays.

The market economics is just as much a factor as the marketing of the actual photographer. The market is fluid so photographers must be too, but sometimes it's not within the photographer's power to just "up their game" if the market cannot support their prices/niche/whatever.

It's like telling a runner to just "run faster." Words are cheap.


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 9, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



Isn't changing your 'plan' from one quick $300 shoot to ten $50 shoots which yields more word of mouth advertising, more leads, more business akin to shooting oneself in the foot? Flexibility is great. Maybe that $300 customer decides to wait until next week, having even 5 or 6 of the $50 jobs in a week will at least keep food on the table, hopefully. But then, what if one of the $50 clients tells the $300 client (hopefully, repeat client) that you did such and such for $50? Next time Mr $300 calls, he figures you should be down to $50-75 too! 

From my naive amateur perspective, isn't waiting for the 'big client' to call rather than going after the little fish in the pond like a commercial fisherman that throws back everything less than 5 pounds? (I live in MA, but can't stand seafood). There's a whole lot of perch, bass, and trout being eaten every day compared to 5 pound large mouth bass. I see a conundrum. Yeah, catching the 'big one' is everyones' dream. But the reality is the little ones are what puts food on the table every day. Unfortunately, the problem may turn into the old marketing story: 'we lose a little on every sale, but we make it up in volume'.

To me, spending the majority of my 35 years as an independent contract computer consultant/programmer/analyst was a lot easier than what a photographer must do.  Find out what the customer wanted, put together a proposal (sometimes a couple of weeks to complete for US Government bids!), come up with a price and bid it. A lot of my business was word of mouth referrals. I just had to watch out for the 'oh, by the way, could you...' once I got the contract. But getting PAID was the sometimes the biggest problem of all!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 9, 2013)

Why would the $300 client know that I changed anyone else less.  I have clients that I charge different fees for similar work, they can range from $250-$2000 depending on the client.  None of them have ever asked what I charge other people.  It's the same with selling photos, some people I may charge $15 and other people buying the same photo pays $300.  As I said before, I would rather just take all the work I can get, better in my pocket than someone else.


----------



## KmH (Mar 9, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money.  I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250.  If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else.  Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.


There is an unproductive time factor involved when you have to deal with a big increase in the number of customers you have to process - more time spent pre and post shoot, less efficient image handling/editing, and in the form of an increase in administrative tasks.
Non-reimbursed costs can go up too, since you now have to generate and store the additional customer files.

It would be nice if in a week's time 10 shoots a week were to turn into 20 shoots a week. It usually takes a bit longer than that.

If not done right, increasing your volume by lowering your price can often mean a lot more work for the same or less money.
Many who have tried the 'Groupon' approach have found out the hard way that it often backfires.


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 9, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Do many people just go out and buy dive equipment and within a few days open up "professional" dive operations, without knowing how to use the equipment?



You'd be surprised. Many people purchase gear right out of certification and begin to offer "Salvage" operations, trying to find people's lost sunglasses etc, at a cost. Typically however, those divers end up getting themselves killed. That said, there are also "cheap" routes to becoming an instructor, and there are expensive ones. Some programs are happy to hand you a license if you just fork out enough money, while others actually care about the product they produce. In the end, the well-trained instructors who know how to market themselves and charge more almost invariably have more paying students lined up. 

A good example is an instructor friend of mine, we'll call him Glenn. The guy has decades of experience, and charges a premium, somewhere around $4,000 for a basic certification course. Thats roughly 10x what I charge, and I'm usually on the expensive end. Still, he does good work, and is scheduled for months and months ahead of time. His course is no different, no more difficult, and no easier, and he uses the same equipment from the same rental shops. They even dive side by side with classes paying far less. He just knows how to market himself to a very specific type of client, in his case, celebrities. 

I'm not at all against a professional certificate for protogs, if anything, I think it would be a worthwhile way of regulating the market. I just don't agree with some of the whining I've seen, in both the photography and diving markets.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 9, 2013)

Cheap clients will only bring more cheap clients.  You are looking at this wrong imagemaker.  I rather have only a few clients that pays well vs a lot of low paying clients.  Maybe it is easy for me to do it because it is not my main income.  

Most of referrals I got from my weddings 2 years ago, I didn't book them.  Why?  Because they were expecting $1500-$2000.  While it is tempting, I have to draw the line.  It is not fair for my current clients if I give these people better price for the same service.  

I do book referrals from my $3000+ weddings.  Nothing more rewarding than booking a wedding at $4000+ and they feel they are getting a deal.



KmH said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money.  I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250.  If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else.  Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.
> ...


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 9, 2013)

P.S.  I have only booked 4 weddings so far this year and I dont mind it.  I know it will work out better at the end VS. doing more weddings for cheaper.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Mar 9, 2013)

I see this all the time from both sides of the fence. I do sports which means you need to be credentialed. I have shot with top pros to local joe smoes.The guys who have been making money for years are fighting technology not amateurs. Anyone can buy a dslr and follow some tutorials on youtube and create decent photos. The cameras are that good. Its easy to buy something and use a computer to get what you want. Years ago the average consumer bought a simple camera. The pro cameras were much better and pros developed their own film. People will always recognize good work and professionalism. 
Put it this way, Eric Clapton didnt get upset when a local guy bought a guitar and tried to be original. Art is art and if you are scared of some amateur then maybe they arent an amateur, they have a skill. No one is going to use a crap photo for publication. They wont last long. Sure some jobs will get taken but after a while an agency is going to realize pro work and weekend warrior work.
As for the local guy trying to get into the business, well thats the only way so they have to. Come on guys what agency is going to hire someone without a portfolio for a paid assignment when they have someone who is reliable and knows more than photo such as captioning, ftping images and meeting deadlines. Eventually the Im a photographer phase will dye out of people.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 9, 2013)

"I rather have only a few clients that pays well vs a lot of low paying clients. * Maybe it is easy for me to do it because it is not my main income."  
*
I would love to be able work this way, 2-3 clients a month paying me $5k each, instead of having to work 20 days for a lot less, simply because I had a well paying job that allows me to do this.  But this is not the case in my real world of having to take some jobs I would have passed on 10 years ago simply because now there isn't always the option.  So I could just sit at home and not make any money at all, or I could shoot, I will take the shoot every time.  For the people that have full time jobs that allow them the option of just sitting at home on the weekend because they are guarenteed a pay cheque at the end of the month, that is your simple reality, not mine.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 9, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



You say in your post here, "We lose on every sale, but we make it up in volume." This is not possible. You can't be profitable and continue to grow your business effectively if you are losing money with every client interaction. So many of the shoot and burners that are charging so very little, THINK they are making money when they are truly never making a dime.


----------



## Rafterman (Mar 9, 2013)

The back-and-forth conversation in here is very interesting to read, especially for me, since I have recently thought very seriously about taking on photography as a part-time job (after following all the proper legal and business procedures, of course.) What I've gathered though is that everyone commenting is seemingly happy doing things they way they currently are. Each person doing this for a living is following a method that works for them personally, whether they're doing 20 shoots a month for $200 each or 1 shoot a month for $4,000. I understand the arguments for both, but if your own technique works for YOU, why discount or question the way someone else does things? That part I don't get.

On a personal note, I've been a Web Developer professionally for almost a decade now and can definitely understand the complaints from full-time photogs about John Doe dropping $1,000 on equipment and starting up a business. I have countless certifications in numerous languages/technologies, and it *used* to irritate me a great deal when someone who did nothing more than read "Web Design for Dummies" would call themselves a "professional" and start trying to drum up business. But as with the low-cost photographers, these bargain bin designers filled a need. It doesn't have any effect on me though, because I still get paid good money for my quality work and knowledge. In addition, when I started, I made genuinely AWFUL web pages at dirt-cheap prices. We all have to start somewhere people. I just think we should all recognize and respect that.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 10, 2013)

This is why I like selling prints. I shoot what I want, when I want, and people see them and say "Oooohhh... I want one". 

A quick trip to Costco and a $2.00 mailing tube and I'm putting cash in my checking account.

Photography's not my main gig. Besides, I enjoy it too much to make it a "job". But that doesn't mean I have an aversion to making a few bucks with it when the opportunity arises. I think the whole idea of "If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life" is nonsense. By and large, if you do what you love, and then try to make a living at it, it'll suck the fun out of it and make you resent it.

Kept as a side gig, the fun remains...


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2013)

I haven't read any of the posts but.....


There are still photography _businesses _out there making a killing in their own field.

And it has far more to do with how they run their _business _than anything.


At the end of the day a camera takes pictures and _business _&#8203;makes money.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

90+ posts and people STILL worry and fret over how other people run their "businesses" instead of tending to their own. 
ive never understood people that  blame others for their own shortcomings or failings...but take credit for their successes. 
surely the time and energy spend verbally smiting the unwashed masses for daring to pick up a camera and call themselves photographers could be better spent creating new marketing ideas, learning some new photography techniques, TEACHING someone new photography techniques, or just taking pictures in general. just a thought.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 10, 2013)

We've all been sharing our thoughts and opinions on what is right and what is wrong, it has been a good thread for that.  Bottom line here is that I will continue to work the way I always have been, trying to continue to make a living from photography, how I make that living, what I charge and what works for me will remain the same.  I take away ideas from other people, and if they work, I will use them.  I know at the end of the day I'm happy with how I shoot, how much time and energy went into being the best photographer I can be, that's what really matters, not how I make the money.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> We've all been sharing our thoughts and opinions on what is right and what is wrong, it has been a good thread for that.  Bottom line here is that I will continue to work the way I always have been, trying to continue to make a living from photography, how I make that living, what I charge and what works for me will remain the same.  I take away ideas from other people, and if they work, I will use them.  I know at the end of the day I'm happy with how I shoot, how much time and energy went into being the best photographer I can be, that's what really matters, not how I make the money.



sorry for going off topic here imagemaker46, but i've been wondering what lens that is in your avatar? that thing would give anyone lens envy.  a very long and fast fixed focal i would guess?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > We've all been sharing our thoughts and opinions on what is right and what is wrong, it has been a good thread for that.  Bottom line here is that I will continue to work the way I always have been, trying to continue to make a living from photography, how I make that living, what I charge and what works for me will remain the same.  I take away ideas from other people, and if they work, I will use them.  I know at the end of the day I'm happy with how I shoot, how much time and energy went into being the best photographer I can be, that's what really matters, not how I make the money.
> ...



That's my old  Canon 400 2.8 FD, picture was shot during the 1998 Winter Olympics, back when my manual focus skills were a little better than they are now.  I always hand held that lens, made it easier for shooting sports.  I still use it with my digital bodies, have a Canon adapter works great.  Still the sharpest glass I have.


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 11, 2013)

jake337 said:


> At the end of the day a camera takes pictures and _business _&#8203;makes money.



Well said, Jake.


----------



## pjwarneka (Mar 13, 2013)

Great thread.   Every forum has one on it. this one is pretty good.

I see one other entity that has hurt the industry.  And that is the Old Guard.  Keep in mind  I am talking in generalities, so I don't mean every single person. 
As the noobies came in, it was a perfect time to reinforce the basics, promote individuality and creativity in the industry. But instead they sold them books, filters,straps, actions, seminars,bags,told them they should be like them etc...
they Tour the country for 8 months out of the year on a speaking tour, or spend months doing R&D to build widgets to sell you, yet tell people they are a photographer.  It seemed like some were just feeding off the young to supplement their income.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 13, 2013)

pjwarneka said:


> Great thread.   Every forum has one on it. this one is pretty good.
> 
> I see one other entity that has hurt the industry.  And that is the Old Guard.  Keep in mind  I am talking in generalities, so I don't mean every single person.
> As the noobies came in, it was a perfect time to reinforce the basics, promote individuality and creativity in the industry. But instead they sold them books, filters,straps, actions, seminars,bags,told them they should be like them etc...
> they Tour the country for 8 months out of the year on a speaking tour, or spend months doing R&D to build widgets to sell you, yet tell people they are a photographer.  It seemed like some were just feeding off the young to supplement their income.



What do you mean by the Old Guard?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2013)

awe...almost the 100th post here...


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2013)

post #100!! YAY!


----------



## KmH (Mar 13, 2013)

Rafterman said:


> Each person doing this for a living is following a method that works for them personally, whether they're doing 20 shoots a month for $200 each or 1 shoot a month for $4,000. I understand the arguments for both, ......


Actually, I don't think you do understand the arguments for both.

There is a big difference in the time factors involved in doing a 1 hour - $200, 60 images made, retail portrait shoot, and a 10 hour - $4000, 1000 images made event like a wedding.

Each hour of shooting generally requires 3 - 4 hours of pre and post production work.

So a 10 hour wedding (event) shoot winds up requiring 40 to 50 total hours.

In other words, both photographers are making about the same amount of revenue on a per hour basis.


----------



## 49medic (Mar 13, 2013)

If I may be so bold as to add my two cents...

 As a newbie myself, I may not understand the intricacies of professional photography, but this appears to be a universal theme these days. Whether it be volume-based retailers,  technology shifts, or changes in consumer trends, they all pose a threat to modern business conventions and force adaptation whether anyone likes it or not.

 I fully understand the concern of the OP, and you have all made valid arguments. Could I go out tomorrow and charge someone a few hundred dollars for awful wedding photos? Yup. And some of us with very limited experience and skills do. I could operate like a discount operation, undercut you all, get maybe a handful of images that resemble quality work, market myself using social media and DIY branding material, and effectively change the consumer opinion on what is acceptable for wedding (amongst others) photography fees. Sound familiar?

That having been said, there is one major difference between my work and yours: mine sucks. Yours is fantastic. To combat the 'I want cheap (and low quality)' trends, some companies spend a lot of effort marketing quality, and showing clear contrast between the two.

My point is this: There may be a lot of garbage out there, and yes, it does seem bothersome, but that is not your market share. Some people will just not pay your price for quality. However, there are plenty that will. I have been asked to shoot two weddings, and refused. After helping them hire a proper professional and seeing her work, they were sold. Get your work out there, and let people see the difference. Sway the consumer, not the industry ( I knew that I would get a cool one-liner out of that class..).


Just my opinion, for what its worth.


----------



## Rafterman (Mar 13, 2013)

KmH said:


> In other words, both photographers are making about the same amount of revenue on a per hour basis.



Right. Which is exactly why I compared them as equals. It's two different roads that both reach the same destination. There's a reason why I used those monetary figures too. $200 x 20 shoots = $4000 and $4000 x 1 shoot = $4000 as well. 

Some people in this thread have explained that they prefer doing several low-dollar shoots while some prefer doing just a few high-dollar shoots when in essence, they're all doing the same amount of work and it just comes down to personal preference.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Mar 14, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Cheap digital cameras, cell phones, and the inability of the average person to tell the difference between good and bad. There will never be any kind of "licence" to be certified as a professional photographer. People will still hire photographers because they understand that skill and experience still matters in most situations, the rest of the world doesn't really care if someone has two weeks with a camera or 20 years. When I see that someone is shooting weddings at $2000 for 6 hours work, I wonder what they are getting for for $2000. My son is getting married and asked me to see if I could find a good wedding photographer, as I was involved in the wedding. After looking at 3 web sites with a combined 10 years experience "creating the images that will last a lifetime bs" Packages starting at $2000. I told him I would shoot the wedding, and any photos I was in, I would hand the camera off. I have no doubt that I can shoot the wedding without any concerns and that what I produce will be far better than some $2000 professional wedding photographer could turn out. Weddings are formula, show up, set up and shoot. I have seen some quite amazing wedding photography that portray professional experience and skill. I have seen some that are pure unskilled crap. Like every area of photography there is consistent good and there is consistent bad, unfortunately the gap between the two is getting closer and not for the better.
> 
> Before all the professional wedding photographers jump down my throat on this, if you are running a business full time as a wedding photographer and doing a great job at it, I respect that. But the majority aren't doing that, they are weekend pretenders, same as the weekend sports and portrait types. It always looks like easy money until it's the only money. There is a lot more to this business than owning a camera, I'd like everyone that is playing weekend professional to have the opportunity of not having a pay cheque for 6 months and using money from photography only. They would see how much fun the job really is, when it's all you have.




In NY some get $7,500 a wedding.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 14, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Cheap digital cameras, cell phones, and the inability of the average person to tell the difference between good and bad. There will never be any kind of "licence" to be certified as a professional photographer. People will still hire photographers because they understand that skill and experience still matters in most situations, the rest of the world doesn't really care if someone has two weeks with a camera or 20 years. When I see that someone is shooting weddings at $2000 for 6 hours work, I wonder what they are getting for for $2000. My son is getting married and asked me to see if I could find a good wedding photographer, as I was involved in the wedding. After looking at 3 web sites with a combined 10 years experience "creating the images that will last a lifetime bs" Packages starting at $2000. I told him I would shoot the wedding, and any photos I was in, I would hand the camera off. I have no doubt that I can shoot the wedding without any concerns and that what I produce will be far better than some $2000 professional wedding photographer could turn out. Weddings are formula, show up, set up and shoot. I have seen some quite amazing wedding photography that portray professional experience and skill. I have seen some that are pure unskilled crap. Like every area of photography there is consistent good and there is consistent bad, unfortunately the gap between the two is getting closer and not for the better.
> ...



Photography is my wifes only income, but i work as well. Where do we fit in as a dual income home since photography is not our sole source of money? Sure, we probably wouldn't do to great on just the photography income,  but we wouldn't fair much better on only my medic salary. I dont see the difference between someone doing photography part time as a second job,  and me working at a hospital part time to make extra money. (assuming you are licensed and paying taxes on the extra income)


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 14, 2013)

Rafterman said:


> Right. Which is exactly why I compared them as equals. It's two different roads that both reach the same destination. There's a reason why I used those monetary figures too. $200 x 20 shoots = $4000 and $4000 x 1 shoot = $4000 as well.
> 
> Some people in this thread have explained that they prefer doing several low-dollar shoots while some prefer doing just a few high-dollar shoots when in essence, they're all doing the same amount of work and it just comes down to personal preference.



Is that just one photographer though or does that include an entire team of photographers and videographers? Lol


----------



## pgriz (Mar 14, 2013)

In the discussion of many shoots vs. a few shoots, the other things to consider are opportunity costs and transactional costs.  Opportunity costs really are about whether you're doing the most useful or productive thing - If you do "this" are you missing out on something else that is potentially more rewarding or more lucrative?  The transactional costs are all the little bits associated with "one" transaction, including the time to set it up, the travel (if applicable), the paperwork and book-keeping, the credit card charges (if applicable), the recording of the interaction in your client management system (you got one, right?), and so on.  If the transactions all tend to be one-time purchases, then tracking who you're doing business with is probably a waste of time, but if there is the potential for recurring (or referral) business, then it becomes very important to know what you've done with that client (or prospect) in the past, and what is needed for future transactions.


----------



## cynicaster (Mar 14, 2013)

I was wondering how long I&#8217;d need to be on this site before I saw a thread about this.  As it turns out, not long at all.  

  I&#8217;m inclined to agree with those who say that the &#8220;real professionals&#8221; need to fight their way through modern realities, elevate themselves above the low-brow competition, and _sell their value_ by means of a portfolio that speaks for itself.  

  It needs to be accepted, however, that selling value will only be possible in the correct demographic.  

  As is the case with any creative and highly subjective medium, consumers of photography fall on a continuously varying spectrum that has &#8220;discerning connoisseur&#8221; at one end and &#8220;casual/pedestrian&#8221; at the other.  The former place enormous significance on nuance, originality, and technical execution; the latter treat photographs as more of a commodity than an art form, and are simply not going to see the value in shelling out a few grand for a high-falutin&#8217; professional when Uncle Walt only charges a case of Busch Light for his services.  His photos may be rife with boring compositions, hit-and-miss sharpness, cluttered backgrounds, crooked horizons, unnatural colors, and harsh shadows from his crappy pop-up flash, but the smiles on everybody&#8217;s faces are nice, and the pictures depict rarely seen family members all together in one frame, so mission accomplished!


----------



## LadyA (Mar 14, 2013)

I tired to post last night but I don't see it... My thoughts were... I understand the 77 weddings with the kit concern.. but don't all pros start as rookies? I'm %100 rookie but don't plan to be forever! I think a phony and a rookie are two different things.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 14, 2013)

LadyA said:


> I tired to post last night but I don't see it... My thoughts were... I understand the 77 weddings with the kit concern.. but don't all pros start as rookies? I'm %100 rookie but don't plan to be forever! I think a phony and a rookie are two different things.



Sure.  The "normal" way of working up to weddings is learning your gear inside and out, apprenticing as a second photographer for a bunch if weddings and eventually transitioning to primary.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 14, 2013)

manaheim said:


> LadyA said:
> 
> 
> > I tired to post last night but I don't see it... My thoughts were... I understand the 77 weddings with the kit concern.. but don't all pros start as rookies? I'm %100 rookie but don't plan to be forever! I think a phony and a rookie are two different things.
> ...



I think the word "common" would be more appropriate than "normal".

How one person does it in no way should dictate how another does it, and just because a particular way is more common doesn't mean it's the only way it should be done. 

With regards to something like this, I believe the end justifies the means...


----------



## manaheim (Mar 14, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I think the word "common" would be more appropriate than "normal".
> 
> How one person does it in no way should dictate how another does it, and just because a particular way is more common doesn't mean it's the only way it should be done.
> 
> With regards to something like this, I believe the end justifies the means...



Unless the commonness comes from some level of sense that has not been significantly affected by recent changes in the world that might dictate a different course.


----------



## ghache (Mar 14, 2013)

Portfolios and photos speak for themselves. let the client choose whatever they want. 

My only concern is when people pay outrageous sums of money for ****ty photos in the price range of pros who could have give them something nice for their money, that i hate it.

to me, if you paid and wanted to pay 150$ for wedding photos, you might get what you paid for.


I shoot photos for years now, while pricing myself not cheap but not expensive either, it keeps me going and i dont think it hurts the business as i give my client what they expect to get. However, for weddings, i always refer any request to 2-3 excellent photographer i know because i know what they can produce and will please them. I simply tell them, weddings is not my cup of tea and its alot more different than shooting portraits or whatever i do. I educated them and tell why they should pay, how much work it is and how much gear and skills it needs to be a good wedding photographer.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 14, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I think the word "common" would be more appropriate than "normal".
> ...



Not at all.

Just because something works for one person doesn't mean it'll work for another, nor should it be presumed that it would. 

What's "normal" is that we each do what we see as the best path for ourselves (assuming it's legal and moral) towards attaining our goal.

After all, what's "normal" for the spider is often chaos for the fly...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 14, 2013)

ghache said:


> to me, if you paid and wanted to pay 150$ for wedding photos, you might get what you paid for.



And, quite often, it's possible that you get something worth far more than what a photographer might think is worth $150.00.

In such a case, is that the problem of the low-cost shooter who got the gig or the expensive shooter who didn't?



> I educated them and tell why they should pay, how much work it is and how much gear and skills it needs to be a good wedding photographer.



If you're deferring a job to someone else, you shouldn't be commenting beyond that. You only get to do that if you accept the job...


----------



## manaheim (Mar 14, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



You mention morality. Is it morale to go into a wedding with no experience and no real understanding of your equipment or photography?

You want so desperately... like so many other people... to defend people's right to go diving into these things just because... well, I don't even know WHY.  I can't figure you out.

So I sit here suggesting HEY!  STEVE!  MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING?  MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF PEOPLE APPRENTICED TO OTHERS... NOT BECAUSE IT'S WHAT IS DONE, BUT IT BECAUSE IT MAKES A WHOLE HEAP LOAD OF GOOD FRICKEN SENSE!

And then you say "Oh but SOME new people have pulled it off!  Including me!  Just because it makes sense for everyone, doesn't mean it has to be that way!!!"

Right.  Brilliant approach.

Look... I make a healthy salary and have a great lifestyle, but haven't completed my degree, but I'll be the FIRST to tell you that not getting your degree is STOOOOOOOOOOPID and just ASKING for ALL KINDS of trouble.  But hey!  It worked for me!  So SCREW degrees!  Right?

Brilliant.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 14, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Not to be all nitpicky and jerky (mmmm jerky) but wouldn't it be more a matter of ethicality than morality? I mean, I guess it does have some moral implications considering that it's almost like the photographer doesn't want the bride and groom to have the best product and that makes you a TERRIBLE PERSON GOOD GOD DID YOUR MOTHER CONSUMMATE WITH SATAN, YOU SHOULD CALL HER RIGHT NOW AND APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING BEEN BORN, DEMON BEGONE!...ahem...but...yeah...

I agree with you.


----------



## runnah (Mar 14, 2013)

I punched a guy with a d3x, does that count?


----------



## manaheim (Mar 14, 2013)

Rex: heh, yeah, good point. 

runnah: You bad man.  Very bad.


----------



## Pukka312 (Mar 15, 2013)

Doesn't it just basically come down to the target audience? If you want to follow the Lexus model and market yourself as a high-end luxury product, you don't look for your customers in a Kia parking lot. 

Or maybe on the flip side, it's easier to look at the Wal-Mart model...they hold a majority of the market because they offer products at low prices, even though it's often inferior quality, but due to the massive number of customers, their business thrives. Wal-Mart did force many of its competition to either lose business or rework their business plan. Wal-Mart isn't going anywhere because there are too many people who can't afford (or who simply see no value in spending) more. If you are trying to compete against the giant, you'll probably lose because you're looking at the wrong target market. If you want to follow the Wal-Mart model, hey, it's your business. (Disclaimer: I do realize there are probably many photogs who haven't even considered a business plan, and simply fall in the low-end "Wal-mart" model because they've never successfully done any cost analysis to determine their pricing structure. They just throw out a number that they feel is fair without consideration of expenses. So yeah, some businesses are probably accidentally successful with obtaining clients through pricing, but they are probably making next to nothing in profit- so why be jealous? Those clients are still not in your target audience if you are one with more skill, better quality products and higher prices)

You just have to remember, the percentage of those who are wealthy enough to afford high end is far less than those who are scraping by. You are targeting a minority audience and that's when you have to refine the other aspects of marketing, because you would then be competing amongst your peers with substantial talent, and similar price ranges. At that point, I assume the better businessman comes out ahead.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 15, 2013)

manaheim said:


> You mention morality. Is it morale to go into a wedding with no experience and no real understanding of your equipment or photography?



If the client is made aware of the limitations, certainly...



> You want so desperately... like so many other people... to defend people's right to go diving into these things just because... well, I don't even know WHY. I can't figure you out.



Well, I'm flattered that you think you need to figure me out, but I'm really not that much of an enigma.

This forum is full of naysayers. Most of these people, in all likelihood, have never had a paying photo job.

Maybe I view things a bit differently, but I don't see it as my mission to save a photographer the embarrassment of doing a crappy job, nor is it my mission to save a bride and groom the angst of having crappy photos. If newbies listened to the advice of most folks here, they'd never pick up a camera. I dig this forum a lot, but I don't know that I've ever seen a forum with a higher level of negativity towards someone just starting out.

My advice to newbies: If you want to do it, grab the bull by the horns and do it. If you're confident that you can do a good job, then you probably will. But, if you don't, be prepared to be villified for it.

Take action and accept responsibility...



> So I sit here suggesting HEY! STEVE! MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING? MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF PEOPLE APPRENTICED TO OTHERS... NOT BECAUSE IT'S WHAT IS DONE, BUT IT BECAUSE IT MAKES A WHOLE HEAP LOAD OF GOOD FRICKEN SENSE!



Sure it does. And, if apprenticing was always an option, it might be sound advice. But it's not always possible. Does that mean, then, that no one should ever venture down the road of just doing it?



> And then you say "Oh but SOME new people have pulled it off! Including me! Just because it makes sense for everyone, doesn't mean it has to be that way!!!"



You seriously need to untwist your panties, man. You're really getting a tad too upset over this...



> Right. Brilliant approach.



I used to play music professionally. When I stopped doing that, I decided I wanted to shoot live club bands and concerts. There was no "apprenticing" for that, and there sure as Hell wasn't anyone willing to take me under their wing. It's just too competitive. There was only one way I was going to get to do it, and that was figure out, on my own, how to do it. I shmoozed the right people and said the right things, and I got into small-time shows, and then into national acts. My shots have been on magazine, DVD and CD covers, and are used on various band websites. It ain't makin' me rich, but that's okay, because "rich" isn't the point here. The point is that I never would've gotten myself to a position where I could should anyone, at any venue in town, had I not gotten off my ass and figured out how to do it on my own. THAT'S what I'm suggesting, simply because no one here has any vested interest in truly helping anyone else out It happens, but "help" doesn't come in the form of "DON'T DO IT". That's a defeatist attitude, quite often adopted by naysayers who are, all too often, afraid to do it themselves...



> Look... I make a healthy salary and have a great lifestyle, but haven't completed my degree, but I'll be the FIRST to tell you that not getting your degree is STOOOOOOOOOOPID and just ASKING for ALL KINDS of trouble. But hey! It worked for me! So SCREW degrees! Right?



Deep end, meet Manaheim...



> Brilliant.



No, not brilliant. Ballsy. Confident. Cocky. Unafraid. You're clearly none of those things. Perhaps you should step out of the way of those who are.

Nothing worthwhile has ever been accomplished because all the pieces fell perfectly into place. If you're not the kind of person who doesn't have the required level of self-confidence to take what others might consider a "chance", that's fine. But if someone wants to do just that, I say Godspeed. In doing so, a person will reap the benefits of his successes, but he will also shoulder the responsibility for his failures. 

Either way, he'll know that he succeeded or failed on his own accord, and on his own terms, instead of because he decided to listen to what some random guy with a bunny avatar said on on an internet forum...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 15, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Not to be all nitpicky and jerky (mmmm jerky) but wouldn't it be more a matter of ethicality than morality?



I don't know that morality wouldn't belong there, though, although you are correct about the "ethics" part. I should've included that.

My morals tell me to do the best job I can do. Ethically, it's incumbent upon me to make the client aware of my level of expertise. If, after being made aware of that, the client chooses to hire me, my conscience is clear...


----------



## manaheim (Mar 15, 2013)

Totally respect your position on it, Steve.  I see where you're coming from... though I do think the comparison to playing music professionally and doing wedding photography is totally bull.   Very big difference in what you manage to wreck if you're out of your league between the two, and it's also quite easy to determine in a short audition (even to those with relatively little sense of music) if you're a competent musician.

That aside... I get you. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Totally respect your position on it, Steve.  I see where you're coming from... though I do think the comparison to playing music professionally and doing wedding photography is totally bull.   Very big difference in what you manage to wreck if you're out of your league between the two, and it's also quite easy to determine in a short audition (even to those with relatively little sense of music) if you're a competent musician.
> 
> That aside... I get you. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.



Plus it takes a lot of hard work to become competent on an instrument! The rookies just put the camera in Auto, or TTL mode.... big difference. One requires skill, one requires half a brain.


----------



## runnah (Mar 15, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Totally respect your position on it, Steve.  I see where you're coming from... though I do think the comparison to playing music professionally and doing wedding photography is totally bull.   Very big difference in what you manage to wreck if you're out of your league between the two, and it's also quite easy to determine in a short audition (even to those with relatively little sense of music) if you're a competent musician.
> ...



Lies! I can teach someone 4 chords and have them playing 90% of today's music.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 15, 2013)

runnah said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Sure... you can probably teach them to "rap" too...  lol!


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 15, 2013)

I would like to share a relevant story concerning me and my wifes opinion of the "rookies".
we live in the Orlando area. a HUGE area that is ridiculously over-saturated with photographers. (i much preferred the smaller area we lived in before) 
now, we don't get $4000+ a wedding, but we don't do them for $200 either. I guess we meet somewhere in the middle. competition is tough. there are a lot of good photographers out here, and 10 times as many cliche FB fauxtogs. One such rookie is a woman whos kid sees the same physical therapist as our son. she has a FB business page. she does weddings, partys, portraits, maternity, newborn sessions, whatever you could think of. All with her brand new T3i and 18-55 kit lens she purchased in october of 2012. her pictures are mostly underexposed, soft or missed focus, selectively colored, or poorly composed, but apparently her clients don't seem to mind. 
every week my wife talks a little shop with her. sometimes about composition, sometimes about exposure or lighting, sometimes just about the different camera modes. 
She finally even got a Canon speedlight, which helped her pictures quite a bit. 

so..heres my wife, a photographer struggling to get business in an already photographer heavy area that we only recently moved to, HELPING another "pro"(?)
improve their work. Is she creating more competition? is she making it harder on herself and us by helping a newer photographer improve, and bettering THEIR chances at getting work right in our own back yard? yea, maybe. im sure some people will look at it that way. im sure some people will say how stupid it is. we don't look at it that way though. my wife never thought of her as competition, just as someone with similar interests. theres pages and pages here of posts telling someone like the rookie that they should not be presenting themselves as a pro, or as a business (since shes not a legal one)...and you know what? we agree with that 100%. She got her camera in october, and opened her FB business in december. cliche much?

But...she did it. its a done deal. and no amount of ranting, raving, or scolding is going to change that. what does that leave us with? a photographer that clearly needs help. what are our choices? we have some options. could ignore her all together as far as work goes. we could look down from our pedestal and take the moral high ground, chastising her for hanging out her shingle without the proper licensing, experience, or equipment. (and maybe rightly so) OR, my wife could help her become a better photographer. (hopefully)  maybe we will lose business to her. maybe she will refer business to us that she cant do. who knows... I guess we will see. 

what I have learned from my wife is... as people with experience in a trade, we can either try to stem the tide of newbie "pros" by withholding our knowledge, chastising and berating them from our elitist pedestal for not doing things the way we did them, or the way we feel they should be done...OR, no matter HOW they got their start or at what experience/equipment level they are at, help them to improve, and in doing so, encourage and guide them to doing things properly and professionally. 
that's the approach my wife is trying. hopefully it will yield some good results.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 15, 2013)

ghache said:


> Portfolios and photos speak for themselves. let the client choose whatever they want.
> 
> My only concern is when people pay outrageous sums of money for ****ty photos in the price range of pros who could have give them something nice for their money, that i hate it.
> 
> ...



I do the same thing, I have a buddy who shoots weddings and I pass his name on to anyone that asks me about shooting weddings, he's not the best shooter I know, but he does a good job and everyone is always happy with the quality and professional service.  ghache, I've seen your portrait stuff and have no doubt that you could do a pretty good job shooting a wedding, but also appreciate that you do pass the work onto a more experienced wedding photographer.

I know I could do a good job shooting weddings, it's not my thing, and as a professional I will pass work on to other professionals that rely on weddings for their sole income.  It's just treating other professionals with respect for the work they do.

There are just too many people with cameras that don't give a crap about anyone else but themselves and making  a few extra bucks on the weekend, being at the event to them is sometimes more important than doing a good job.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 15, 2013)

Bravo, pixmedic.

A rising tide raises all ships, what goes around comes around, and so on. A positive approach like that seems to work out on the plus side in unpredictable ways. Sometimes it goes into the negative column, but not as often as you think, and even if it does you get to sleep soundly at night.


----------



## Pukka312 (Mar 15, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I would like to share a relevant story concerning me and my wifes opinion of the "rookies".
> we live in the Orlando area. a HUGE area that is ridiculously over-saturated with photographers. (i much preferred the smaller area we lived in before)
> now, we don't get $4000+ a wedding, but we don't do them for $200 either. I guess we meet somewhere in the middle. competition is tough. there are a lot of good photographers out here, and 10 times as many cliche FB fauxtogs. One such rookie is a woman whos kid sees the same physical therapist as our son. she has a FB business page. she does weddings, partys, portraits, maternity, newborn sessions, whatever you could think of. All with her brand new T3i and 18-55 kit lens she purchased in october of 2012. her pictures are mostly underexposed, soft or missed focus, selectively colored, or poorly composed, but apparently her clients don't seem to mind.
> every week my wife talks a little shop with her. sometimes about composition, sometimes about exposure or lighting, sometimes just about the different camera modes.
> ...



I personally think that shows class, as well as self confidence in your own talent (or in this case, your wife's self-confidence) and ability. A lot of people can be taught the technical aspects of how to compose a good photograph, but not everyone can be taught creativity. Not everyone can think on their feet and not only visualize a concept, but execute it, in any situation.  So I don't think sharing knowledge equals business loss...unless you found somebody who is truly gifted and creative. And even then, how can you not admire someone who has that talent?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 15, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I would like to share a relevant story concerning me and my wifes opinion of the "rookies".
> we live in the Orlando area. a HUGE area that is ridiculously over-saturated with photographers. (i much preferred the smaller area we lived in before)
> now, we don't get $4000+ a wedding, but we don't do them for $200 either. I guess we meet somewhere in the middle. competition is tough. there are a lot of good photographers out here, and 10 times as many cliche FB fauxtogs. One such rookie is a woman whos kid sees the same physical therapist as our son. she has a FB business page. she does weddings, partys, portraits, maternity, newborn sessions, whatever you could think of. All with her brand new T3i and 18-55 kit lens she purchased in october of 2012. her pictures are mostly underexposed, soft or missed focus, selectively colored, or poorly composed, but apparently her clients don't seem to mind.
> every week my wife talks a little shop with her. sometimes about composition, sometimes about exposure or lighting, sometimes just about the different camera modes.
> ...



It's always good to offer helpful suggestions to people in order for them to better themselves, but it can come at a cost. 

Similar story.  Years ago I needed someone to help out with some very simple shooting, I knew a guy that had some gear, did an ok job, just needed some tips and experience.  I took the chance and had the people I was working for hire him on, things worked out pretty well for a few years, he improved, but was still an advanced amateur, still making lots of little mistakes, but he was a talker, and turns out an ass kisser, next thing you know, I'm not working for these people anymore, he talked them into getting rid of me and using him to save money.

I am hired to shoot a big event overseas and a second photographer is required, a friend I have known for years and a good shooter, again not great, but a full time freelancer, we did the job, every one was happy, we worked together on different events for six years.  On the next big event I couldn't do the shoot, but we lined up another photographer.  Next thing you know I can't back with this group, in spite of trying, being recommended but all the right people, this has gone on for 12 years, I  find out that "my friend" that I brought on board has been  poaching my clients, bad talking me and telling people that they shouldn't be using me, so they listen to him.  Helping  some people that want to get ahead, may just end up walking over  you and really don't care how they do it.  I've been back stabbed too many times, so now when some young eager kid "professional" with a camera comes along and want to "pick my brain"  I'll talk about a lot of things, but how to succeed, they can learn that on their own.  

I could go on with dozens of stories like this, that affected me and other photographers I know.  There is a lot of sleaze in this business. Watch who you help along the way, you never know how sharp the knife is they are holding.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 15, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to share a relevant story concerning me and my wifes opinion of the "rookies".
> ...



well, we aren't exactly running photography workshops out here. just helping out one person. I suppose it COULD go bad, and I am generally the pessimist of the family,
(I alway say im not a pessimist, im a realist) but I guess my biggest weakness is i have a tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt. hopefully this one wont bite us. I dont see it as long term help anyway, my wife doesn't meet her outside of seeing her at therapy.


----------



## dewey (Mar 15, 2013)

Photography is not much different than any other business.

All of that fancy equipment legitimate auto mechanics have... and they compete with people working "outback" from craigslist ads.  

What about the sign business?  Every yahoo with $400 and a Saturday to kill can buy a vinyl plotter and start selling "signs" on craigslist.

No insurance... no rent... no licenses... little overhead.  But it's the same in most industries.  In photography you have to build your name over time.  You have to make contacts.  You have to get so people know about you BEFORE they go hunting for a photographer.

Now if you rely on some portion of your business from the news industry... you now compete with every bobo with a smart phone willing to send in video for FREE.  You're screwed.  But I still love chasing news.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 15, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> as people with experience in a trade, we can either try to stem the tide of newbie "pros" by withholding our knowledge, chastising and berating them from our elitist pedestal for not doing things the way we did them, or the way we feel they should be done...OR, no matter HOW they got their start or at what experience/equipment level they are at, help them to improve, and in doing so, encourage and guide them to doing things properly and professionally.
> that's the approach my wife is trying. hopefully it will yield some good results.



And that's laudable.

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen all too often here on TPF. On any given day, I'd imagine the "Don't do it because you're not good and you're not ready and this is why" posts out number the "Good luck and let us know how it goes" posts 100 to 1.

Manaheim took me to task for always taking the position of "Get out there and do it". Well, given the prevailing tone of everyone of those threads, why not?

Personally, I find the premise of the OP a bit odd. The second sentence says he's concerned about those who make a living shooting pictures.

Why?

He may well have his reasons but, personally, I've never seen it as my place to tell someone they should do something, simply because a negative result will have zero impact on me. It's all about action vs. responsibility. Step up and be a man. Do it, but take the heat if it goes bad. I see _nothing _wrong with that.

I work in a high-end retail shop, and I've had some issues with how certain things are laid out. One of those things was the location of our credit card machine. After telling the manager "We should move it here", I was told "We can't do that". 

Well, maybe "we" can't, but_ I _sure the Hell can. An hour later, all cables had been replaced and routed through the bottoms of display cabinets, the system was tested and it worked great. Everyone says the location improves work flow, and it does.

The only thing I knew about credit card terminals was that I didn't like where ours was. I didn't know how to test them or reboot them. I didn't know how to integrate it with our register or our routers. I didn't even have a very deep knowledge of drilling holes through cabinets (and avoiding the wiring in _those_) and routing wires through them, but I did it I just did what I did, plugged it all in, and hoped it worked. It did.

I did what I did, and I did it for three reasons.The first reason is that I felt it needed to be done. Second, no one else was gonna' do it. If they ever were, they'd have done it long ago. But the biggest reason I did it was because I was told "We can't do that".

It worked out well, so I've been the recipient of several pats on the back, and some may say those are well deserved. Had it _not _worked out, though, I would've been the recipient of several kicks in the ass, and _those _would've been well deserved, as well. The downside had the potential to put us down, saleswise, for the entire day. In all honesty, I probably would've lost my job.

Our manager had been telling people "it can't be done" simply because she didn't want to deal with the hassle of ordering some new cables. I worked with what we had on hand, drew on my shallow level of experience on such matters, and it works flawlessly.

Telling someone that they can't do something because "it can't be done" rarely has the desired outcome, which is keeping the person from doing it. Instead, lend a hand, offer sound, honest advice, and hope the person pulls it off. If they do, applaud them, if they don't, lambaste them and point out why...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 15, 2013)

When I was hired to be the photo chief during the 2001 World Figure Skating Championships I kept having people telling me "it can't be done"  The thing is that it had to done, so I did it.  It was really that simple, the only way things were going to run smooth was if it was done, and as no one else was going to help, they became the problem.  Bypass the ones that say "can't" and as Nike says  "just do it"

It's not always going to be easy, few things in life are, but if you want it, and regardless of what I say or anyone else says, some people will achieve what they want, good or bad.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 15, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > as people with experience in a trade, we can either try to stem the tide of newbie "pros" by withholding our knowledge, chastising and berating them from our elitist pedestal for not doing things the way we did them, or the way we feel they should be done...OR, no matter HOW they got their start or at what experience/equipment level they are at, help them to improve, and in doing so, encourage and guide them to doing things properly and professionally.
> ...



I would love to take some of the credit for it. I wish I could say I haven't been one of the people yelling at newbies here for starting their very recent and illegal photography businesses...but those words would be false. I still believe that they really SHOULDN'T be doing things the way they are, and so does my wife,  but she has the kinder, gentler machine gun hand. maybe she has the better approach. I would like to try it for myself and find out. Its difficult to go against something you feel passionately about, but maybe positive reinforcement and sincere guidance will be more productive to inducing change than negative reinforcement. maybe i just got sucked into my wife's optimism. Obviously we cant fix everyone, but if we can help  ONE person better themselves as a photographer, maybe the photography community as a whole will be just a little bit better.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 15, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> When I was hired to be the photo chief during the 2001 World Figure Skating Championships I kept having people telling me "it can't be done" The thing is that it had to done, so I did it. It was really that simple, the only way things were going to run smooth was if it was done, and as no one else was going to help, they became the problem. Bypass the ones that say "can't" and as Nike says "just do it"
> 
> It's not always going to be easy, few things in life are, but if you want it, and regardless of what I say or anyone else says, some people will achieve what they want, good or bad.



Excellent post...


----------



## ghache (Mar 15, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > Portfolios and photos speak for themselves. let the client choose whatever they want.
> ...



You are right. On thing that stop me from doing weddings is my current jobs which i work sometimes on weekends, last minutes changes and on call schedule and i cant commit to take a weddings gigs and be stuck working that weekend, plus gear is also an issue, im not 100% confident about it so its a no.... maybe one day i will make the jump. I am happy to see these clients get the best of their money and have my friends be able to do their work and get paid for it. 

Talking about respect, since you are from the area, one the largest rock radio station in town approached me last week to shoot their monthly contest of "babes". Basically, 12 high end photoshoot so at the end of the year, they can make a calendar and sell it? lol. All was offered was publicity (Even if i had 200 clients calling tomorrow i couldn't take them in so to me it worth nothing)  and a link to my web page on their . Really? I calmly refused as i knew the person who was sending me the email. Then they asked me if i know someone who could do it. I was like, no, i won't throw the unpaid/unfair proposal towards people i know.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 15, 2013)

ghache said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > ghache said:
> ...




It's amazing what people ask for and still think that having your name attached is of some real value, it sounds good, but rarely works out to be of any advantage or future work. I get the same thing all the time,  "we are a non-profit" group and will give you credit if you just give us" Well it can be no-profit all it wants, but these people are still getting paid.  This drives me nuts, when obvious businesses that have money are wanting everything free.  I have told people that when they stop at a grocery store do they just go in and take what they want without paying for it, the answer is always no, then why should they consider me giving them something for free.  

The worst part about you not taking the job is we both know that someone else will do it for free just to hang out with the girls, I think I know who would do it for free that lives in town, and does a lot of model shoots.  He always ends up with something out of the shoots and it's not always money he gets.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 15, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



It seems to be a problem anytime you have a job where it looks like "time"  is your only overhead.  Its easy for people to ask you to donate "time"  as apposed to physical objects. It's usually the case that the people asking you to donate your time and skills are themselves, being paid for their time and skills. Part of their "job"  is to get as much free skilled labor as possible.


----------



## ghache (Mar 15, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



Well, they will probably find someone to do it for free, as they have one doing it for free right now. The main funny thing is that they said they knew they could do better with the photography of the contest cauz they are not totally happy with the results. They also states clearly on the site that the photo session is worth 600$. Thats 7200 $ the poor dude doing it for free is going to end up "paying" for a link to his website.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 15, 2013)

ghache said:


> I was like, no, i won't throw the unpaid/unfair proposal towards people i know.



Did you just tell them "no", or did you tell them _why _you were saying no?


----------



## Pukka312 (Mar 15, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



This totally reminded me of this "Photographer Looking For People to Do Their Job Without Pay"


----------

