# Everyone thinks they can be a pro! (RANT)



## Alleh Lindquist

So this is not a rant because I don't like competition because this is not about that. I don't compete in the markets I am referring to anyway. Just because digital has made it easier to produce a picture it has not made it easier to produce a good picture.

I still wonder what makes people think photography does not take the same amount of practice, skill and dedication as any other professional title. "Hey everyone I just bought a Porsche so now I am a lawyer, what should my attorney fees be." Your Costco bought D80 kit, that super great best bang for the buck 50 1.8 and your 5 months of shooting TONS of photos of your family does not even come close to making you a photographer

This practice has basically degraded the entire level of quality in weddings, portraits, seniors, families and event photographs.

I would be happy to entertain your opinions but my mind is pretty much made up that most people that think they can make a career as a photographer suck so much they should almost give it up as a hobby.


----------



## JerryPH

A simple answer to your question of why... one word... ignorance.  Ignorance of what it takes to become a GOOD photographer and the public's ignorance of what are professional results worthy of their money.

As far as quality dropping... the ONLY ones for whom the quality is dropping are the ones cheaping out and settling for low quality results.  Be that clients or the photographers themselves.

Quality amongst the TRUE professionals is *not* dropping but evolving and yes, I would even say improving.  There are some out there that are nothing short of incredible, innovative and awe inspiring and definately put the kabosh on people saying that the quality of the industry is falling down the tubes.

Unfortunately, there are a handful at this level, and many more not worthy dragging down the attitudes of the people, but no, those who stay true to themselves and demand quality have NO issues at all.    The only exception would be the "customers" that want something for nothing (lots of those out there)... and you do not want to be dealing with them anyways... leave THOSE to the wanna-be pros.  

The higher quality photographers will be out there with the higher quality clientele earning the higher dollar amounts.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

It's all due to a common human failing: the failure to develop any sense of relationship between ambition and capability.
And being a photographer is particularly attractive as it appears to be very well paid, glamorous and you don't really have to do much except wave an expensive camera about and look cool.
Sure beats cleaning toilets for a living.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

I don't mean to say that the quality of true professionals or photography in general is falling. I was referring to how the general public is becoming so bombarded with low quality work they it has become harder for them to not be ignorant about true quality photography. A high school girl may look at 10 websites all from "professional crap photographs" and she wont even know there are better options available; she will just go with the best of the worst. 

And yes so many people are all running around thinking that shooting things for free for their portfolio will help them build a quality business. Umm no, plus it makes people think they can waste my time calling up and asking if I want to shoot their family portraits for my portfolio. Not a chance I won&#8217;t even shoot your family portrait if you pay me.


----------



## table1349

> *Everyone thinks they can be a pro!*



It's this simple: *They can*.  Take a picture, sell it. You're a pro. End of story. 

The word professional or "Pro" means nothing in photography these days.  Frankly to me it never meant a whole lot even 30 + years ago.  Pro photographers are a dime a dozen.  30 years ago they were a two bits for a dozen.  Now with the advent of affordable digital cameras and the current state of the economy the price per dozen has gone down.  

Accomplished photographers on the other hand are a whole different matter.  Whether they sell their stuff or not.   The accomplished photographer is one that I do respect.  They have learned their craft, they understand it, and they practice that craft as musician practices their instrument and the athlete practices their sport.  They push the limit with their creativity.  This is what makes them stand out from the herd.   

Sorry JerryPH I have to disagree with you.  Too many of the working photographers I know have become fairly accomplished, get too comfortable in what they do, and then never change.  There are some wedding and portrait photographers in my area that I have watched and I can tell you what they are going to do in a shoot before they do it. They are that predictable. They have become a high priced K-mart portrait studio clone.  It doesn't take long to learn the system.  Now with digital it is cheap enough for more people to learn.  

If you think I am kidding, look around your area at what the photographers are displaying to attract customers.  I will bet that the majority have a cutesy baby portrait, a standard wedding couple or bride portrait and a typical leaning against a tree or sitting on a rock senior portrait in their windows.  YAWN!!!

In this world there are people that will still pay for quality.  Part of being a "Professional" photographer is showing your professionalism.  That starts with what you are able to show that makes you unique and desirable above the rest of the herd.  In my area at least the herd is getting to look all to much alike with fewer and fewer exceptions.  The one real exception I have seen to this is with the accomplished "hobbyist" that will push the envelope, because they have nothing to loose.


----------



## Mike_E

There is a one word answer.  It's EGO.

How many golfers buy Tiger Woods Clubs?

How many Pro jerseys are bought and worn by over weight, over medicated (joe 6pack) armchair types that think that they are the supreme judge of talent in the land due to the stellar career they had in public school?

A sports car that never gets over 55mph or barely makes even a half a G through a curve. Lord forbid that they get on the top of their shocks through a chicane.

Top of the line cameras are available to the masses and the masses will buy them. Thanks to them, most of the rest of us can afford them too.


----------



## Josh66

Alleh Lindquist said:


> I was referring to how the general public is becoming so bombarded with low quality work they it has become harder for them to not be ignorant about true quality photography.



In a way, that might help.  If people are used to seeing absolute crap all the time, when they see something that truly is good it will look even better to them.  It will make them say "WOW!"

If somebody looks at a few websites then decides that's all there is and they don't need to look any further they probably wouldn't have cared much about good photography anyway had you showed that to them first.  (Wow, that's a long sentence.)

People that really want good art/photography will keep looking until they find it.


----------



## craig

I do not or do I plan to shoot retail, but I have observed that the retail end of photography has been thrown to the dogs. I do not blame it so much as Dennis Menace with a D40. I blame it on the folks who look at ebay for 8 hours a day. Consumers are willing to put up with a bed sheet background and on camera flash. Small business websites are no better. I think greed and easy money has overcome solid marketing, thinking and budget.

On a brighter note; the recent work that I have seen from you and other professionals is outstanding. Strong creativity and outstanding quality is quickly gaining the upper hand. The market can only be flooded with poop for so long. I believe we will slowly see a switch to stronger photography.

Love & Bass


----------



## jstuedle

Just to add a little color commentary to the thread, let me tell you about someone I ran into recently. 

After swearing off weddings 28 years ago, my granddaughter was to be in a wedding swveral weeks back. I planned to take a camera after talking with the hired photographer and shooting her. ONLY! I then found out my daughter, our little flower girls mother had given my name to her boss along with my card. Did I mention her boss was the bride? Long sob story made short I consented to do the wedding for an appropriate fee and the promise there would be no kibitzing from the bride or either mother. (my pet peeve)  

At the reception, a lady approached me and mentioned her daughter was a wedding photographer who commented to her in glowing terms about my technique and how much fun everyone seemed to be having while I gave direction for all the still shots of family and wedding party. That would have made me feel great..... except the daughter had shot only one wedding, just 2 weeks after receiving her first camera. Yes, you guessed it, a D40 with the kit lens. No flash, no nothing. And for all I know they may think my work no better than this young ladies. Oh well, I actually had fun, and they seemed to as well. And NO, I don't want to do another any time soon. At least not in this lifetime.


----------



## DRoberts

Ok, now the wanna be perspective...To me the term professional is useless.  I can sale enough to,by definition, be called a professional. That by far does not make me an "ARTIST". That is the goal I am striving for, and one day I will get there. But the crap I am turning out now is just learning blocks and stepping stones to where I will someday be. 
Truelly good photographers are artist, and I view them that way. Just as mentioned, an athelete practices their sport, a musician practices his craft, well some of us still need to practice (ALOT) at this chosen craft. It is from the good photographers like the ones who have posted on this thread and that can be found on numerous other sites, that we (the "underclassmen") take our education and inspiration from.
 In short, not evewryone who goes out and buys a decent setup is in it for the quik buck and the title "Professional". Some of us are here to learn and grow.
 Thanks.


----------



## usayit

Have you guys seen an increase of this attitude since digital?

As much as I love digital, I find that it has spawned off more and more photographers with less willingness to progress forward.  During the film days, there was a certain amount of time/effort (hassle) involved in photography.  Those that truly loved photography didn't see processing/printing as a hassle.. others... simply stopped.



Hertz van Rental said:


> It's all due to a common human failing: the failure to develop any sense of relationship between ambition and capability.



Love that.... <mental note>


----------



## Battou

usayit said:


> Have you guys seen an increase of this attitude since digital?



Yes, I have. I also feel there is a contributing factor prior to ownership of the camera as well. The decrease of knowladgable mom and pop camera shops that are run by an actual professional. By actual professional, I am referring to anyone be they hobbyist who gets paid for selling photogear and experience or a photographer who gets paid selling camera time. These people knew how to ask questions, when to ask them and why, this enabled them to direct a new user to the right camera and sell them a proper peice of equipment.

In todays world there are few of such places remaining. A good majority of newbies are left with the option of going to Wal-Mart and the like where the only thing the one selling them the gear knows is what they read in the book or the internet. Often times in these places you find people like that using the sales pitch "Professional results". Therein lies the illution that any dSLR owner can be a professional, No not all fall for it, but many do. They think a professional level camera means they can do the job.

Photography is a trade skill, For the kids who don't grasp what that means. The term was commonly used during medieval era reffering an occupation or trade that requires some particular kind of skilled work, those particular skills are calles trade skills. The terminology and ideaology does infact still exist today just few realize it, any specialized occupation is a trade be it photography, autobody repair, welding, auto mechanic, electrician (still uses master/apprentice titles btw) and so on. These skills are tought to an apprentice by a master, those who learn some or all of the trade threw means other than study under a master are called jacks. Now, that said, just because one knows how to work on an engin of a car and has all the necessary tools does not make them a mechanic, the same applies to photography. Sadly the digital revolution of photography and ease of use is leading to a dropoff of availability of master tradesman in this field as well as a drop in willingness to attend a proper trade school. Yes, Photography classes are readilly available, but I am seeing less and less people who are willing to attend them because they feel experience and practice is all they need or they feel they can't afford it, or they just don't go looking for them.


----------



## Lyncca

DRoberts said:


> Ok, now the wanna be perspective...To me the term professional is useless. I can sale enough to,by definition, be called a professional. That by far does not make me an "ARTIST". That is the goal I am striving for, and one day I will get there. But the crap I am turning out now is just learning blocks and stepping stones to where I will someday be.
> Truelly good photographers are artist, and I view them that way. Just as mentioned, an athelete practices their sport, a musician practices his craft, well some of us still need to practice (ALOT) at this chosen craft. It is from the good photographers like the ones who have posted on this thread and that can be found on numerous other sites, that we (the "underclassmen") take our education and inspiration from.
> In short, not evewryone who goes out and buys a decent setup is in it for the quik buck and the title "Professional". Some of us are here to learn and grow.
> Thanks.


 
+1:thumbup:

I am under no misunderstanding that my photos still need a lot of work, but no one starts out knowing everything.  So, I charge a minimal amount to cover my costs and some of my equipment and keep reading and asking for feedback.  

The OP work is quite inspiring, but even he didn't start out that way.  Know some of us are here to learn and become the best we can at this hobby.  And while I make a few bucks here and there (that still don't equal what I have spent), I still don't consider myseld a pro, and I am quick to correct people that call me that


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Lyncca said:


> I am under no misunderstanding that *my photos still need a lot of work*, but no one starts out knowing everything.  *So, I charge a minimal amount* to cover my costs and some of my equipment and keep reading and asking for feedback.


 
This may appear to you to be noble but what you are doing is charging others for your education.
If you are taking pictures in order to learn then you have to expect to pay for it.



Lyncca said:


> Know some of us are here to learn and become the best we can at this *hobby*.  And while *I make a few bucks here and there* (that still don't equal what I have spent), I still don't consider myseld a pro, and I am quick to correct people that call me that



This is where the root of the whole problem lies.
Most people quite clearly are confused about what they think they are doing.
A 'hobby' is a pursuit followed for amusement or pleasure. Nothing more.
Once you start 'making a few bucks' from it it ceases to be a hobby. It becomes a job (of sorts).
So if you are doing Photography as a hobby you should not try to make money from it - it's self-defeating.
If you want to make money from it then be honest with yourself and take the whole thing seriously and stop pretending it's a hobby.
Either you are good enough to charge for your work or you are not. To expect others to pay you money for an end product that may well be of poor quality is morally questionable. 
And to seek to defend yourself with the excuse that you are still learning is laughable.
If you go to the Doctor with a headache and he amputates your leg, you would sue. And you wouldn't expect him to shrug it off with 'well, I'm still learning'.
If you got a plumber in to replace the washers in a tap and he flooded the house, his excuse that 'plumbing is just a hobby' would not really mollify you.
Photography is no different.
If you expect people to pay money for you to take pictures then they have a right to expect you to approach it with a degree of professionalism and produce work of reasonable and consistent quality. Pretending that your money-making exercise is just a hobby is nothing more than a conceit to make you feel better about the fact that it isn't.
Stop sitting on the fence and decide just what it is you are doing.


----------



## DRoberts

Hertz van Rental said:


> A 'hobby' is a pursuit followed for amusement or pleasure. Nothing more.
> Once you start 'making a few bucks' from it it ceases to be a hobby.


 
I think this depends on if you advertise a service, or if you are approached. 
 If someone sees one of my shots and says "I'll give you $20 for a poster of that shot." Then guess what, I just made $20. That does not mean I consider myself a professional, or that I am crossing any moral or ethical lines. That means someone saw a product and wanted it. If I show my work in a gallery show type setting, am I not to sale any, because I am not what some would call a "professional" because I don't have X amount of training or experience? In the same sense if someone sees my work and likes it enough to want me to do some work for them, then they are basing this on their own judgements, not on the fact that I say I am a professional photographer. 
 I shoot alot of local motorsports, motocross and dirt track stuff...these guys are far from Pros, but if they do good they make a buck or two. Should NASCAR drivers insult them and be offended?


----------



## Battou

DRoberts said:


> I think this depends on if you advertise a service, or if you are approached.
> If someone sees one of my shots and says "I'll give you $20 for a poster of that shot." Then guess what, I just made $20. That does not mean I consider myself a professional, or that I am crossing any moral or ethical lines. That means someone saw a product and wanted it. If I show my work in a gallery show type setting, am I not to sale any, because I am not what some would call a "professional" because I don't have X amount of training or experience? In the same sense if someone sees my work and likes it enough to want me to do some work for them, then they are basing this on their own judgements, not on the fact that I say I am a professional photographer.
> I shoot alot of local motorsports, motocross and dirt track stuff...these guys are far from Pros, but if they do good they make a buck or two. Should NASCAR drivers insult them and be offended?



I agree with you to a point on this. I would feel much the same if I where approached in that way and likely would go with it, However I have been approached and requested do do senior portriates and a weddings on several occations. These I turned down, simply because I am not that kind of photographer. I want to do portriates for my own friends and family, these are taken specifically to give away. I don't take requests so to speak, even if the price is right.


----------



## DRoberts

Battou said:


> I have been approached and requested do do senior portriates and a weddings on several occations. These I turned down, simply because I am not that kind of photographer. I want to do portriates for my own friends and family, these are taken specifically to give away. I don't take requests so to speak, even if the price is right.


 
 I might do the Senior portraits, as long as up front they knew they have the option to not buy my shots and go with someone else. I would explain to them that I am new to this and would limit it to kids of friends, or friends of our kids. Of course these would be at a discount price. And if I didn't like the results I would suggest them going to a "professional". I would not take money for sub-standard work.
 Wedding? No way! I know I am not ready for that. I know I don't have the equipment, experience, or confidence for that.


----------



## MelodySoul

I couldn't agree more, this is one of my major pet peeves. I'm working my ass off in school to become a photographer and there are people who are at the same level (or lower) than I am currently who are going out and charging to do shoots. I have done a few free shoots and I have been offered minimal amounts as well but I'm not advertising my services and I won't be until I graduate (and possibly not till after assisting for a while first). I think it has become far too easy for people to pick up a digital SLR, shoot pictures of their kids for a few months and then think they are a pro photographer. BTW I have nothing against those who are self taught, as many great photographers are...but it takes more than a few months!


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut

Hertz van Rental said:


> This may appear to you to be noble but what you are doing is charging others for your education.
> If you are taking pictures in order to learn then you have to expect to pay for it.



This does slightly imply that you have stopped learning, which I would say isn't the greatest professional attitude. I'm sure that's not actually the case but in my opinion a true professional should never consider themselves to be as good as they can be. There is always more to learn... and experience counts too. So a working photographer is always, in a sense, charging for thier education. But they are also providing a service that their customer wants.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

DRoberts said:


> I think this depends on if you advertise a service, or if you are approached.
> If someone sees one of my shots and says "I'll give you $20 for a poster of that shot." Then guess what, I just made $20. That does not mean I consider myself a professional, or that I am crossing any moral or ethical lines. That means someone saw a product and wanted it. If I show my work in a gallery show type setting, am I not to sale any, because I am not what some would call a "professional" because I don't have X amount of training or experience? In the same sense if someone sees my work and likes it enough to want me to do some work for them, then they are basing this on their own judgements, not on the fact that I say I am a professional photographer.
> I shoot alot of local motorsports, motocross and dirt track stuff...these guys are far from Pros, but if they do good they make a buck or two. Should NASCAR drivers insult them and be offended?



You are missing the point.
If you do Photography for the love of it and someone sees a picture of yours that they like, then of course you can let them have the picture.
If they offer you money for it then you are at liberty to accept or refuse as you feel inclined.
But why accept the money? The picture has cost you the same to produce wether it hangs up on your wall or it hangs on someone else's so giving it to them for free costs you nothing. And you get that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that someone appreciates your work.
But if they offer you money and you take it... Well, of course it doesn't make you a professional and I never said it did. What it does do is put into your mind that people are willing to give you money for your pictures and, however much you pretend otherwise, you start to hope for more.
Look at your attitude to showing your work in a gallery. You ask me if are you not to sell any. What I ask you in return is why did you show your work in the Gallery in the first place? Was it just to show your work or was it to try and sell your work?
But you have already answered that question. If it was just to show your work the idea of selling any would not have entered your head.
So the point I am making is this:
A lot of people do Photography and call it a hobby when in fact they really want to make money from it but just don't have the honesty to admit it - not even to themselves.
It's not an issue of morality but one of integrity.

And you are also getting confused between the motivations of the person taking the picture, and those of the person offering to buy the picture.
In the case of the latter to quote Barnum "there's a sucker born every minute".


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Fiendish Astronaut said:


> This does slightly imply that you have stopped learning, which I would say isn't the greatest professional attitude. I'm sure that's not actually the case but in my opinion a true professional should never consider themselves to be as good as they can be. There is always more to learn... and experience counts too. So a working photographer is always, in a sense, charging for thier education. But they are also providing a service that their customer wants.



Not at all.
One would expect a professional photographer to have achieved a reasonable standard of proficiency before he set himself up in business. He should be at least a fair way up the learning curve and not be down at the bottom.
This does not mean that he no longer has anything to learn but he certainly should not be making many mistakes either. And certainly not basic ones.
If you get any tradesman in to do work for you you expect them to have qualified in some way - studied or gone on courses or been trained or such.
Why should it be any different in Photography which, after all, is just another trade?
How would you honestly feel if the builder you got to repair your roof started proceedings by telling you that he could well make a mess of it because he was still learning?
Or the mechanic working on your car?
My point was that if you are going to set yourself up as a photographer then make the commitment and learn your craft before letting yourself loose on the unsuspecting public. And don't try to excuse your mistakes by pretending it's just a hobby.


----------



## bigalbest

Hertz van Rental said:


> Not at all.
> One would expect a professional photographer to have achieved a reasonable standard of proficiency before he set himself up in business. He should be at least a fair way up the learning curve and not be down at the bottom.
> This does not mean that he no longer has anything to learn but he certainly should not be making many mistakes either. And certainly not basic ones.
> If you get any tradesman in to do work for you you expect them to have qualified in some way - studied or gone on courses or been trained or such.
> Why should it be any different in Photography which, after all, is just another trade?
> How would you honestly feel if the builder you got to repair your roof started proceedings by telling you that he could well make a mess of it because he was still learning?
> Or the mechanic working on your car?
> My point was that if you are going to set yourself up as a photographer then make the commitment and learn your craft before letting yourself loose on the unsuspecting public. And don't try to excuse your mistakes by pretending it's just a hobby.



Nicely put, I've been feeling this way for awhile and couldn't agree more. I recently joined the PPA and am going to work towards certification and possibly a degree. I really think certification is a great way to show your customers a commitment to a set of standards. Because let's face it, photography is not just an art it is also a science. And to me it is only photographers these days that can tell the difference for the most part, while customers can be a very poor judge of quality. I don't hold it against someone for being a better business person than me because that is a big part of this whole career, and I think customers will eventually become more educated on these differences anyways.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

> photography is not just an art it is also a science


 
This is absolutely true, people ask me all the time how I "got so good" truth is I studied the technical aspect of photography then the science, once I had those down under my belt I was free to explore my style and my art. Without that base all you are doing is pointing a camera and pushing a button.

I also consider myself a beginner. I am new to the professional world and I constantly tear my work apart because I know it can be better. I also practice all the time; I just don't do it on my paid jobs.

I strive to produce better images because I look at my inspiration like David LaChapelle or Mark Zibert and dream of creating my own images of that creativity.

Its true being a professional is one thing being an Artist is what photography is really about.


----------



## DRoberts

Hertz van Rental said:


> You are missing the point.
> If you do Photography for the love of it and someone sees a picture of yours that they like, then of course you can let them have the picture.
> If they offer you money for it then you are at liberty to accept or refuse as you feel inclined.
> But why accept the money? The picture has cost you the same to produce wether it hangs up on your wall or it hangs on someone else's so giving it to them for free costs you nothing. And you get that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that someone appreciates your work.
> But if they offer you money and you take it... Well, of course it doesn't make you a professional and I never said it did. What it does do is put into your mind that people are willing to give you money for your pictures and, however much you pretend otherwise, you start to hope for more.
> Look at your attitude to showing your work in a gallery. You ask me if are you not to sell any. What I ask you in return is why did you show your work in the Gallery in the first place? Was it just to show your work or was it to try and sell your work?
> But you have already answered that question. If it was just to show your work the idea of selling any would not have entered your head.
> So the point I am making is this:
> A lot of people do Photography and call it a hobby when in fact they really want to make money from it but just don't have the honesty to admit it - not even to themselves.
> It's not an issue of morality but one of integrity.
> 
> And you are also getting confused between the motivations of the person taking the picture, and those of the person offering to buy the picture.
> In the case of the latter to quote Barnum "there's a sucker born every minute".


 
But what is wrong with turning a hobby into a profession? Is anyone who decides to take a step across that line a hypocrit?
What is wrong with being able to sale some of your earlier work to expand your equipment to be able to take the next step?
Yes for me it was, and for the very near future could be classified as a "hobby". But with the next set of equipment I buy, I fully intend to turn "professional". 
Using the mechanic metaphor: Does someone take automechanics get their ASA certification and then go purchase $100,000s of equipment, and space, and then and only then can they take money?
No they use their Wal Mart 200 peice socket/screwdriver set, and work their way up. So are they a hypocrit as well?
I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am and I will apologize, but it seems to me you have approached this topic with a bit of hostility and defensiveness. As stated before it's hard to tell without inflection or body language. For my part there is none, I just like a good debate, and all I say is intended to bring answers to my own questions, or to express my personal opinion.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

I think in general this population I refer to is just plain ignorant. They don't even know what truly goes into photography. I wonder if they have ever even looked at a good photograph before.

An educated amateur artist going into business is different than an amateur snap shooter doing the same. 

Anyway I really don&#8217;t care I just thought it would be an interesting discussion considering I meet people all the time that call themselves photographers some even have a part time shared studio etc. but they don&#8217;t even know how to use a flash unless it&#8217;s attached to the camera in TTL mode.

It would be great if people would just respect the craft and take pride in studying it for long enough to truly be able to create art rather than just jumping in and trying to make a couple bucks. It&#8217;s just does not show any passion for creating images.


----------



## Garbz

The problem many people fail to realise is that ignorant or not, good or bad, professional or unprofessional, the new poor entry-levels have changed the industry.

Two major things have happened. One is that even through there is a large quality difference between the Pros and the Poors (named after their quality), you end up competing against them anyway because of the ignorance of the customers. Yes we all know that a $100 photographer doesn't match the quality / service of the Pros asking for 20 times the price, but it's the customers who are often nieve enough to see someone with a big camera (see thread on "your pictures are really nice you must have a good camera") and then say That pro does it for $100 why should I pay you $2000.

The other problem is that the Poors start price gouging. When they get a satisfied customer they push up the price for the next till they get to the "pro" level but retaining the same poor skills. This I came across at a friends wedding, where the "pro" photographer they hired for $4000 came in with a single 20D, ttl flash, and 1 cheap zoom lens, not even f/2.8. No backup body, no backup photographer, no professionalism (my opinion from watching him work), and when I saw the photos all I can say is no decent result as well.

Both tie in with each other. The former brings down the prices in the eye of the customer, the latter brings down the quality expectations, and together it is all undermining the true professional photographers. I am glad I don't do this for a living so don't expect any future competition from me


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

Well said Garbz


----------



## Hertz van Rental

DRoberts said:


> But what is wrong with turning a hobby into a profession? Is anyone who decides to take a step across that line a hypocrit?
> What is wrong with being able to sale some of your earlier work to expand your equipment to be able to take the next step?
> Yes for me it was, and for the very near future could be classified as a "hobby". But with the next set of equipment I buy, I fully intend to turn "professional".
> Using the mechanic metaphor: Does someone take automechanics get their ASA certification and then go purchase $100,000s of equipment, and space, and then and only then can they take money?
> No they use their Wal Mart 200 peice socket/screwdriver set, and work their way up. So are they a hypocrit as well?
> I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am and I will apologize, but it seems to me you have approached this topic with a bit of hostility and defensiveness. As stated before it's hard to tell without inflection or body language. For my part there is none, I just like a good debate, and all I say is intended to bring answers to my own questions, or to express my personal opinion.



You are still missing my point.
I did not say there is anything wrong starting off doing Photography as a hobby and then deciding to do Photography for a living.
What I have a problem with is people using 'it's just a hobby' as a get out of gaol free card.
To want to make money like a professional without having the responsibilities of a professional is, to me at any rate, morally questionable.
If a professional or semi-professional produces poor quality work and screws up then he can quickly find himself going out of business or even at the wrong end of a law suit.
If someone who does it for a hobby screws up they can hide behind 'hobby' even though they may have been paid.
It is this, in some respects, that is damaging the standing of Photography as a profession.
If you have no overheads and you already have a job then you can offer your 'photographic' services at prices well below that of someone who is doing it for a living. The public being what they are will tend to go for the cheapest deal but invariably discover that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
Two things then come out of this:
People get the impression that photographers are charlatans.
People believe that all there is to being a photographer is owning a camera.
Surely anyone who truly loves Photography wants to see it get the recognition and respect it deserves. To get there the public have to be educated and this can only happen if the people who do Photography take a responsible attitude.
If you are going to move from being a hobbyist to making money then at least take the responsibility too. At the very least join one of the professional bodies and show a commitment. Don't just grab the money and then run away shouting 'it's just a hobby'.

(I spent four years at College to get a Degree in Photography and then I spent a further two years assisting photographers before I felt I was ready to make the move to being a 'pro'. And even then I was only as good as my last job.
Is it any wonder that I feel a little bit of contempt for people who think that the only thing you need to make money from Photography is some kind of camera? I think I'm justified, don't you? 
But I'm not angry about it, I'm just arguing that if the public are going to change their view about Photography's position in the expressive Arts then we, as photographers, have to educate them. And that can only happen when we start behaving with integrity.)

And now I'm bored with the whole topic so let's go to the pub.


----------



## Battou

Hertz van Rental said:


> And now I'm bored with the whole topic so let's go to the pub.



Who's buyin?


----------



## table1349

And thus they mighty Photographer comes face to face with the Law of the Jungle; *Survival of the Fittest*.  

Next week on Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom we will take a look into the underground world of the Sand Hog.


----------



## Lyncca

Hertz van Rental said:


> I did not say there is anything wrong starting off doing Photography as a hobby and then deciding to do Photography for a living.
> What I have a problem with is people using 'it's just a hobby' as a get out of gaol free card.



Get off your soapbox.  I never said I didn't take responsibility by saying it was a "hobby".  I simply said that I don't consider myself a PRO because I don't make a living at it.  AND because people like you get all pissed off if someone calls themselves a pro if they don't meet your standards, so I said hobbyist.  I am learning everything I can and I DO care about what I shoot.  Most of my clients are free anyway, because they are friends that I have offered to shoot.

You can't win with some.  If I say I'm a hobbyist, you get pissed saying I am hiding behind the term. If I say Pro, you say "all these new people with cameras consider themselves a pro when they aren't."

And yes, there should be a certain amount of quality expected, but on the other side, it is like any other trade. If I go to Super Cuts for an $8 haircut, I'm certainly not going to expect the same quality or experience as I would get at my salon paying $65 for a haircut.  The people at Super Cuts are learning and there is an audience for it. Their goal I would think would be to continue learning and move up with experience.  Yet, people ARE paying them to learn this art.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation.


----------



## LaFoto

Whatever the discussion (I did not really follow all of it, it has become quite lengthy), I had the following little experience myself only just about a week ago while on holidays in Turkey. 

It had previously been arranged between the German organiser of said group trip that I should take the group photo at a certain point in time, with a nice background so that the context in which said group photo would be taken would also become immediately visible. 

That's why I lugged my tripod to Turkey and back ... :roll:

So many days of travelling and looking at ancient ruins had passed and we felt the group had got to know each other well enough by now to look comfortable in a group photo and we were actually also running out of TIME for said photo. Which is why we happened to be in the excavated ruins of the town of Perge just outside Antalya when that German organiser said to me: "OK, as soon as here we find a nice shadowy place, you arrange the people and take the photo!" 

We had hardly stepped out of the bus when a "pro" approached us: big, flashy camera around his neck, flash mounted (for shows, I gather), and all in all the person sure looked like this camera was NEVER his: he had been given it so he could photograph the tourists at Perge and quickly put the pics through a photo printer to sell them their photo at the exit ... that was the idea. When our Turkish guide heard we were planning to take a group photo, he said "But the 'pro' says, he only photographs people in the sun!", whereas I said, "OK by me, he may do so, but THIS one's MY session just now!" But I heard protests from inside the group, too "Not in the shadow, why that! Why don't we go into a sunny spot!?!?" But our German organiser and I were firm: the photo was going to be taken in the shadow. To avoid shadows on their faces and squinting and all that. 

The "pro" took advantage of my arrangement, but I made sure they look towards MY camera, not his (only our Turkish guide did not look into my camera :roll: ). And then he followed us, snapping away with people in the broad sun, hiding their faces behind sunglasses, or squinting or otherwise looking ... well, just like anyone would in broadest (Turkish) sunshine.

Later, after our exit, he came running to the bus (almost missed us!), trying to sell his photos. I did not even look at them, but I heard one lady on the bus unpack her envelope and say: "Now LOOK! *This* is what professional photos must look like!"

So there.
No wonder we're leading this discussion here... :roll: 
Many of the public *like* poor photography. Why? I wouldn't know. Bombardment of poor photography? Not sure ... but I really thought "Oh my ...!"


----------



## McQueen278

Here is something I think a lot of people could benefit from reading every time this subject of being a "Pro" comes up.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/pro-not.htm

While we are at it, this article at one time helped me to evaluate where I stand with my own work and where I want to be.  It is also largely responsible for me not doing something silly like quitting my normal job to take on more weddings.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

In short I agree with Mr. Rockwell wholeheartedly.  None of us are professionals.  We are not doctors and laywers who use their intellectual properties to effect outcomes.  We are more similar to the iron worker building the new "North Quad" here in my beloved Ann Arbor.  The iron worker is good with a welder.  Far better than any of us, which is why he is up on that building welding metal together.  We just take pictures.  If you get paid you have made a job/career out of it, but you are not the definition of a professional.


----------



## Chiller

I just got offered a wack of $$$ for some of my photos.  Does this mean Im a pro now?   If so....damn.. I gotta turn this down.   They only want 12 of my images for a calender.


----------



## JerryPH

gryphonslair99 said:


> It's this simple: *They can*.  Take a picture, sell it. You're a pro. End of story.
> 
> Sorry JerryPH I have to disagree with you.  Too many of the working photographers I know have become fairly accomplished, get too comfortable in what they do, and then never change.  There are some wedding and portrait photographers in my area that I have watched and I can tell you what they are going to do in a shoot before they do it. They are that predictable. They have become a high priced K-mart portrait studio clone.  It doesn't take long to learn the system.  Now with digital it is cheap enough for more people to learn.



I think in general we agree on most things, such as that it takes more than a D90, a flash and 30 minutes with the manual to be able to call themselves pro.  Where my definition of a pro differs from yours a little, is that I extend the term professional to be a necessary part of the definition of what you call an accomplished photographer.  Technically your definition is correct. Morally, my definition is correct.

In many cases, in all types if jobs people fall into a routine, a way that is comfortable (perhaps even "safe"), and forget that the world evolves.  These people will fall to the side in a very short time.  They and their styles are jurassic and the people with the money... the clients... are starting to see this.

However, if you visit a few flickr groups on this (just as an example, as its not the only place, but a good place to see this happening on a daily basis), you will find people that are constantly pushing the envelope.  Not just in how to take pictures, but in the equally important aspects of running their business... things like marketing, strategies, advertising and sales techniques.  These will be the photographers that care enough to offer a quality product **and** increase sales significantly in today's overstuffed market.  These people are not seeing any drop in sales... indeed, they are booking now 6 months, 12 and more in advance.  In one case... they are booked solid for the next 39 months solid!  Why are they not complaining?  It is because they do not care about the others... they do not watch the competition... they *are* the competition, yet still give to the community like so few do.

I've said it many times... the business of photography has very little to do with pressing the shutter.


----------



## abraxas

McQueen278 said:


> Here is something I think a lot of people could benefit from reading every time this subject of being a "Pro" comes up.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/pro-not.htm
> 
> ...
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
> 
> ...



Good links.


----------



## abraxas

And this is a real eye opener;

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

abraxas said:


> And this is a real eye opener;
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm


 
Yes it is. I had to force myself to start posting on forums and a blog to better SEO my website. It has worked wonders actually.


----------



## abraxas

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Yes it is. I had to force myself to start posting on forums and a blog to better SEO my website. It has worked wonders actually.



I had my suspicions.    Good luck.


----------



## ksmattfish

Lewis Carroll, avid wet plate collodion photographer as well as author, had similar thoughts when film was introduced:  "Somebody let the rabble in."

Kodak's early slogan for film:  "So easy any school boy or girl can be a photographer."  (Nikon is using the same ad tactic today with Astin Kutcher)

H.P. Robinson commenting on how dry plate photographers have got it easy:  

"...many a now well-known photographer begun his art with a cigar-box and spectacle lens, and it is not easy for the new generation of photographers to understand the difficulties through which the beginner of thirty years ago had to grope his way. To a modern dry plate worker it would be like listening to a foreign language if I told him of some of the difficulties of the collodion process. "What does he know of comets, oyster-shell markings, and lines in direction of the dip ? In apparatus, also, the early photographers had to put up with what they could get, and what was not always very convenient for use."

Somebody always had it tougher.  Wet plate photographers who had to coat, and process their plates in the field would see little difference in the ease of roll film vs digital.  Yet, even back then more experienced photogs were bitching about all these rotten upstarts who didn't know what real photography was all about.  As usual, the rest of the world just went on assessing portfolios and deciding if they thought the work was worth the asking price, not caring at all about what the photographers they didn't hire thought.


----------



## benhasajeep

Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.  But I see a trend that people are becomming more elitist when it comes to photography.  They never used film.  They don't know how to work a view camera.  They only know how to use this in auto mode.  Statements like this are comming up more and more.  One reason is, there are so many ways to take pictures.  And each medium has its own champions stating why its the best, or most true form.

Does a photographer have to know how every whiz bang on a camera has to work to take a good picture?  Absolutely not!  A major portion of photography is being able to see a scene and be able to commnuciate something to others through it.  Knowing how a camera operates does help to achieve a good end product.  But by no way does it mean using one in auto it cannot be achieved! 

Does a person have to know how to take great pictures of different areas of interest to be a pro?  Do you have to know all the techniques in landscape, architecture, modeling, still life, wildlife, etc...?

What if a person is only good at taking pictures of light houses.  This person happens to sell thousands of calendars and occasional framed work each and every year.  Makes a good living at it.  What do you call them?  They don't know how to use studio lighting nor flash, as they have never had the need for it!  So, are they a sudo pro.  They make money but they don't know how to do this or that.  So that makes them less than a pro?

And for someone to say the general population has no clue on what is a good picture.  Is trying to force the MAJORITY to conform to their minority personal taste.  Some people like Ansel Adams picture of half dome.  Some look at it and say eh, its ok.  But then you show them a picture of a skate border doing a stunt and the other goes wow, while the Adams fan goes eh, its ok.  It is all based on personal tatses!  There is no right or wrong!  If the majority says a particular picture is great, then that picture is great.  You may not think so but the fact is alot of others do.  And so the picture sells.

I have seen quite a few people on here talk bad about amatures, and start up pros.  Making dispariging comments about ability, and quality.  Needing lots of experience to even try to do a wedding or some event.  When in fact I go to their web sites and portfolios and first thing I see is a picture with an out of level horizon.  A group picture next to a building and the building is out of level.  Basic technical faults.  And these people are telling novices, don't even try, leave it to the pro's?  Maybe it's more a situation, if I am not good enough to do it, your definately not good enough to do it?

Again, no finger pointing, no names mentioned, no specific posts refferred too.  Just observations from the amature side of the fence.


----------



## McQueen278

benhasajeep said:


> I have seen quite a few people on here talk bad about amatures, and start up pros.  Making dispariging comments about ability, and quality.  Needing lots of experience to even try to do a wedding or some event.



I won't argue any point other than this.  I have never seen anyone say not to attempt to break into wedding photography, simply that you NEED to start as an apprentice.  That is by no means disparaging.  You do need a lot of experience to attempt a wedding solo.  I botched my first one.  The couple was happy because they had low expectations and it was free.  They also got divorced a year later and could care less now.  After realizing I was no where near ready to shoot a wedding solo I worked with someone for a while and then went solo.  I WISH someone had been able to convince me how important it was to be very experienced to do a wedding.  I got lucky, some don't.  If you aren't a wedding photographer or apprentice, you will simply never understand how true this is.

Just keep in mind that you don't know everything either and that this was a TERRIBLE point to try and make.  DON'T encourage people to mess up someones wedding or other event because you think it is snobbish to advise otherwise.  You'd hate it if your own wedding was botched and you got few pictures worth printing.


----------



## benhasajeep

McQueen278 said:


> .
> 
> Just keep in mind that you don't know everything either and that this was a TERRIBLE point to try and make. DON'T encourage people to mess up someones wedding or other event because you think it is snobbish to advise otherwise. You'd hate it if your own wedding was botched and you got few pictures worth printing.


 
I agree that I do not know everything.

I disagree its a terriable point to make.  Not everyone can afford a professional to shoot their weddings or events!  Normally when people ask someone they know to take pictures of their events.  They have seen the work of the individual.  I have been asked and declined 11 wedding requests.  Everyone that knows me, knows I am very serious with my photography.  They like my pictures and basically felt they would be happy with the results and basically wanted to save a little money.  3 of the 11 eventually hired pros, the other 8 did without (I did not attend either).  Basically they could not afford it.  One of the couples actually got mad at me and we have not spoken in a while.  I believe they somewhat expected me to do them the favor.  So its not only the quality that counts.  Money is a huge factor for alot of people.  They are willing to accept a possible lower standard just because they have too.

I have a couple rules in life.  Don't loan money to friends, and don't take pictures for friends.  At some point in time both will come back to bite you!

Quite a few people are so demanding that they assume everyone esle will be so demanding as well.  But the fact is, right or wrong, there are lots of people out there who would be happy as can be for some amature to at least try and take their wedding pics.  A couple pictures are better than no pictures!  So for me with the experiences I have had.  I think its absolutely wrong to just automatically tell every singe amature that weddings are too hard to do.  Don't even attempt it.  Now if it is a totally rank amature professing to being a pro and trying to make a quick buck or two.  I agree whole heartidly that they should stay away.

And as for my own wedding.  I spent several months going over at least a dozen photographers.  I made a list from 1 to 10.  By the time I was ready for a deposit #1 and 2 were already booked for the date.  So I went with #3.  Paid somewhat of a premium for his service.  And we bought exactially 0 pictures from him.  He had a great portfolio, and great samples on his web site.  Absolutely disatisfied with him.  So I paid several thousand dollars for a disc full of just ho hum pictures.  One of the problems were basic mistakes, camera not level, out of focus, just plain bad pictures.  I never demanded a refund, and never really talked to him after the fact.  He never even called us after the wedding.  I'm quite sure he knew that he messed up.  So, yes I have felt the sting of a bad photographer.  And whats really bad is I purposly kept my distance before and during the wedding so I would not create a problem.  With some photoshop work he could have sold us some pictures.  But he didn't even make an attempt.  To date I have printed about 15 out of about 800 he took.  All needed work, none are great, but they are now at least acceptable.


----------



## JerryPH

lmao!  I see someone hacked into the board icons and convered the word p-i-c or p-i-c-t-u-r-e-s and pointed it to an icon... 

Hey mods, care to look into this for us?


----------



## Chiller

Hawaii Five-O said:


> It is really long winded in here, but are you all saying people shouldn't work to be "Professional" unless they have a formal training? Or are you all saying people should work towards being a "professional" if they want, but don't put junk on the market and then call it pro because they have a big camera?


Kinda what Im readin in here too. Gheesh....reading this thread sure takes the fun out of taking photos. Yeah, I dont even like calling myself a photographer. I just enjoy taking photos. But.... I have been "lucky" to have my stuff sold and have people that will offer me some cash for a photo. I just had another offer from a calender company. They are going to pay me cash for 6 photos. I also shoot photos to use for advertising halloween products....for free. 
That does not make me a professional. I dont have a business, and even my web site I won in a contest. There is nothing wrong with being a hobby photographer and make some extra pocket $$$ selling photos. I wont shoot a wedding( I have turned down,6 of them), cause I know I dont have the skills. I know my photos suck, and are far from where I would like to see my images. 
I respect that a wack of y'all do this or a living, and call yourselves "pros", but I dont see anything wrong with taking photos, making some extra bucks and having a laugh. I dont get why y'all are against that.waiting<<there, I will even throw in a new smilie.


----------



## rufus5150

C'mon chiller, you're dragging down the art, man.

Or, rather, whisking it away quietly down an old abandoned hall with wart-covered, bloody fingers to dismember it and eat its heart for supper.

*shiver*


----------



## Chiller

rufus5150 said:


> C'mon chiller, you're dragging down the art, man.
> 
> Or, rather, whisking it away quietly down an old abandoned hall with wart-covered, bloody fingers to dismember it and *eat its heart for supper*.
> 
> *shiver*


 
Hearts are great dipped in chocolate.


----------



## Chiller

Hawaii Five-O said:


> I'm not a professional either, but i would like to make try making some extra $$ also. Sometimes I try not to read these type of threads because sometimes they have that tone that trys to downplay peoples' honest enthusiasm , (which kind of bugs me),to sell artwork or start a business or something. And that negativity may hinder people. especially new photographers who are fresh and enthusiastic and some of the "pros" are like "no, no,no" and shoot the people down before they can get anywhere. I see that a lot on here, were people are like "i'm not good enough" I know its just an internet forum, but the pros who say " no,no, no" still represent actual people who can be a hindereance to others.


   Unfortunatly that is the direction this forum has taken over the last 2 or 3 years.  At one point everyone helped everyone.  Maybe it was because of the re-alignment of the different sections, splitting up the pros from the beginners.   But with this new TPF, everyone seems to be bothered by others who are not as good.   When we were under 1000 members, no matter how bad your photo was, somebody who had the experience to help, would.  And those who were really good, us nogooders looked up to them.    All of the photographers I looked up to have left cause of this. I can only name about 3 or 4 photographers I would turn to here for advice now.   Newbies used to be welcomed by everyone, but now we have this division of experience.    ouch.....biting my tongue here.


----------



## RMThompson

Very interesting thread.

I am in two minds of it. We've had this conversation a lot, and the general consensus is that a true "PROFESSIONAL" photographer is someone who makes their living solely or mostly through taking photographs. The style/type/quality of those photos is irrelevant to the fact that they are professionals.

Interestingly enough, I recently have moved on to the point where I am strictly using photography to make a living. I've been fortunate enough to pick up a few nice contracts, and they are enough to pay my bills. This brings up a whole new aspect of being a "professional", such as taxes, expenses, etc.

Anyway this thread seems to be less about what comprises a photographer and more about what makes up a true PHOTOGRAPHER. Is someone who picks up any ol' cheap camera and takes pictures REALLY a photographer?

Maybe.

The simple fact remains is: Equipment does not equal quality.

QUALITY = QUALITY. That's it. You're either taking quality photographs or your not. 

Surprisingly enough, I don't know if I am or not. I like to think I am; I get praise more often than not, but that doesn't mean anything if the assumption that the general public's eye for quality photography has been diminished by the nature of digital photography.

The funny thing is, I've been less apt to show my work lately. I don't know why it is, I am not ashamed of it, but it's got something to do with only showing the best of the best. For example, in years past, when I did a Photoshoot I posted several, up to 20 sometimes, pictures on my flickr. 

Now, I post one or two.

Not sure what all of that means other than becoming a better photographer is a process. Their are those people who visit this site who intend to grow, but are heavily criticised and maybe even to the point of discouragement, and that bothers me. 

However, on the flip side of that, I was one of those "hacks" if you will; I sold my services before I knew what I was doing. 

Ryan.

P.S. Oh, yeah, on the whole "Equipment doesnt make the photog" thing, I am usually jealous of other peoples light setups and backdrops. However I did do my first pro shoots with a Canon A610, so I'm torn on that too!

For SH*TS and GIGGLES Here's a photo taken with a 100 dollar A610:


----------



## Battou

RMThompson said:


> P.S. Oh, yeah, on the whole "Equipment doesnt make the photog" thing, I am usually jealous of other peoples light setups and backdrops. However I did do my first pro shoots with a Canon A610, so I'm torn on that too!
> 
> For SH*TS and GIGGLES Here's a photo taken with a 100 dollar A610:



For SH*ts and giggles Here is a Photo taken with a Kodak Easy Share






And here is one taken with a Yashica T3D





Don't be foold, As an Auto body tecnition, these are the shots I attended photography classes to take. Both are unprocessed full frame.


----------



## JerryPH

This is all completely silly.  Anyone can become a pro in seconds.  This is what I am doing.  It works, I promise!  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## rufus5150

That's a suppository, isn't it, Jerry?


----------



## Jon_Are

The level of arrogance in some of these posts is astounding.

Jon


----------



## Chiller

JerryPH said:


> This is all completely silly. Anyone can become a pro in seconds. This is what I am doing. It works, I promise! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


  Cool..... As long as I dont have to wear that Mr Rogers sweater. :lmao:


----------



## dEARlEADER

JerryPH said:


> This is all completely silly.  Anyone can become a pro in seconds.  This is what I am doing.  It works, I promise!  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:






WTF??????? THAT PILL IS A SHAM.... I TOOK IT AND STILL GOT PREGNANT!!


----------



## JerryPH

dEARlEADER said:


> WTF??????? THAT PILL IS A SHAM.... I TOOK IT AND STILL GOT PREGNANT!!



Newbie!  It was not a pill... but a suppository!  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Edit:  Drats, someone (Rufus), beat me to it... lmao!


----------



## rob91

Alleh Lindquist said:


> I would be happy to entertain your opinions but my mind is pretty much made up that most people that think they can make a career as a photographer suck so much they should almost give it up as a hobby.



Sure. But while we're on the topic, may I also suggest douchebags not be allowed to voice their opinions?


----------



## redpoint

If you can take photos as [SIZE=-1]means of livelihood [/SIZE]then you are a professional, doesn't matter the quality of photos you take.  Seen these discussions several times, and I'm starting to get the feeling professional photographers have a complex.  Do you see software programmers complaining that because computers have gotten so cheap that everyone thinks they are a programmer?  Home grown programs have exploded.  Lot of open source and lots of sharing of the craft.

Seriously get over yourselves.  It's a free market.  Not everyone wants or can afford a Porsche.  Stop being so elitist.


----------



## dEARlEADER

rob91 said:


> Sure. But while we're on the topic, may I also suggest douchebags not be allowed to voice their opinions?




well said... informative, constructive, and interesting perspective...


because the op has an opinion different than yours does not qualify him to be a douchebag....


----------



## Chiller

Now dont y'all go getting this thread locked while Im out on delivery.​


----------



## Chiller

Ok....carry on. ​


----------



## benhasajeep

Chiller said:


> Ok....carry on. ​


 
It's like someone yelled car, and everyone had to get out of the street.  :lmao:


----------



## Chiller

benhasajeep said:


> It's like someone yelled car, and everyone had to get out of the street. :lmao:


 

:lmao::lmao:


----------



## abraxas

Alleh Lindquist said:


> ....
> I would be happy to entertain your opinions but my mind is pretty much made up that most people that think they can make a career as a photographer suck so much they should almost give it up as a hobby.



So, just wondering, what is it that makes you so good that gives you the right to make a statement like that?


----------



## Don Kondra

How about "a couple of Nikon SB-28's and some ebay triggers" :lmao:

Cheers, Don


----------



## Mike30D

abraxas said:


> So, just wondering, what is it that makes you so good that gives you the right to make a statement like that?



I guess the fact that he started at 21 and is 24 now. He said so himself:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=588222&page=3

He started a thread on this same topic over at p.o.t.n. and it looks like it finally got deleted. (Thank You!)

Sounds like he's a "know-it-all" 24 year old that needs to be put in his place.


----------



## dEARlEADER

Mike30D said:


> I guess the fact that he started at 21 and is 24 now. He said so himself:
> 
> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=588222&page=3
> 
> He started a thread on this same topic over at p.o.t.n. and it looks like it finally got deleted. (Thank You!)
> 
> Sounds like he's a "know-it-all" 24 year old that needs to be put in his place.




wow... what a douchebag....


edit: sorry rob91


----------



## RMThompson

Alleh Lindquist said:


> I would be happy to entertain your opinions but my mind is pretty much made up that most people that think they can make a career as a photographer suck so much they should almost give it up as a hobby.


 
What I find most ironic about this statement is the fact that "Alleh Lindquist" runs a photography business and a *BLOG ABOUT STARTING YOUR OWN PHOTOGRAPHY BUSINESS!*

I looked at some of your posts, and I was surprised your advice wasn't simply "give up photography as a hobby", as your statement above indicates.

Seems a little contradictory to make a statement that most of US should not even be taking photos, and then offering advice to anyone who wants it.

It also seems a bit strange that your January posts have an air of "This is what I am doing to start in my business" feel, and by October you've changed into a "this is the way to run a business". You've gone from documenting what you're doing right and wrong, to flat out telling people the ONLY way to do things.

Anyway, statements like that make me cringe. 

Oh, and... Get off your high horse.


----------



## Jedo_03

JerryPH said:


> This is all completely silly.  Anyone can become a pro in seconds.  This is what I am doing.  It works, I promise!  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:



I tried this - and for what good it did, I might as well've shoved up me a*se..!!
Jedo


----------



## IvyJade

I found this site, which is more or less telling everyone how photography can not be considered a profession nor can you consider yourself a pro.  That you should keep a regular job while doing this one the side b/c you won't be able to make money.

I don't know if you have seen it, found it interesting yet confusing...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/pro-not.htm


----------



## Lyncca

Eh, I don't plan to quit the day job anytime soon, but I don't take Ken Rockwell entirely seriously either  He has some good information on his site, but sometimes he is really full of it!


----------



## IvyJade

Ok, can we say Clear coat needed much?  hahahha

Being a gear head, I'm anal when it comes to cars so I pick them to DEATH.  That looks fairly new to have the coating disappearing....minus the wreck...heh


----------



## JerryPH

Err... KR is a nice guy that gets all his equipment basically for free and has some cool and some very UNcool opinions.  I say opinions because a lot of his technical stuff is misleading and incorrect.  

I keep a jar of salt handy when I read his site, because with a lot his stuff you just have to take with more than a grain of salt.


----------



## table1349

> Originally Posted by *Alleh Lindquist*
> 
> 
> _I would be happy to entertain your opinions but my mind is pretty much made up that most people that think they can make a career as a photographer suck so much they should almost give it up as a hobby._



So how is this hobby of yours going?


----------



## IvyJade

JerryPH said:


> Err... KR is a nice guy that gets all his equipment basically for free and has some cool and some very UNcool opinions.  I say opinions because a lot of his technical stuff is misleading and incorrect.
> 
> I keep a jar of salt handy when I read his site, because with a lot his stuff you just have to take with more than a grain of salt.



See, I have a BAD habit of researching the CRAP out of things...and I'm glad you all told me this so I can grab some of that salt...


----------



## Mike_E

If you are going to read KR's site much you really want to remember his sense of humor while you are reading. The first sentence in that essay pointed it out.

On a different note, some people around here will be happy to know he has stopped calling himself a professional photographer.


----------



## JerryPH

What happened, people stop paying him for his pics or something??? LOL!

He is a pro, and does take good pics, but he's unfortunately developed a bad reputation for himself on the net.  But as they say... there is no such thing as bad advertising!


----------



## manaheim

Chiller said:


> Unfortunatly that is the direction this forum has taken over the last 2 or 3 years. At one point everyone helped everyone. Maybe it was because of the re-alignment of the different sections, splitting up the pros from the beginners. But with this new TPF, everyone seems to be bothered by others who are not as good. When we were under 1000 members, no matter how bad your photo was, somebody who had the experience to help, would. And those who were really good, us nogooders looked up to them. All of the photographers I looked up to have left cause of this. I can only name about 3 or 4 photographers I would turn to here for advice now. Newbies used to be welcomed by everyone, but now we have this division of experience. ouch.....biting my tongue here.


 
Actually, I kind of wish you wouldn't bite your tongue.  I was first on this site some ... 3-5 years ago?  Can't recall... it probably says so..

<--- right there ...

Anyway, I seem to remember there were a lot of really amazing photogs on here and I was totally floored by their work.  Seems like most of those folks have left now, and I'm often wanting for them to return.  The only way I can learn to be better is by seeing great works of others and learning from them.  I really very much want that.  There are still some amazing folks on here, but it just doesn't feel like there is as much.

Chiller, you are one of the guys I remember from when I was on before... one of the very few.  If there was anything I could personally do to make this a better place, I would like to do it... given your tenure here, you're likely to be one of the few with the specific knowledge on how to make that happen.

If it's even possible, I guess.

Sorry, I don't feel like I'm being very articulate here.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

Sorry if you&#8217;re found my statement harsh and no I don't really think everyone should give up photography as a hobby. However if you ask around it seems everyone that takes up photography as a hobby wants to make money at it. 

A guy on the canon forum posted last week asking about starting up his new photography business and had a few questions about what he should do. He stated himself "Okay, so I've been building my portfolio and only have about 5 good shots (I just got my camera a couple of weeks ago" 

I think that proves my point.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

Don Kondra said:


> How about "a couple of Nikon SB-28's and some ebay triggers" :lmao:
> 
> Cheers, Don


 
I guess you don't like the idea that I suggested $200 worth of used speed lights would produce better results with your products shots than your $1000 worth of hot lights.


----------



## djacobox372

Pro = getting paid... that's it! It doesn't mean your very good, just that you convinced someone to pay you for your work.

There are many amateur photographers that are more skilled and more practiced then a the average "pro," they just don't have the need or desire to make $$ at it.

I work in the arts, but I would probably be a better artist if I didn't... being a "pro" tends to cause one to over-specialize and become isolated into a $$ making "niche," which overall hurts their development as an artist.

A pro photographer that shoots weddings every weekend isn't going to have same level of experience as a amateur that is constantly experimenting and shooting new subjects and trying new techniques.


----------



## Chiller

Photography is one of those sports that can be a hobby or a job.  For example....you can not be a hobby dentist.(o.k...maybe ya'all can) or a Lawyer....but ..you can play pro golf(like Tigger there), or you can golf for fun.   I find it the same as photography.  I dont want to be a pro, but I want to do it as a hobby. I have some o.k equipment, that happens to allow me to grab some o.k shots.   Same with other, I guess ya can say...crossover hobby/pro things.   My neighbor has these top of the line golf clubs, but has no intention of playing golf as a pro but has won some $$$ in tournaments.  A guy at work here paints.  He has all the painting tools, and enjoys a day at the park recreating a  scene.....and has made some coin selling them, but has no intention of being the next Picasso  He likes his ears.

  Lucky for me..a few people have offered me $$$ for my images.  I dont have a business card, or a company, or any other fancy dancy photography studio equipment.    Hell, I even had a movie studio offer me some HUGE coin for one of my photos for a movie poster, but meh....big deal.  

My point is that, with something like photography, you are going to get people who can make a quick dollar, and people who spend their lives doing this for a living.  You are going to get wannabees, and you are going to get pros.   We should all just enjoy what we have today.  Bloody hell...life can be snuffed out in an instance, enjoy it before you lose it. 

  Manahiem.....thank you for your comments.  I bite my tongue  a lot here, as I have seen a lot of people come and go. Now that this forum is not the 1000 members we used to have, egos, attitude and just plain idiots are going to show up.  It is the internet, and they can hide behind their computers and act all la tee dah.   I will judge a person by their work, not their attitude. 

 Back to my crypt....it is way too warm up here. :er:


----------



## dEARlEADER

djacobox372 said:


> A pro photographer that shoots weddings every weekend isn't going to have same level of experience as a amateur that is constantly experimenting and shooting new subjects and trying new techniques.




lol....

i take it you've never attempted wedding photography..


----------



## rufus5150

Alleh Lindquist said:


> ... However if you ask around it seems everyone that takes up photography as a hobby wants to make money at it.
> 
> A guy on the canon forum posted last week asking about starting up his new photography business and had a few questions about what he should do. He stated himself "Okay, so I've been building my portfolio and only have about 5 good shots (I just got my camera a couple of weeks ago"




The statistical sampling of one guy on one forum is overwhelming; thank you for that.



Alleh Lindquist said:


> I think that *proves* my point.



I do not think that word means what you think it means.


----------



## Don Kondra

Alleh Lindquist said:


> I guess you don't like the idea that I suggested $200 worth of used speed lights would produce better results with your products shots than your $1000 worth of hot lights.


 
I was actually indifferent to your suggestion since it's not true. What prompted me to post was full disclosure. There is more than one way to light a shoot. 

Two light stands from Amazon + two sets of bulbs from Alzo= ~$400.  I prefer the shots I get with my CF lights over the product shots you've done for your web site with speed lights.

FYI the CF (Compact Fluorescent 5500k) bulbs are NOT considered HOT lights such as the halogen work lights.

Continuous, yes, hot, no. IMHO

Cheers, Don


----------



## JerryPH

djacobox372 said:


> A pro photographer that shoots weddings every weekend isn't going to have same level of experience as a amateur that is constantly experimenting and shooting new subjects and trying new techniques.



Now that's someone thats never done a wedding.    "On the job" at a wedding is the LAST place you need to be learning and experimenting!  If you are, you are fooling yourself that you know something, when in fact, the truth is very likely 180 degrees the other way.

I am not saying that people cannot learn while doing a wedding, but constantly shooting and experimenting is not a sign of experience nor ability either.

I know a guy that is in good health, reasonably good shape that spends 2 hours a day, 4 days a week on the driving range with a pro instructor.  He spends on average $200/week on this, EVERY week!  His clubs are custom made and cost him $19,000. ... yet he would give his right arm to be able to drive a ball past the 350 foot marker.  

Sometimes, no matter how much time you spend doing something, you still will suck at it, even if you are guided by an experienced teacher.  Now mucking along yourself, you are for all intents and purposes blindly seeking a path to improvement and some poeple won't find that path either.  

Matter of fact, 90% won't get past a certain point becuase they will be so busy chasing their tails, that advance will be basically an exercise in frustration.  They either eventually give up or continue to go in circles.

There are also a few that will try to fool themselves that they are something special... but trust me, they aren't.

There are very very few truly gifted photographers around... much less the additional higher challenge of being a wedding photographer.


----------



## sabbath999

I take the opposite approach than most people, and it gives me a sense of freedom.

Other than the football shots I do for the local paper (which I do because the sidelines is the best seat in the house...) nothing about my photography is "professional".

I think some of it is of decent quality, but I don't WANT to be paid for it... I have zero interest in selling anything... I was a wedding photographer for 8 years, was a full time photojournalist for a daily newspaper and was the main photographer for a weekly newspaper for a decade... and that is enough.

I do what I do because I LOVE doing it.

That gives me a completely different perspective on the "Pro's" out there...

Frankly, most of what they shoot is complete crap. The same "been there, done that" garbage day in and day out.

Photoshop actions do not equal talent. Grunge templates do not equal creativity. Green screen fake backgrounds were developed in the seventh circle of hell. Babies on beds of flowers, seniors sitting in a battered doorway in jeans blah blah blah blah blah. It's all the same thing, over and over for most "pros" couldn't care less because it puts bread on the table.

That's fine, I guess... but it doesn't mean they know jack about photography.

My .02 psi.


----------



## table1349

JerryPH said:


> Now that's someone thats never done a wedding.    "On the job" at a wedding is the LAST place you need to be learning and experimenting!  If you are, you are fooling yourself that you know something, when in fact, the truth is very likely 180 degrees the other way.
> 
> I am not saying that people cannot learn while doing a wedding, but constantly shooting and experimenting is not a sign of experience nor ability either.
> 
> I know a guy that is in good health, reasonably good shape that spends 2 hours a day, 4 days a week on the driving range with a pro instructor.  He spends on average $200/week on this, EVERY week!  His clubs are custom made and cost him $19,000. ... yet he would give his right arm to be able to drive a ball past the 350 foot marker.
> 
> Sometimes, no matter how much time you spend doing something, you still will suck at it, even if you are guided by an experienced teacher.  Now mucking along yourself, you are for all intents and purposes blindly seeking a path to improvement and some poeple won't find that path either.
> 
> Matter of fact, 90% won't get past a certain point becuase they will be so busy chasing their tails, that advance will be basically an exercise in frustration.  They either eventually give up or continue to go in circles.
> 
> There are also a few that will try to fool themselves that they are something special... but trust me, they aren't.
> 
> There are very very few truly gifted photographers around... much less the additional higher challenge of being a wedding photographer.




Ohhhh Jerry....Jerry....Jerry.  We have discussed wedding photographers before.  I will just reiterate People that shoot weddings for a living are to photography what Pitchers are to professional baseball.  If you know baseball you know what I mean. :lmao::mrgreen::lmao::mrgreen::lmao:


----------



## manaheim

sabbath999 said:


> Photoshop actions do not equal talent. Grunge templates do not equal creativity. Green screen fake backgrounds were developed in the seventh circle of hell. Babies on beds of flowers, seniors sitting in a battered doorway in jeans blah blah blah blah blah. It's all the same thing, over and over for most "pros" couldn't care less because it puts bread on the table.


 
We need more tirades like this.  This was _awesome_. 

(I agree, btw... I just really enjoyed the tirade)


----------



## JerryPH

gryphonslair99 said:


> Ohhhh Jerry....Jerry....Jerry.  We have discussed wedding photographers before.  I will just reiterate People that shoot weddings for a living are to photography what Pitchers are to professional baseball.  If you know baseball you know what I mean. :lmao::mrgreen::lmao::mrgreen::lmao:



oooooooohhh.... oh heck, I don't know your real name... lol  You cannot lump all wedding photographers into one pile, and in Canada, our pitchers all suck because we can't afford the big guns, and besides, we play hockey and none of our pitchers like to wear skates... but I know what you mean, respect your opinion, I just don't think that we fully agree on certain aspects of this. 

S'ok, though, its all good!


----------



## JerryPH

sabbath999 said:


> It's all the same thing, over and over for most "pros" couldn't care less because it puts bread on the table.



Not sure if the term "most pros" is accurate, though I am sure it is VERY true for many.  Mindless repetition does NOT equal quality or useful experience.  It is also a fact that any business person that doesn't care, is simply not going to be around for very long and during the time they are there... *are* giving nothing but crappy results!

However, I do see a large number of up and coming photographers entering the scene from all directions with a wildly different concept in mind:

- hey, how about we get REALLY good with our cameras and flashes
- get REALLY good with being creative and original, setting ourselves apart
- ...and finally, the cherry on top of the cake, let's become REALLY good at advanced networking, targeting, business and marketing techniques!

These people are going to not only put a spin on the current wedding photographer scene, they are going to put many of the ones who are stuck in the endless loop of "us old school TRUE professionals, we are right, you young-uns are all wrong" mentalities right on their butts or out of the playing field all together, unless they adapt to the (not so new), new rules in the game.


----------



## manaheim

Jerry, jerry, jerry... when are you Canadians going to learn that a hockey stick is an inappropriate tool for a variety of activities... including baseball, making pancakes, and dating.


----------



## JerryPH

manaheim said:


> Jerry, jerry, jerry... when are you Canadians going to learn that a hockey stick is an inappropriate tool for a variety of activities... including baseball, making pancakes, and dating.



We need to talk... seriously.
We all know that using a hockey stick will improve anyone's dating scene, but only if it curves to the right!

Never heard of "Lefty loosy, righty tighty"??


----------



## manaheim

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwow.

*Chris closes his browser and goes to bed and has nightmares.*


----------



## RMThompson

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Sorry if youre found my statement harsh and no I don't really think everyone should give up photography as a hobby. However if you ask around it seems everyone that takes up photography as a hobby wants to make money at it.
> 
> A guy on the canon forum posted last week asking about starting up his new photography business and had a few questions about what he should do. He stated himself "Okay, so I've been building my portfolio and only have about 5 good shots (I just got my camera a couple of weeks ago"
> 
> I think that proves my point.


 
Yeah one person always proves a point to be 100% true. :banghead:


----------



## heavenlymom

I think everyone has to start somewhere. So long as people are honest about it who cares. Most of the newer photographers I see admit in their ads that they are just starting out. I've been doing photography for five years, not much time in terms of how long a lot of real pros out there have been doing it. Does that mean that just because I haven't been doing it as long that I am not a professional, nope. Professional is the way you go about it. Honesty, capability, a good eye, creativity and having a business, but more of all admitting that even after doing it for decades upon decades, you are always still just starting out as there are always new things to learn. 
JMHO


----------



## manaheim

heavenlymom said:


> I think everyone has to start somewhere. So long as people are honest about it who cares. Most of the newer photographers I see admit in their ads that they are just starting out. I've been doing photography for five years, not much time in terms of how long a lot of real pros out there have been doing it. Does that mean that just because I haven't been doing it as long that I am not a professional, nope. Professional is the way you go about it. Honesty, capability, a good eye, creativity and having a business, but more of all admitting that even after doing it for decades upon decades, you are always still just starting out as there are always new things to learn.
> JMHO


 
That's an interesting way to look at it that I hope people don't just glaze over... professional being more measure of how you handle yourself and your clients.  Interesting.


----------



## christopher walrath

Put a D40 in anyone's hands they'll think they're a pro. Give them an sr-T101 without the batteries, a little dinky thyristor pop flash and a hand held light meter. Now what?


----------



## table1349

JerryPH said:


> oooooooohhh.... oh heck, I don't know your real name... lol  You cannot lump all wedding photographers into one pile, and in Canada, our pitchers all suck because we can't afford the big guns, and besides, we play hockey and none of our pitchers like to wear skates... but I know what you mean, respect your opinion, I just don't think that we fully agree on certain aspects of this.
> 
> S'ok, though, its all good!



Sorry JerryPH.  I was a catcher for 11 years so pitchers are something I know a little about.  Pitchers don't operate on a different plain than everybody else if you know what I mean.  They operate on an entirely different planet. :lmao::lmao::lmao:  A certain Mel Brooks movie about space comes to mind.  Just having some fun.


----------



## confused_in_the_darkroom

I am by no means a pro. I shoot with camera's from the 80's and earlier because I cannot affort new camera's. I do however take this art very seriously and believe that people could be more constructive rather than destructive. The detriment served by negative criticism dwarfs any positive innovations made by the very small number of 'pros' out there. If everyone did cooperate the art would truly evolve, but certain elitists shoot down the aspiring youth. I WILL NOT BE SHOT DOWN!! I will contribute and encourage others to contribute and us lower levels of the photography world will not be shoved off of the stage because we are just as valid as the 'pros'

Elitist Dogs


----------



## RMThompson

christopher walrath said:


> Put a D40 in anyone's hands they'll think they're a pro. Give them an sr-T101 without the batteries, a little dinky thyristor pop flash and a hand held light meter. Now what?


 
Bow down to the master pro! :hail:

*sigh* 

And put a dry plate camera in front of you. Now What? 

Advancement of technology does not infer that those still using the previous generations tools is anymore or less qualified to be a professional.

Time and time again on this forum conversations and arguments have all lead to a single conclusion:

*Equipment does not equal professional.*

You might be a tinkerer, a gadgeter, and someone who downright loves his photographic tools... but all that matters is the END RESULT. I don't care how you got there if the photograph speaks to me. 

Remember the Al Gore photograph that won a Pulitzer (or some major award)... it was taken with a 10 dollar plastic camera.

So, get off the high horse, and grab that friend with the D40 and show him the rule of thirds, teach him how to find emotion in his photography, and maybe even explain to him how all that technology in the D40 used to cost thousands of dollars; and show him what it does.

Only then can we all grow, as photographers... as artists... as people.

/soapbox

Ryan


----------



## JodieO

Hertz van Rental said:


> This may appear to you to be noble but what you are doing is charging others for your education.
> If you are taking pictures in order to learn then you have to expect to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the root of the whole problem lies.
> Most people quite clearly are confused about what they think they are doing.
> A 'hobby' is a pursuit followed for amusement or pleasure. Nothing more.
> Once you start 'making a few bucks' from it it ceases to be a hobby. It becomes a job (of sorts).
> So if you are doing Photography as a hobby you should not try to make money from it - it's self-defeating.
> If you want to make money from it then be honest with yourself and take the whole thing seriously and stop pretending it's a hobby.
> Either you are good enough to charge for your work or you are not. To expect others to pay you money for an end product that may well be of poor quality is morally questionable.
> And to seek to defend yourself with the excuse that you are still learning is laughable.
> If you go to the Doctor with a headache and he amputates your leg, you would sue. And you wouldn't expect him to shrug it off with 'well, I'm still learning'.
> If you got a plumber in to replace the washers in a tap and he flooded the house, his excuse that 'plumbing is just a hobby' would not really mollify you.
> Photography is no different.
> If you expect people to pay money for you to take pictures then they have a right to expect you to approach it with a degree of professionalism and produce work of reasonable and consistent quality. Pretending that your money-making exercise is just a hobby is nothing more than a conceit to make you feel better about the fact that it isn't.
> Stop sitting on the fence and decide just what it is you are doing.


 
Exactly. A phenomenon that is rampant right now is "MWAC" - Mom With a Camera. I am a mom, I have a camera, but first and foremost, I am a businesswoman with a succesful business. You don't call a surgeon a Dad with a Knife, do you? WTHeck do people support this MWAC thing is beyond me....

The stereotypical MWAC has a husband who works, and she stays home with the kids. She dabbles in photography and decides to hang a shingle and be a business. But because she doesn't NEED to work, she only charges a few bucks to take pictures of other peoples' kids, usually on location or at the person's house. What the MWAC doesn't realize is that sure, it's a few bucks, but she's really not making a dime (she's actually charging less than walmart's a la carte prices). All the work she puts into PPing and money she puts out for camera bodies or equipment, she's not even thinking about that. If she did her expenses vs. income, she would see she's spending hours at minimum wage or less. What she is doing in actuality is dragging the industry down. She's making customers think that portraits should be cheap... so the MWAC will eventually go out of business because eventuallys he will get bored of not making money or her thrill of being a "photographer" passes. Now the customer doesn't have a photographer so comes to someone like me and balks at my $250 session fee and $75 8x10s and gets angry with me. Trust me, I get a lot of them. Nothing like getting a phone call "Does your $250 session fee include prints?" I say no, and they get mad and hang up.

Meanwhile, all I am doing is trying to make a living and keep my business afloat.... while the MWACs are dragging the industry down.

Disclaimer: Just because I say MWAC, I am not lumping all moms in there. Like I said, I am a mom and I have a camera, but again, is a plumber a Dad with a wrench?

When you are a professional photographer, I hate to break it to you but being a succesful photographer is more about your BUSINESS skills than it is anything else (with some rare exceptions of course). If you have the business skills, you will be succesful. If you have the business skills and back it up with amazing work, you will be VERY succesful.

ETA: To discuss the equipment of a professional photographer. Well, I hate to say this but perception is big in the eyes of some of your clients. Yes, as a pro photographer, you should be able to take any camera and make an amazing piece of art. ABSOLUTELY. However, depending upon your market, watch yourself. I just booked yet ANOTHER client with the same complaint yesterday. She called and said that she had booked a photog far in advance for her pregnancy images because she thougth they were a pro business with a great website. She then calls up to confirm final situation and realizes that that photog doesn't have a studio. She was upset and called me and wanted to make sure I had a studio. I understand where she is coming from. She wanted the professionalism and privacy of a real studio where she could do semi-nude images in a professional way. She felt it unprofessional to do them at her home... not that they couldn't be professional, but it was her perception. Many of my well-known clients don't want a photog at their house - they want privacy and no one invading their personal home.... so they have appreciated that I have a studio... MANY comment on my equipment/camera and are reassured of my professionalism just by seeing my website, equipment, and studio combined.

Again, not that it makes your images unprofessional if you don't have the equipment, etc. to back that image up but depending on your market, they may be judging you based on it.... and while you can totally prove them wrong with your images, heck, I like the reassurance they get and the pleasure they get from my images.... It's how *I* like to work, but I know it isn't the same for everyone, and that is okay.

Some clients just like to be reassured that they are making the right decision the moment they see you... yes, that doesn't mean much of anything, but maybe it does to them? It's the same thing as when you walk into a place to buy a high ticket item, you want to see high ticket stuff around you, you want to be pampered, you want the high ticket experience. It's perception.

Another little disclaimer: I see how some people might not care to make money at this... okay, I can accept that... but personally, I don't see doing ANY work without making money at it... Any time spent away from my children or away from my love of hiking and horseback riding, needs to be WELL worth it to me. I put a price on my time. Taking photos of nature and stuff for fun is one thing, I would do that for free, but once you add customers/clients into it, it becomes business and work. Sometimes it is fun work, but it *IS* work, and I won't work for free.  In fact, I price my time quite high hourly.


----------



## Lyncca

By the way, I'm not a flipping mom with a camera!  I make my own frigging money in a highend aviation consulting company! I don't even have a kid!


----------



## JodieO

Lyncca said:


> By the way, I'm not a flipping mom with a camera! I make my own frigging money in a highend aviation consulting company! I don't even have a kid!


 

I don't think anyone was calling you a MWAC.  What did I miss?  I only spoke the above from personal experience.  :meh:


----------



## Lyncca

The part you quoted was directed at me.


----------



## JodieO

I didn't know who it was directed to (and I apologize if that upset you that it was directed at you) but I do know while it was a very harsh way in which he said it, I have had the same experience dealing with new photographers.  In fact, I have actually taught many new photographers over the past two years, and the biggest problem they are having is defining whether or not they want to be a business... and those who are defining themselves as a business, end up frustrated when they realize they aren't making a dime.

While what he said above was harsh, I totally see where he is coming from after being in business for years, and if you are heading down the road of being in business, you will look back a few years from now and understand why he wrote that.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I remember when I first got into this business and heard what another local photog was saying and I kept saying "OMG, she is such a B@#@$"... now that I have gone down the same road she did, I totally totally understand why she acted the way she did.


----------



## Chiller

I just realized something...Im a WMWAC...Warehouse Manager with a camera.  


sorry....back to my crypt


----------



## Peanuts

If Chiller is a WMWAC I am a PSWAC (poor student with a camera )or BHScSWAC (Bachelor of Health Sciences Student with a camera)


----------



## MikeBcos

JodieO said:


> The stereotypical MWAC has a husband who works, and she stays home with the kids. She dabbles in photography and decides to hang a shingle and be a business. But because she doesn't NEED to work, she only charges a few bucks to take pictures of other peoples' kids, usually on location or at the person's house. What the MWAC doesn't realize is that sure, it's a few bucks, but she's really not making a dime (she's actually charging less than walmart's a la carte prices). All the work she puts into PPing and money she puts out for camera bodies or equipment, she's not even thinking about that. If she did her expenses vs. income, she would see she's spending hours at minimum wage or less. What she is doing in actuality is dragging the industry down. She's making customers think that portraits should be cheap... so the MWAC will eventually go out of business because eventuallys he will get bored of not making money or her thrill of being a "photographer" passes.



This phenomenon is not limited to the photographic industry, I'm a graphic designer/printer. With the advent of the home computer and cheap colour printers everyone thinks they are designers and printers. -- "Aunt Beth is getting married next month so lets buy some blank invitations from Walmart and design the text and stuff ourselves."

It has hurt my industry, but I do not believe it has dragged it down, those who want quality realize that the pro will do a better job 99% of the time, I do lose a lot of business to people with their $49 deskjets, but, there are also the people who realize that my 25 years experience and my $100,000 digital printers are going to produce a much nicer job than Joey with his HP computer-kit-in-a-box. I just have to market myself to the right people.

I also know my limitations, I have been a photographer for 34 years. My daughter is in her Senior year of high school, naturally we wanted some excellent Senior photos, better than the ones the school's canned photographer would supply. So, I put my D40 back in its bag and hired a pro, it was worth every penny.


----------



## Chiller

Peanuts said:


> If Chiller is a WMWAC I am a PSWAC (poor student with a camera )or BHScSWAC (Bachelor of Health Sciences Student with a camera)


:lmao::lmao:  Thats a pretty long title ya got there Peanuts.


----------



## JodieO

MikeBcos said:


> This phenomenon is not limited to the photographic industry, I'm a graphic designer/printer.


 
ITA.

When I was interviewed by the New York Times a few years ago, they were looking for a MWAC (the stereotypical negative connotations version) and they couldn't get it through me - she kept trying to say "what does your husband do?" and all that when interviewing me... )... so they only quoted one little piece from me, but I was really irritated because they were so trying to start major controversy in our industry with the way in which they wrote up the article.

But sure, it is everywhere... you are right!


----------



## manaheim

Not like it matters, but...

Definitions of *professional* on the Web:

[SIZE=-1]
engaged in a profession or engaging in as a profession or means of livelihood; "the professional man or woman possesses distinctive qualifications ...
a person engaged in one of the learned professions
an athlete who plays for pay
master: an authority qualified to teach apprentices
engaged in by members of a profession; "professional occupations include medicine and the law and teaching" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
A professional can be either a person in a profession (certain types of skilled work requiring formal training/education) or in sports (a sportsman/sportwoman doing sports for payment). ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
A person who belongs to a profession; A person who earns his living from a specified activity; An expert; Of, pertaining to, or in accordance with the standards of a profession; That is carried out for money, especially as a livelihood; Expert [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
A player who receives payment for teaching or playing in tournaments. Usually shortened to Pro.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.worldgolf.com/wglibrary/reference/dictionary/ppage.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
A difficulty setting available when starting a new game where the enemies can sustain and deliver more damage. The title screen also changes to a panoramic view of the village.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.experiencefestival.com/a/Resident_Evil_4_-_Gameplay/id/4708528[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Most of these have something about being paid in them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]A few of them have something about a certain level of expertise. Since level of expertise is very subjective, but being paid is very objective... why don't we all just assume that if you get *PAID* then you are a *PROFESSIONAL*.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Now those of you who bristle at the idea of someone who isn't so great at what they do and still being called a professional... you can resign yourselves to calling those people "*low quality professionals*" if you like, and then we can all move on with our lives. [/SIZE]


----------



## Chiller

WOO HOOO(yes Im yelling for those who are prefessional grammatically correct people)...it is official. Im a professional retard.


----------



## abraxas

Adapt or die.  It ain't going to get any better.  Don't forget all those MWAC are mommies and have kids which will morph into KWAC, of which they will ultimately take over the world!


----------



## unitekbenchmark

As far as I'm concerned, the more people with cameras out there the better. There is nothing wrong with pursuing a hobby. I have a bigger problem with the people who claim to be advanced or professional and have no skill in developing photographs. Learn your medium before you start tinkering with computers and effects. If you really want to be a photographer get in a dark room and start doing some work. After you deal with that frustration then turn on a computer and appreciate the differences and understand photoshops limitations.


----------



## rufus5150

Before you turn on your computer, make sure you fire up the old PDP-11 and bang out some microcode, too!


----------



## JerryPH

Peanuts said:


> If Chiller is a WMWAC I am a PSWAC (poor student with a camera )or BHScSWAC (Bachelor of Health Sciences Student with a camera)



Sigh... so that makes me a SAWAC. (smart a$$ with a camera).   

At least I am NOT a man with a wrench... AKA a plumber... butt-crack... ewwww!   

I understand and actually agree with Jodie about this, what she says sings very true with what I have seen around my area.


----------



## JerryPH

manaheim said:


> [SIZE=-1]Now those of you who bristle at the idea of someone who isn't so great at what they do and still being called a professional... you can resign yourselves to calling those people "*low quality professionals*" if you like, and then we can all move on with our lives. [/SIZE]



Now that fits me to a "T".


----------



## MikeBcos

I used to read these same discussions in photo magazines back in the early 80s, I'll bet the first letter to a magazine on this subject was written in February of 1900 right after Kodak introduced their camera for the masses - the Brownie.


----------



## JerryPH

I found it!  The definitive definition of a professional photographer.  If you know some of the older Chuck Norris definitions, well you guys will feel right at home.  I am *SO* glad we can finally lay that discussion to rest with this new info.

Here we go:

A professional photographer is the Chuck Norris of photography 

A professional photographer's camera has similar settings to a non pro, except ours are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic] 

A professional photographer doesn't color correct. The world adjusts to match us.

Sure, a professional photographer deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers. 

A professional photographer doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time. 

A professional photographer doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him. 

A professional photographer never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth 

A professional photographer orders an L-lens from Nikon, and gets one. 

When a professional photographer brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories 

Only a professional photographer can take pictures of a professional photographer; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of our genius 

A professional photographer's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure 

A professional photographer once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble Space Telescope. 

When a professional unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it. 

A professional photographers portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes 

On a professional photographer's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine 

A professional photographer spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d" 

For every 10 shots that a professional photographer takes, 11 are keepers. 

A professional photographer's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's. 

A professional photographer never focuses, everything moves into his DoF 

A professional photographer's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned Photoshop for us: all it consists of is a close button. 

A professional photographer never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer 

A professional photographer isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the professional photographer of martial arts.

 :thumbup: :mrgreen: :thumbup: ​


----------



## rufus5150

Chuck Norris (Vin Diesel, etc etc) lists are so like 3 years ago, but this one did amuse me:



> A professional photographer's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.


----------



## JerryPH

I have to admit, there were a couple there that cracked me up.


----------



## table1349

JerryPH said:


> I found it!  The definitive definition of a professional photographer.  If you know some of the older Chuck Norris definitions, well you guys will feel right at home.  I am *SO* glad we can finally lay that discussion to rest with this new info.
> 
> Here we go:
> 
> A professional photographer is the Chuck Norris of photography
> 
> A professional photographer's camera has similar settings to a non pro, except ours are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
> 
> A professional photographer doesn't color correct. The world adjusts to match us.
> 
> Sure, a professional photographer deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
> 
> A professional photographer doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
> 
> A professional photographer doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
> 
> A professional photographer never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
> 
> A professional photographer orders an L-lens from Nikon, and gets one.
> 
> When a professional photographer brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
> 
> Only a professional photographer can take pictures of a professional photographer; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of our genius
> 
> A professional photographer's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
> 
> A professional photographer once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble Space Telescope.
> 
> When a professional unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
> 
> A professional photographers portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
> 
> On a professional photographer's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine
> 
> A professional photographer spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
> 
> For every 10 shots that a professional photographer takes, 11 are keepers.
> 
> A professional photographer's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
> 
> A professional photographer never focuses, everything moves into his DoF
> 
> A professional photographer's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned Photoshop for us: all it consists of is a close button.
> 
> A professional photographer never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
> 
> A professional photographer isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the professional photographer of martial arts.
> 
> :thumbup: :mrgreen: :thumbup: ​




Mind if I borrow this?  By the time I got done reading it I was laughing so hard when my wife came to see what was happening she thought I was crying.  :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## christopher walrath

OMG!  People!  Can't we all just get along?  Push the button!  Make beautiful art!  Scan it!  Share it!  Process it!  Print it!  Shove it!  Cram it!  I don't care what we do with it or what we do it with!  Let's just DO IT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!

This outburst brought to you by the letter Q . . .


----------



## JerryPH

gryphonslair99 said:


> Mind if I borrow this?



Be my guest, I am printing out an 8 X 10 and putting this in a small frame on my wall where I can see it daily.  It will help me keep things in perspective and not so "heavy" all the time.  



gryphonslair99 said:


> By the time I got done reading it I was laughing so hard when my wife came to see what was happening she thought I was crying.  :lmao:



Those are the best... I am glad you got a kick out if it!  This thread needed a little lightening up, even if the entire thread had merit and value.


----------



## Battou

christopher walrath said:


> OMG!  People!  Can't we all just get along?  Push the button!  Make beautiful art!  Scan it!  Share it!  Process it!  Print it!  Shove it!  Cram it!  I don't care what we do with it or what we do it with!  Let's just DO IT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> This outburst brought to you by the letter Q . . .



But...but...I'm in the mood to fight and complain, getting along would be such a mood kill.


----------



## LokiZ

Hmmm, I think the term "professional" is a term best left for your clients when they speak of you and your work.  When you start calling yourself a professional  you tread on dangerous ground. But then that is again just my opinion.   

 Photographers of the professional breed seem to usually have a goal of getting money for their work... (not always but much of the time in my experience)  But the market they play and work in is not a closed market it is an open market.  Thus this thread/rant against those imposing themselves and their "professional work" into that open market of photography. 

 I can feel your pain, if someone came in and attempted to take my job from me and on top of that they had no qualifications to boot I would feel pretty bent.  But at the same time I was greener then green when I first became what I am today.  The ONLY reason I can refer to myself as a professional in my field is be cause my operators and even more importantly my boss considers me to be a top notch professional in my field.  It's as simple as that.  It is their opinions of my work content that matter not my own nor my equals via job title. 

  If you are getting stressed due to those you feel have no right to self proclaim themselves professionals then your doing more damage to yourself then you are to them.  
BR> But then again that also is just my own opinion. 

 Cheers


----------



## davidfromoz

I think I'd have to agree that a profession is somebody who gets paid for their work.  Now that the total process of creating a marketable product is easier of course the barrier to entry is lower.

However, in my day a pro was also somebody who acted with class.  Pros would never hang around and lament how their competitors (and even their customers) are idiots.  They would simply do better work and get recognized for it.

If you are not able to differentiate your work from that of your competitor in the eyes of the customer then its not the competitor (incompetent though they surely be) or the customer's fault.  Its yours.

cheers,
david


----------



## JodieO

davidfromoz said:


> If you are not able to differentiate your work from that of your competitor in the eyes of the customer then its not the competitor (incompetent though they surely be) or the customer's fault. Its yours.


 
Sure, you can differentiate your work, I've personally managed to do that in my market quite well. Even the "competitors" who are charging way cheap and aren't going to be in business for long even though they are very talented and deserve to be paid more thus should be charging more. But ultimately, it is none of my business, but I don't think there is anything wrong with noting the ridiculousness of some aspects of this industry.

However, the average customer usually cannot see basic things that we have trained our eye to see such as color casts, slight out of focus, digital noise, etc. I APPRECIATE when I get the customer who looks at an image and knows right away it is art vs. a glorified snapshot. If you think that every client that looks at photography websites can see color casts, and other pro vs. amateur subjects, you are fooling yourselves. I have actually shown clients and fellow photographers who I taught in my seminars my "mistake wall" at my studio. That's the wall that I put many images up that I have gotten back from the lab and noticed something I really didn't like about it, and reprinted or something. Until I pointed out what I don't like about the image, they couldn't see it. 

That's why crappy photography is still being sold out there. That and the "bottom feeders" looking for a deal. There are many looking for cheap photography (thank God I don't deal with that in my market/client base that I have seriously worked hard acquiring...) and don't see the problem with even on-camera flash in a lot of situations.

I find it funny when someone comes to me with a very awful baby announcement they got from their friend and say, "I want one like this" and it looks like the black and white was a simple greyscale with on camera flash. That totally shows me that people don't necessarily see what we have trained our eyes to see. Heck, I have two Sears portraits on my wall at home from when my children were 1... I LOVED those images then, absolutely LOVED them. Once I got serious about my photography and started printing my stuff and hanging it near those images - WOW what a difference. Now I get clients that are scared of my prices, but come back year after year and say they can't go back to "cheap" photography because the quality is so different (usually, they need to see it in person, next to each other and it screams out at them... ).

I just was giggling at a conversation I saw elsewhere where someone posted a chair with a baby on it with on camera flash - oh, it was really really bad, the baby was orange, and there was a big electrical outlet in the picture and people were saying "Oh my gosh, that is an amazing picture, you should be a photographer..." to the poster...

But anyway, back to the thread - there's nothing wrong with a good vent once in a while... this was nice to let loose as I am recovering from surgery. It's when you dwell on the problems that it becomes a problem.... but a vent once in a while? Why is THAT a problem?  Maybe you didn't see it so much in your day, but the internet has really opened up communication to people all across the world, and it is nice to have a little comradery knowing that you aren't the only one that feels a certain way...  Now if someone did nothing but constantly complain, you have to wonder why they aren't using that energy to get themselves further in business, but a simple vent?  who cares....


----------



## Joves

The real problem is that just about anyone with a camera can get paid to shoot photos. Most of the people that go for the lower end are Wal-Fart types anyhow and, will never call a true quality photographer anyhow so, it wont affect most peoples bottom line. To me being angry over them being in business is wasted energy.


----------



## mrodgers

Joves said:


> The real problem is that just about anyone with a camera can get paid to shoot photos. Most of the people that go for the lower end are Wal-Fart types anyhow and, will never call a true quality photographer anyhow so, it wont affect most peoples bottom line. To me being angry over them being in business is wasted energy.


Bingo.  I've seen people mention hundreds for a single photo, thousands for a photo shoot.  I'd have to say that I very much doubt someone who is just about to call a photographer to spend $3-5000 for a photoshoot isn't going to notice a Craigslist ad and put all stops out and reverse to call the guy advertising for peanuts.


----------



## DRoberts

I can't believe this thread is still going...Haven't we got past this yet?


----------



## Joves

DRoberts said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going...Haven't we got past this yet?


 No it is very traumatic for some.


----------



## craig

DRoberts said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going...Haven't we got past this yet?



I am not past it. It is very traumatic for me. 

Love & Bass


----------



## Spannagel

First of all I love rants, especially ones with passion. :thumbup:

I feel the same way. Digital photography makes it seem so easy to take a great pic. Our tools and technology have made it so, which you must admit is awesome.  In actuality it is just the amateur who thinks it is a great pic (and tells you about it). Though it may be good is it truly great?  Great pictures have great meaning. 
                                                        - still looking for that "great" pic,
                                                                    nick


----------



## craig

Hawaii Five-O said:


> What is love & bass?



Love & Bass heavy music such as breaks and Drum and Bass.

)'(


----------



## anubis404

I am by no means a professional, and I don't intend to be. I am afraid that if I go professional and make a living off of photography, that it will become boring from doing it so much. I intend on becoming a lawyer.

However, I may put myself out for hire to shoot small events (IE Small children's birthday parties and such, definitely NOT weddings or seniors etc). I'm sure there are parents that want more than their spouse snapping with a P&S without bringing in a serious and expensive professional with a degree and 10+ years of experience.

But that's for when I have some decent equipment and a couple more years under my belt. I would mostly do it just to learn, I don't really care about the money.


----------



## craig

anubis404 said:


> I am by no means a professional, and I don't intend to be. I am afraid that if I go professional and make a living off of photography, that it will become boring from doing it so much. I intend on becoming a lawyer.
> 
> However, I may put myself out for hire to shoot small events (IE Small children's birthday parties and such, definitely NOT weddings or seniors etc). I'm sure there are parents that want more than their spouse snapping with a P&S without bringing in a serious and expensive professional with a degree and 10+ years of experience.
> 
> But that's for when I have some decent equipment and a couple more years under my belt. I would mostly do it just to learn, I don't really care about the money.



Good attitude. I think too quickly a decision is made to get into retail photography. Everyone wants money and better gear. Little do they know that retail photography is a tough field. Let alone commercial/editorial photography. Photography is forever about learning and patience is the key.

P.S My mom wanted me to become a lawyer. Most days I am glad I did not listen to her. 

Love & Bass


----------



## anubis404

craig said:


> Good attitude. I think too quickly a decision is made to get into retail photography. Everyone wants money and better gear. Little do they know that retail photography is a tough field. Let alone commercial/editorial photography. Photography is forever about learning and patience is the key.
> 
> P.S My mom wanted me to become a lawyer. Most days I am glad I did not listen to her.
> 
> Love & Bass



Lol I'm still open to other fields, but law interests me the most.

I have actually thought about becoming a professional photographer, and maybe studying photojournalism in college, but photography can be a tough field. I should know about tough fields of work, both my parents are musicians.


----------



## sabbath999

Peanuts said:


> If Chiller is a WMWAC I am a PSWAC (poor student with a camera )or BHScSWAC (Bachelor of Health Sciences Student with a camera)



I am an ITGW8C (Information Technology Geek With Eight Cameras).


----------



## VADER1775

christopher walrath said:


> Put a D40 in anyone's hands they'll think they're a pro. Give them an sr-T101 without the batteries, a little dinky thyristor pop flash and a hand held light meter. Now what?



So a you can't be a "pro" with a D40, but  with a 1965 P.O.S. you can?  Now it all makes sense.


----------



## Battou

VADER1775 said:


> So a you can't be a "pro" with a D40, but  with a 1965 P.O.S. you can?  Now it all makes sense.



Yes, it does. If one knows how to use that 1965 P.O.S as you so bluntly put it, they have obviously taken the time to gather an appropriate understanding of how to take a photograph and use a camera. Unlike the D40 the SRT- 101 without the batteries, much like my EF will take outstanding photographs wile at the same time doing absolutely nothing to help the guy behind it. Accepting help and needing help are two entirely different things. If one can do it with out the assistance of AF, internal metering, ISO swap on the fly and what ever else then they have the right to call them self good enough to accept money for their time and efffort. If one can take the D40 away and still accomplish the same results than we have a winner, if not...go to school.




sabbath999 said:


> I am an ITGW8C (Information Technology Geek With Eight Cameras).



Only eight..... 


Suppose I can play along

I am an ABTWSGAS (Autobody Technition With Sevear Gear Aquisition Syndrom)


----------



## table1349

Battou said:


> Yes, it does. If one knows how to use that 1965 P.O.S as you so bluntly put it, they have obviously taken the time to gather an appropriate understanding of how to take a photograph and use a camera. Unlike the D40 the SRT- 101 without the batteries, much like my EF will take outstanding photographs wile at the same time doing absolutely nothing to help the guy behind it. Accepting help and needing help are two entirely different things. *If one can do it with out the assistance of AF, internal metering, ISO swap on the fly and what ever else then they have the right to call them self good enough to accept money for their time and efffort.* If one can take the D40 away and still accomplish the same results than we have a winner, if not...go to school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only eight.....
> 
> 
> Suppose I can play along
> 
> I am an ABTWSGAS (Autobody Technition With Sevear Gear Aquisition Syndrom)




Funny, I must have missed that part in the constitution where calling oneself a profession photographer was *a right*. Is there some state board that certifies one as a photographer that I missed? Some governing body that regulates the world of photography? 

Professional in terms of photography only applies to being able to take photographs, sell them and make a majority of ones living from doing so.   That is a professional in the photographic world. 

Being an accomplished photographer is an entirely different matter.  And frankly the only one that truly matters when it comes to photography. When it comes to the business of selling photographs a combination of photographic accomplishment and business skills is intertwined with a heavier emphasis on business skills. 

I have found as a general rule that those that complain the loudest about other photographers in the business, or other in any business for that matter, usually lack in the business side.  It usually irks them that some less accomplished photographer has figured out the business end and targeted a particular market and is successful.  Don't like it, put down your SRT-101, your little dinky thyristor pop flash, hand held light meter and your ego and go take some business classes. 

Photography is an art.  No artist pursues their art to be come rich.  Most of them know going in that the true fame and value to their work often comes after they are dead.  Makes for a bad business if you have to die to make money.  It's kind like the guy that wanted to be a super hero and when asked if he could stop a speeding bullet he replied..."Once."   

Artist get into art for the sake of art and their vision of that art. The often deviate from their true vision to put food on the table by what ever means, from art or some other form of work.  Their art is their drive and their passion.  Perhaps we should start a thread about all the money grubbing folks ruining the art of photography. 

Besides if you live in the U.S. then all you need to do now is write a letter to your congressman and ask for some bale out money.  :lmao:


----------



## VADER1775

Battou said:


> Yes, it does. If one knows how to use that 1965 P.O.S as you so bluntly put it, they have obviously taken the time to gather an appropriate understanding of how to take a photograph and use a camera. Unlike the D40 the SRT- 101 without the batteries, much like my EF will take outstanding photographs wile at the same time doing absolutely nothing to help the guy behind it. Accepting help and needing help are two entirely different things. If one can do it with out the assistance of AF, internal metering, ISO swap on the fly and what ever else then they have the right to call them self good enough to accept money for their time and efffort. If one can take the D40 away and still accomplish the same results than we have a winner, if not...go to school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only eight.....
> 
> 
> Suppose I can play along
> 
> I am an ABTWSGAS (Autobody Technition With Sevear Gear Aquisition Syndrom)



So the D3 is a big waste of money, when someone could just use an F2; or an F for that matter, or even an FS?


----------



## Harmony

I think the point Battou is trying to make is that a professional is not one who lets the camera do all the work. In that case,the _camera_ would be the professional, and the person would just be going "click". And yes, cameras are getting more advanced and the light meters and whatnot are getting better and better and better - but many people are taking their D40's (and I use the D40 only because many people buy it when they want a "bigger" camera, but they haven't done the scrupulous research many of us have before our first DSLR purchase), setting it on auto, getting (granted, good photos, but not great. Not spectacular.) good photos, and calling themselves professionals when their cousin buys a print. 

They are not professionals until they're making 51% of their income. 

And honestly, before I call _myself_ a professional, I'm going to make VERY sure that I know what I'm doing. I'm going to study. Go to school. Learn what aperture, exposure, ISO, everything does to correspond to a photo instead of letting my camera do it all for me. I'm going to be able to talk about my photograph in detail and the settings that I used to come to the final result other than "oh, I stuck it in P."

And honestly, there _are_ horrible pros. But people buy their prints, and they make their income off of it, and that makes them a pro. But I wouldn't have any self respect in my work if my prints came off looking like crap - pro or not.

My two cents.


----------



## manaheim

Not that anyone ever listens to me when I say this because it's non-controversial and therefore boring, however... I'll try again...

*A pro gets paid, period.*

If you get paid, you're a professional. That's it.

I know it's way more exciting to assign deeper values to "professional" and argue over them, but they are all _deeply_ subjective. "Pros are better than others", "Pros handle themselves well under pressure", "Pros can juggle sixteen cameras and a drunken bride while humming the national anthem of Uruguay", etc. None of these things can truly be proven, however, and really... who cares... none of them really matter.

Anyone who gets all excited about whether or not a person is "worthy" of the professional label is likely just getting their panties into a bunch because they are being defensive for one or more of a variety of reasons.  

Relaaaaaaaax.

Ok, you can all go back to ignoring me and ranting and raving some more.  After another 20 posts or so I'll try to say this again.


----------



## Jon, The Elder

> All of the photographers I looked up to have left cause of this. I can only name about 3 or 4 photographers I would turn to here for advice now. Newbies used to be welcomed by everyone, but now we have this division of experience. ouch.....biting my tongue here.


 
This is a quite comon evolution in forum content......


----------



## abraxas

Jon said:


> This is a quite comon evolution in forum content......



This is also a common evolution in rock & roll bars.


----------



## prodigy2k7

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Your Costco bought D80 kit, that super great best bang for the buck 50 1.8 and your 5 months of shooting TONS of photos of your family does not even come close to making you a photographer



Since when do you have to be a pro to be a photographer? I define professional photographer who is paid. I have been paid a few times dont I dont consider myself a pro. I think you should be paid often (at least like once a month, and if your not, paid a good amount when you do get paid, to be considered a "professional") There is no fine line. You said shooting doesnt make you a photographer? Umm, what world did you come from, yes it does. A photographer is a person who takes photographs. Photographer doesnt mean a professional.


----------



## Hattori

Everyone can become these days a good photographer. There are 2 good arguments for this:

1: The technology is easy to use.
2: *Auto* - mode ON.

/ironic


----------



## JerryPH

I will argue that it takes a LOT more to become a good photographer than using easy technology and the auto mode of a camera.

Anyone who thinks the above is not really aware of what it takes to become a "good" photographer.  This is a good snapshot artist... and my dog can be taught to press the shutter button in auto mode... doesn't make it a good photographer... lol.


----------



## abraxas

Hattori said:


> Everyone can become these days a good photographer. There are 2 good arguments for this:
> 
> 1: The technology is easy to use.
> 2: *Auto* - mode ON.
> 
> /ironic



Don't ya just love it?


----------



## JerryPH

Someone is paying too much attention to the Nikon commercials with Ashton Kutcher... lol


----------



## stsinner

manaheim said:


> Anyone who gets all excited about whether or not a person is "worthy" of the professional label is likely just getting their panties into a bunch because they are being defensive for one or more of a variety of reasons.
> 
> Relaaaaaaaax.
> 
> Ok, you can all go back to ignoring me and ranting and raving some more.  After another 20 posts or so I'll try to say this again.




I agree..  What a bunch of crybabies..  Just do what you do and don't worry about anyone else.  If you're good, if you're professional, you don't sit around crying about the competition.  You just do good work, and it carries you far.

I'm not even good at photography, but I am an engineer, and this is no different than any other profession.  I've seen the hacks, and they came and they go..  If your actions can't back your promises, you don't stay in business.


----------



## mrodgers

JerryPH said:


> I will argue that it takes a LOT more to become a good photographer than using easy technology and the auto mode of a camera.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the above is not really aware of what it takes to become a "good" photographer. This is a good snapshot artist... and my dog can be taught to press the shutter button in auto mode... doesn't make it a good photographer... lol.


What do you define as a "good" photographer?  Asking not just you, but anyone here.

I wonder this because I bought my first manual capable camera last Christmas.  It was the first time I gave thought to actual photography rather than snapping shots.

BUT, I've had the same small digital camera previously since 2002.  It had no manual settings, was full auto for shutter, selected 2 aperture settings only (automatically), and had ISO100 only.  I use to ride a motorcycle, and I had the camera around my neck and under my jacket every time I went for a ride.  Now, I'm sorting through thousands of photos from back then shot with my little auto digicam and I'm finding tons of landscape type photos that I love.

I didn't think about photography back then at all as I do now.  I think about composition and the camera settings consciously (sp?) now.  But, back then, I realize now that I was thinking about composition in the back of my mind without actually thinking of photography.  So, was I a photographer back then or not?  After all, I shot with a full auto camera.  But, I find that the composition of the landscape shots worked quite well without me thinking in a photographer's sense.

A few of my landscape shots are uploaded to this .  They are all shot back in 2003 on my motorcycle rides (though most processing was redone recently since I've started learning about photography here).  All are shot with the thoughts that "this would be a nice photo" rather than specific shots of composition.  Are these a "photographer's" shots or are they just a "snapshooter's" shots?


----------



## abraxas

mrodgers said:


> What do you define as a ...



Since it's been my contention that this thread has been a whining and sniveling snobbery session from the beginning, maybe this could be better discussed in a new thread.

(BTW- good work).


----------



## Battou




----------



## JerryPH

mrodgers said:


> What do you define as a "good" photographer?



1. Well, let's start very basic.  Know the difference and interactions between ISO, shutter, aperture.  Know how to set them in camera AND UNDERSTAND WHY.  Knowing that P-mode is not the end all of creating a quality picture is really step #1.

2. Understanding exposure to me means complete understanding of the ZONE SYSTEM for digital cameras and how to consistently use it with your camera.

3. Understanding the basics of composition and being able to effectively apply the concepts.

4. A good eye,

5. Polished post processing skills

To me, practice and mastery of these 4 concepts is a starting way towards being a good photographer.  Not a great one by any means, but one that won't completely embarrass themselves if they open a 10 page portfolio or 3 minute slideshow.


----------



## abraxas

Battou said:


>



Cool options.  Needs a "My Dog" button.


----------



## sabbath999

JerryPH said:


> ...and my dog can be taught to press the shutter button in auto mode... doesn't make it a good photographer... lol.



Then you need to get a Border Collie. They are great photographers.


----------



## stsinner

JerryPH said:


> and my dog can be taught to press the shutter button in auto mode... doesn't make it a good photographer... lol.



Got news for you, there, Jerry... Just as computers can pretty much beat the best chess player today, AUTO mode is earning its place at the top..  Unless you are doing, "artsy" shots or emphasizing something in a shot that most people wouldn't emphasize, AUTO is pretty smart..  I don't think I've ever taken an AUTO shot with my D50 that wasn't a viewable photograph.. I say viewable because some elitists believe that unless the entire background is out of focus or the picture isn't b&w, then the picture isn't good..  I think that the improved AUTO and program modes mean that the only thing that will matter soon is the composition, so you should get used to it..  I'm sick of wielding an expensive camera and being told that I'm no good unless I'm shooting Manual...  Sometimes it's the eye...  After all, isn't it sometimes your desire to document what you're LOOKING AT....???  Not everyone looks at life through a B&W/Sepia or Photoshop lens....  I kind of see things the way they are, which AUTO captures well...


----------



## JerryPH

stsinner said:


> Got news for you, there, Jerry... Just as computers can pretty much beat the best chess player today, AUTO mode is earning its place at the top..  Unless you are doing, "artsy" shots or emphasizing something in a shot that most people wouldn't emphasize, AUTO is pretty smart.. ....  I kind of see things the way they are, which AUTO captures well...



I got news for you (lol)... an experienced photographer sees things BETTER than any camera, and leaving your creativity in the hands of some unknown engineer in Japan is cutting into the quality of the shots YOU could be getting.

If the camera is so smart, how about you try something simple... an easy white balance test... leave the camera totally in AUTO (including auto WB), take a pic... tell me WHY snow comes out looking 18% grey instead of white?

Take a picture of a stream in auto... then take a picture manually with the metering properly set and a slower shutter speed... why does the 2nd shot look SO MUCH better?

They may be smart... but those in the know understand that the camera can only get MAYBE 10% of what an experienced photographer can get out of the same unit set to manual.


----------



## JerryPH

sabbath999 said:


> Then you need to get a Border Collie. They are great photographers.



My friend has one... it's pretty dumb (doesn't come in out of the rain when called... lol), but OMG, can that dog ever herd any animal on his farm... sheep, cows even goes and herds the cats into the house at night!

Yeah, they've got some mad skills at that.


----------



## Overread

guys you don't need dogs - you need cats!
http://beyondthecatflap.org.uk/


----------



## PatrickHMS

Overread said:


> guys you don't need dogs - you need cats!
> http://beyondthecatflap.org.uk/


 
Cats, who mess in a box, walk in it, lick their feet, then look at you like *YOU'RE* stupid.

lol


----------



## Overread

Cats who don't mess in a corner and don't eat manure (or anything else vile!) and then come lick your face


----------



## PatrickHMS

Overread said:


> Cats who don't mess in a corner and don't eat manure (or anything else vile!) and then come lick your face


 

lol...


----------



## fwellers

JerryPH said:


> 1. Well, let's start very basic.  Know the difference and interactions between ISO, shutter, aperture.  Know how to set them in camera AND UNDERSTAND WHY.  Knowing that P-mode is not the end all of creating a quality picture is really step #1.
> 
> 2. Understanding exposure to me means complete understanding of the ZONE SYSTEM for digital cameras and how to consistently use it with your camera.
> 
> 3. Understanding the basics of composition and being able to effectively apply the concepts.
> 
> 4. A good eye,
> 
> 5. Polished post processing skills
> 
> To me, practice and mastery of these 4 concepts is a starting way towards being a good photographer.  Not a great one by any means, but one that won't completely embarrass themselves if they open a 10 page portfolio or 3 minute slideshow.



Dude, you are way too harsh. I took a look at MrRogers pics, and there are quite a few real nice ones. Considering that he used a point and shoot, and didn't think about the technical aspect of photography at that time, I can see that he ( and many others I've seen ), have a natural wonderful eye. Many people seem to "understand" about composition without even knowing the written rules of them. 

So while there is an aspect to photography that involves getting better exposures, and adjusting colors and white balance, and an aspect that involves other lense trickery to create blurring, motion, bokeh, etc...., there is an even more important ( in my mind ) aspect that possibly cannot be taught.
It's the eye. 

Some of your posts are so discouraging, that if I took them to heart I'd throw my camera under a train.


----------



## JerryPH

fwellers said:


> Dude, you are way too harsh.


If you think that is harsh... you really would not just toss your camera under a train, but yourself too, if I told you the standards I set for myself... lol  

I'm actually being minimalist when I say things like "this is what I consider the basics" on here compared to what I consider the "basics" for myself.

I've realized a long time ago that my standards for me are not the same as others.  I am not saying they are better or worse, just higher.  It kinda makes me laugh becuase I literally DEVOTE and THROW myself into this hobby... and I've been here about a year, and if you look at my first posts vs my posts now... yeah, I am constantly learning, but I've come a long way... and have 10X as far to go before I consider myself "good".



fwellers said:


> there is an even more important ( in my mind ) aspect that possibly cannot be taught. It's the eye.


While I agree that it is important to have "the eye", it means NOTHING if you do not understand the technical elements of how to transpose what is in your mind's eye to the camera and make it real.  One without the other is still the same end result... an incomplete puzzle.



fwellers said:


> Some of your posts are so discouraging, that if I took them to heart I'd throw my camera under a train.


See above. 
In life, there are no free lunches.  Whatever you invest in yourself you get back.  Expect a camera to do it all for you and not learn the basics, don't complain if your pics are mediocre.  Don't feel bad when someone tells you this truth either, its not their fault for being honest... its your fault for not doing what is needed to reach a level of competency set by your peers and established by yourself as what you consider your level of competency in relation to others both above and below your knowledge and ability levels.

As far as MrRoger's pics... we've said it many a time here... its not the camera as much as it is the person behind the lens, and having an eye is only ONE small single piece in a huge puzzle.

This should not discourage you... if you give up that easily with something like this, it makes me wonder how easily you would fold if faced with a REAL challenge in life.  Don't be afraid to take it by the horns and shake it around a little... the only thing that will happen is that your skills will improve.

All it takes is a sincere passion and effort, and though both passion and effort are monetarily  "free", both come with their own price... a serious investment in time and dedication.


----------



## RMThompson

I don't think Jerry is being too harsh, but I don't agree with him on EVERYTHING. For instance, I don't think mastering post processing skills is a requirment to becoming a good photographer; after all, ideally we wouldn't NEED the post processing if our shots came out the way we wanted when we click the camera.

Regardless, this argument is an excersize in futility. We all have different definitions of what makes a photographer "GOOD", since "GOOD" is a subjective word!

Besides, this thread was about what makes a PRO... and none of this has to do with being a pro, but I think we've already covered that particular question a few dozen times!


----------



## fwellers

JerryPH said:


> While I agree that it is important to have "the eye", it means NOTHING if you do not understand the technical elements of how to transpose what is in your mind's eye to the camera and make it real.  One without the other is still the same end result... an incomplete puzzle.



I agree but also disagree with that statement. When I read your posts I get the feeling that unless you know enough technical stuff to fill a C5 aircraft, you may as well forget it. But I've seen better camera phone photos on this forum alone, that I only hope to be able to match someday with my D90.  
Sure, the more you learn about what your camera can do, and how to do it, the more you'll be able to spin straw into gold, but it's a process, and there are plenty of worthy photographs to be taken all during the process especially if you have the "knack".




> This should not discourage you... if you give up that easily with something like this, it makes me wonder how easily you would fold if faced with a REAL challenge in life.  Don't be afraid to take it by the horns and shake it around a little... the only thing that will happen is that your skills will improve.



Oh don't worry. As I mentioned, I don't take your posted standards to heart, so I am not giving up. Please don't waste your time wondering how easily I will fold under any situation. You don't know me.




> All it takes is a sincere passion and effort, and though both passion and effort are monetarily  "free", both come with their own price... a serious investment in time and dedication.



Is that all it takes ? Because reading many of your posts, I see list after list of what it takes !
That's sort of my point.


----------



## JerryPH

RMThompson said:


> For instance, I don't think mastering post processing skills is a requirment to becoming a good photographer;



I understand where you are coming from, but I did not say a mastery of post processing, I said merely a polished level.  Give someone a year with an application that they use regularly and have a couple books on that they went through... that to me is polished, its by no means a master or expert on the topic.

As an example, using photoshop as a guide, the ability to do things like frames, exploit layers, manipulate white balance, selective colouring... nothing complex... polished, not mastered. 

I too do not see a need for someone to be a complete master of post processing, however, if they don't know how to pull out some of the hidden aspects of a picture, they are loosing out a LOT and a "good" photographer should know how to extract those little nuances.


----------



## Overread

passion and effort leads to the other things in time



> Sure, the more you learn about what your camera can do, and how to do it, the more you'll be able to spin straw into gold, but it's a process, and there are plenty of worthy photographs to be taken all during the process especially if you have the "knack".


I don't think Jerry is saying that one must start at the end to be any good, nor that all the shots taken along the way are a waste. More I think he is just saying that to get to the standard (what ever that may be) takes time and learning - and that to understand both the elements of composition and also how to technically control your camera are key to achiving ones end result


----------



## manaheim

Hm.

Let's consider something outside of photography for a moment... perhaps it will strike some of the emotion from the conversation.

I play trumpet and have for about... jeez, almost 30 years now. Damn, I'm old.  I happen to have a fairly nice horn... a Vincent Bach Silver. Can't remember the model number, but it ran about $2500 new a good 20 years ago. Beautiful instrument.

Anyway...

(by the way the following course of events has happened to me NUMEROUS times, so I'm not making this up... I'm just condensing it into one representative example)

Imagine the scenario with me and someone who has been playing for just a few years. (or even 5-8 years, for that matter). Assume the person is playing a standard old ~$300 Brass Yamaha or King student horn. Good, solid workhorse of an instrument. Nothing wrong with it.

I can sit next to the person and play on my VB while they play on their King/Yamaha. During a break the person turns to me and compliments my playing and says "I really need to get one of those Vincent Bach Silver trumpets." I smile, and say "You're welcome to play it if you like, just trade horns with me."

They get all excited and agree to swap. (I let go a sigh of relief as I get to hold a much lighter trumpet for a bit. )

We play the next piece. I usually marvel at how generally good the $300 instrument is, and I can always push the horn to it's limits and get really good sound out of it, but I often find the valve mechanism and little rough and usually can't get QUITE the rich tones out of the horn that I can get out of my Vincent Bach. However, usually the student brass horns are brighter and lighter, so they're fun for marches as it's easier to make it sound chipper, whereas my Vincent Bach silver tends to want to be deep and somber and rich. 

I notice that the person who is playing my horn is not sounding any better than usual, and in fact is struggling a bit to get as full of a tone as I can get on the horn because it simply requires stronger breath support to really fill the instrument up. It's certainly "fine", and they're getting the music out, it's just not any better.

At the end of the piece, the person hands the horn back to me and looks baffled. They usually then ask me how much I paid for the horn, are shocked, and then say something along the lines of "Geez, it really isn't any better than the my Yamaha... I guess it's the player, not so much the horn." Sometimes they'll even be obnoxious and say "Geez, what a waste of money! I can get just as good music out of my Yamaha!"


It's like this with so many things... how many of you have kids who think you're stupid and don't know what the hell you're talking about? How many of you have been kids and were pretty sure your parents were utterly stupid? Did you get stupid as you grew older, and now your kids have simply surpassed you? Hmmm? Is the same thing going to happen to them?

No, of course not.

What we see in all of these kinds of situations is experience in action. 

Experience is a real curse, because without the experience that someone who is your better in a given practice, you cannot really tell how much better they are. You might be able to say "Oh yeah, that trumpet player plays really beautifully", but you may not be able to tell that there is literally 15+ years of experience worth of improvement between you and him until you _have_ that extra 15+ years of experience.  

You also won't really be able to tell that _yes_ there absolutely is a difference between the $300 and $2500 trumpet, simply because you haven't got enough experience under your belt to get everything out of that $2500 horn, whereas the guy 15+ years your senior will not only be able to tell, but will be able to make your $300 horn seem to come to life.

(Yes, that is a commentary on equipment vs. the user of same.)

In my experience, people who attain true mastery of any thing often have some very similar characteristics...

They always feel their work is "fine", but are always feeling like they could have done better if only they could master X or Y.
They look at their absolute masterpieces and say things like "Yeah, this one's really not bad... I like it."
They actively seek opportunities to learn from others, and accept those opportunities graciously.
They never disregard or argue with _any_ criticism... no matter who it comes from.
They never poo-poo any other method/type of tool/whathaveyou, but rather look to understand it better because there may well be something buried in there that they don't understand that will allow them to improve.
True masters strive to be able to teach others, because being able to teach a concept strengthens mastery of that concept.
I need two more to make it a "7 Habits of Highly Effective Artists". 

Where does this leave us?  Same place it always does.

Accept that no matter how good you think you are, that there are other people in this world who are better.   Accept that you must choose to either grow in what you do, or choose to be happy with where you are.  Accept that to grow, the first thing you must do is listen, and the last thing you should be doing is yelling at people who are trying to help you.

Accept that nearly everything you say, do or produce in life (that you were proud of at the time) is something you're going to look back later on and think "Oh man what a mess, I could have done that so much better.".  

Accept that no matter how workable your equipment is, that there is a reason why some equipment costs $300, some $2500 and some way way over that.  Accept that the reasons for why something costs so much more may simply be something that you cannot grasp because you lack experience.  _Accept that this is perfectly fine_.  

Accept that there is nothing wrong with the tools that you use today, but that someday your experience will exceed what your tools can provide you, and that you're going to want new and better tools.  Accept that the day this happens should be a very cool day for you, because it means you have learned so much.

Be happy.

Listen to others.

Accept what they have to say.

Learn.

Grow.

Be happy.


----------



## RMThompson

manaheim said:


> In my experience, people who attain true mastery of any thing often have some very similar characteristics...
> 
> They always feel their work is "fine", but are always feeling like they could have done better if only they could master X or Y.
> They look at their absolute masterpieces and say things like "Yeah, this one's really not bad... I like it."
> They actively seek opportunities to learn from others, and accept those opportunities graciously.
> They never disregard or argue with _any_ criticism... no matter who it comes from.
> They never poo-poo any other method/type of tool/whathaveyou, but rather look to understand it better because there may well be something buried in there that they don't understand that will allow them to improve.
> True masters strive to be able to teach others, because being able to teach a concept strengthens mastery of that concept.
> I need two more to make it a "7 Habits of Highly Effective Artists".


 
Maybe my math is wrong.... but I think that would be 8 habits!


----------



## usayit

(I can't believe this thread is still alive.... wow)  

manaheim, (except for the miscount  ) well written.  

In my lifetime, every accomplished person who has rightfully earned my deep respect has two "personas" that thrive within themselves:  "The Humble Student" and "The Wise Teacher".  They speak and act at equal levels.


----------



## Battou

abraxas said:


> Cool options.  Needs a "My Dog" button.



You should see the options on the SLR :thumbup:


----------



## sabbath999

JerryPH said:


> OMG, can that dog ever herd any animal on his farm... sheep, cows even goes and herds the cats into the house at night!
> 
> Yeah, they've got some mad skills at that.



Dude, that is all there is to know about wedding photography... how to herd people into doing something they don't want to do.


----------



## sabbath999

fwellers said:


> Some of your posts are so discouraging, that if I took them to heart I'd throw my camera under a train.



I've actually done that... I put my D40 in a hollow I dug out next to a tie and shot it remotely with an oncoming train... the problem was that I was trespassing to do it, and the train has a really big emblem on the front of it so I can't share the shot... it looks pretty good though, the blurred image of the engine is kind of a 'reverse zoom' effect.


----------



## abraxas

sabbath999 said:


> I've actually done that... I put my D40 in a hollow I dug out next to a tie and shot it remotely with an oncoming train... the problem was that I was trespassing to do it, and the train has a really big emblem on the front of it so I can't share the shot... it looks pretty good though, the blurred image of the engine is kind of a 'reverse zoom' effect.



Now try that with a dog.


----------



## Overread

can we some how get manaheim's post stickeid somewhere - feels a shame that it will be lost in this thread somehow.


----------



## MikeBcos

RMThompson said:


> I don't think Jerry is being too harsh, but I don't agree with him on EVERYTHING. For instance, I don't think mastering post processing skills is a requirment to becoming a good photographer; after all, ideally we wouldn't NEED the post processing if our shots came out the way we wanted when we click the camera.



I agree with you, I spent nearly 30 years shooting 35mm and medium format transparency film, with that you had just one shot to get it right. I have only recently moved to a digital SLR but I still believe that if a photograph needs post-processing then it wasn't good in the first place, I did something wrong when I took it.


----------



## Paul M

MikeBcos said:


> I agree with you, I spent nearly 30 years shooting 35mm and medium format transparency film, with that you had just one shot to get it right. I have only recently moved to a digital SLR but I still believe that if a photograph needs post-processing then it wasn't good in the first place, I did something wrong when I took it.


 
I by no means mean any disrespect for your years of experience or knowledge, but I have to ask a question here. I want to preface this with "I am not trying to debate anything, I am simply stating my opinion".

You point out the 30 years of experience using the "old way" of photography and the fact that you recently switched to DSLR technology. The equipment still has limitations much like conventional film did/does. Much of the post processing back in the day was done in the darkroom with shading, masking, time exposure for tonal adjustments and the like... Probably (because of my lack of experience with color) just as much if not more is done with color film. My question is this: How is darkroom processing different than digital darkroom adjustments? Does your comments mean that you never adjusted your pictures at all, what-so-ever, completely untouched in every possible way and thats what was printed? And only the perfect captures went public? If so, what was the standard times for light exposure in the B&W darkroom along with the times in the different chemicals to have a standard? This would be necessary information (and a standard) in order to preventing the need for ANY POST PROCESSING (digital or otherwise). I am sure post processing to any extent has been around and used since the invention of "film" and has just moved on with technology as everything else did.

Personally, I see people of today getting final results due to the advancement of technology. Unfortunately, (like with everything else in this world), machines have replaced the manual way of doing things. I see it as a "lost art" or on it's way of being a lost art. I am not saying this to stir the pot, I am simply stating what I see from my point of view. Much like in your signature, "The camera is merely a recording device, the image, and all its faults, are my responsibility." It is still left up to the eye behind the lens to produce the final product either pre or post process. The final image is what matters.

I look to people like you for your experience and knowledge. I see your 30 years of work as inspiration and I hope to be able to produce work better than you. Although maybe not as often, it is possible for me to accomplish it. Without that possibility, you have a monopoly on photography and in theory no one should ever pursue it unless they want to spend years educating themselves. I give you a lot of credit and respect for your accomplishments, but remember one thing. You started somewhere as well.


----------



## abraxas

Overread said:


> can we some how get manaheim's post stickeid somewhere - feels a shame that it will be lost in this thread somehow.



Why?--It's just an opinion.


----------



## MikeBcos

Paul M said:


> I by no means mean any disrespect for your years of experience or knowledge, but I have to ask a question here. I want to preface this with "I am not trying to debate anything, I am simply stating my opinion".
> 
> You point out the 30 years of experience using the "old way" of photography and the fact that you recently switched to DSLR technology. The equipment still has limitations much like conventional film did/does. Much of the post processing back in the day was done in the darkroom with shading, masking, time exposure for tonal adjustments and the like... Probably (because of my lack of experience with color) just as much if not more is done with color film. My question is this: How is darkroom processing different than digital darkroom adjustments? Does your comments mean that you never adjusted your pictures at all, what-so-ever, completely untouched in every possible way and thats what was printed? And only the perfect captures went public? If so, what was the standard times for light exposure in the B&W darkroom along with the times in the different chemicals to have a standard? This would be necessary information (and a standard) in order to preventing the need for ANY POST PROCESSING (digital or otherwise). I am sure post processing to any extent has been around and used since the invention of "film" and has just moved on with technology as everything else did.
> 
> I give you a lot of credit and respect for your accomplishments, but remember one thing. You started somewhere as well.



The vast majority of my work was on slide film, the few I printed were done with no darkroom enhancements.

I did do a lot of B/W print work but the majority of that was using Ilford SFX, I did intentionally boost the contrast when I was printing but I did very little in the way of dodging and burning.

I'm not sure that I have accomplished anything significant, I've been shooting for a long time but that doesn't make me particularly good. I do have some shots that I do believe are good, a couple have been published and a couple have won competitions but generally I just try to produce well-exposed, correctly cropped photographs that tell a story.

You asked what was different about digital processing and darkroom processing, well, nothing, except digital is a heck of a lot more convenient. I have nothing against processing but I believe that if people strive to produce work that doesn't need it that can only make them better photographers, I prefer to have a good photograph right out of the camera, like the one I posted in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146944

Yep, I started somewhere, with a box Brownie shooting 127 B/W film.


----------



## Paul M

MikeBcos said:


> The vast majority of my work was on slide film, the few I printed were done with no darkroom enhancements.
> 
> I did do a lot of B/W print work but the majority of that was using Ilford SFX, I did intentionally boost the contrast when I was printing but I did very little in the way of dodging and burning.
> 
> I'm not sure that I have accomplished anything significant, I've been shooting for a long time but that doesn't make me particularly good. I do have some shots that I do believe are good, a couple have been published and a couple have won competitions but generally I just try to produce well-exposed, correctly cropped photographs that tell a story.
> 
> You asked what was different about digital processing and darkroom processing, well, nothing, except digital is a heck of a lot more convenient. I have nothing against processing but I believe that if people strive to produce work that doesn't need it that can only make them better photographers, I prefer to have a good photograph right out of the camera, like the one I posted in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146944
> 
> Yep, I started somewhere, with a box Brownie shooting 127 B/W film.


 
That shot is awesome! 
Now back to my point. Personally, when I do PP, although convenient, I try to watch what I am doing to "fix" a shot, so I can learn and pay closer attention for my next time out. This way I may need less PP in the future, therefore learning. I personally hope to get to a point that PP is not needed, but with the many variations (in monitors, online viewing, and the like) as opposed to yester-year when the only option to show your photo to someone was in print, I think in this day and age of "convenience" with digital, PP is almost necessary until it goes to a final print. In any event, thanks for sharing your work, and I look forward to learning from you and many others going forward. 

"Everyone Thinks They Can Be A Pro" has sounded like a bad thing every time i read this topic title. Maybe it's a good thing. The next generation of people striving to be better and carry on the legacy of capturing images on the "new film" (digital media). So for those of us that are serious about learning, performing well, making money, and dedicating the time to providing a service in a very competitive field....You are only as good as you think you are...Go for it and don't let anyone tell you any different! You can not make everyone happy. Who do you need to make happy? Only yourself. So be honest to yourself, and have high morals, things should work themselves out just fine in the end.


----------



## table1349

manaheim said:


> Hm.
> 
> Let's consider something outside of photography for a moment... perhaps it will strike some of the emotion from the conversation.
> 
> I play trumpet and have for about... jeez, almost 30 years now. Damn, I'm old.  I happen to have a fairly nice horn... a Vincent Bach Silver. Can't remember the model number, but it ran about $2500 new a good 20 years ago. Beautiful instrument.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> (by the way the following course of events has happened to me NUMEROUS times, so I'm not making this up... I'm just condensing it into one representative example)
> 
> Imagine the scenario with me and someone who has been playing for just a few years. (or even 5-8 years, for that matter). Assume the person is playing a standard old ~$300 Brass Yamaha or King student horn. Good, solid workhorse of an instrument. Nothing wrong with it.
> 
> I can sit next to the person and play on my VB while they play on their King/Yamaha. During a break the person turns to me and compliments my playing and says "I really need to get one of those Vincent Bach Silver trumpets." I smile, and say "You're welcome to play it if you like, just trade horns with me."
> 
> They get all excited and agree to swap. (I let go a sigh of relief as I get to hold a much lighter trumpet for a bit. )
> 
> We play the next piece. I usually marvel at how generally good the $300 instrument is, and I can always push the horn to it's limits and get really good sound out of it, but I often find the valve mechanism and little rough and usually can't get QUITE the rich tones out of the horn that I can get out of my Vincent Bach. However, usually the student brass horns are brighter and lighter, so they're fun for marches as it's easier to make it sound chipper, whereas my Vincent Bach silver tends to want to be deep and somber and rich.
> 
> I notice that the person who is playing my horn is not sounding any better than usual, and in fact is struggling a bit to get as full of a tone as I can get on the horn because it simply requires stronger breath support to really fill the instrument up. It's certainly "fine", and they're getting the music out, it's just not any better.
> 
> At the end of the piece, the person hands the horn back to me and looks baffled. They usually then ask me how much I paid for the horn, are shocked, and then say something along the lines of "Geez, it really isn't any better than the my Yamaha... I guess it's the player, not so much the horn." Sometimes they'll even be obnoxious and say "Geez, what a waste of money! I can get just as good music out of my Yamaha!"
> 
> 
> It's like this with so many things... how many of you have kids who think you're stupid and don't know what the hell you're talking about? How many of you have been kids and were pretty sure your parents were utterly stupid? Did you get stupid as you grew older, and now your kids have simply surpassed you? Hmmm? Is the same thing going to happen to them?
> 
> No, of course not.
> 
> What we see in all of these kinds of situations is experience in action.
> 
> Experience is a real curse, because without the experience that someone who is your better in a given practice, you cannot really tell how much better they are. You might be able to say "Oh yeah, that trumpet player plays really beautifully", but you may not be able to tell that there is literally 15+ years of experience worth of improvement between you and him until you _have_ that extra 15+ years of experience.
> 
> You also won't really be able to tell that _yes_ there absolutely is a difference between the $300 and $2500 trumpet, simply because you haven't got enough experience under your belt to get everything out of that $2500 horn, whereas the guy 15+ years your senior will not only be able to tell, but will be able to make your $300 horn seem to come to life.
> 
> (Yes, that is a commentary on equipment vs. the user of same.)
> 
> In my experience, people who attain true mastery of any thing often have some very similar characteristics...
> 
> They always feel their work is "fine", but are always feeling like they could have done better if only they could master X or Y.
> They look at their absolute masterpieces and say things like "Yeah, this one's really not bad... I like it."
> They actively seek opportunities to learn from others, and accept those opportunities graciously.
> They never disregard or argue with _any_ criticism... no matter who it comes from.
> They never poo-poo any other method/type of tool/whathaveyou, but rather look to understand it better because there may well be something buried in there that they don't understand that will allow them to improve.
> True masters strive to be able to teach others, because being able to teach a concept strengthens mastery of that concept.
> I need two more to make it a "7 Habits of Highly Effective Artists".
> 
> Where does this leave us?  Same place it always does.
> 
> Accept that no matter how good you think you are, that there are other people in this world who are better.   Accept that you must choose to either grow in what you do, or choose to be happy with where you are.  Accept that to grow, the first thing you must do is listen, and the last thing you should be doing is yelling at people who are trying to help you.
> 
> Accept that nearly everything you say, do or produce in life (that you were proud of at the time) is something you're going to look back later on and think "Oh man what a mess, I could have done that so much better.".
> 
> Accept that no matter how workable your equipment is, that there is a reason why some equipment costs $300, some $2500 and some way way over that.  Accept that the reasons for why something costs so much more may simply be something that you cannot grasp because you lack experience.  _Accept that this is perfectly fine_.
> 
> Accept that there is nothing wrong with the tools that you use today, but that someday your experience will exceed what your tools can provide you, and that you're going to want new and better tools.  Accept that the day this happens should be a very cool day for you, because it means you have learned so much.
> 
> Be happy.
> 
> Listen to others.
> 
> Accept what they have to say.
> 
> Learn.
> 
> Grow.
> 
> Be happy.



If you are still playing and are interested PM me.  I have a Mt Vernon Bach Stradivarius that due to an unfortunate accident was totally rebuilt to my specifications 30 years ago.  (Got crushed right before a concert).  

It was a brass version that was plated silver. Very unique sharp tone. The #1 & 3 valves were reset to a 3 degrees angle, new larger lead pipe and bell along with the addition of both the 1st and 3rd valves slide triggers.  The Mt Vernon's didn't have the a 1st valve slide mechanism at all and the third valve slide had a loop at the time.     

I no longer play as I split my throat one night during a gig.  Took a year to heal and the doctors could never guarantee that it wouldn't reoccur.  Not the best thing to stake a living on.  I was in college at the time so my major changed.


----------



## fwellers

sabbath999 said:


> I've actually done that... I put my D40 in a hollow I dug out next to a tie and shot it remotely with an oncoming train... the problem was that I was trespassing to do it, and the train has a really big emblem on the front of it so I can't share the shot... it looks pretty good though, the blurred image of the engine is kind of a 'reverse zoom' effect.



was it because of one of Jerry's posts ? j/k.


----------



## JerryPH

Huh?  I'm innocent, I swear!


----------



## Battou

JerryPH said:


> Huh?  I'm innocent, I swear!


Yeah but it got autocensored, so no one could tell.


----------



## RMThompson

sabbath999 said:


> I've actually done that... I put my D40 in a hollow I dug out next to a tie and shot it remotely with an oncoming train... the problem was that I was trespassing to do it, and the train has a really big emblem on the front of it so I can't share the shot... it looks pretty good though, the blurred image of the engine is kind of a 'reverse zoom' effect.


 
What makes you think you cannot share the image? The act of trespassing is not related to the act of taking a picture. Once you have the photo, you are free to share it!


----------



## rufus5150

I think they call it 'evidence'.


----------



## VADER1775

His confession alone is enough probable cause for an arrest, but I'm sure no one is searching this forum to make the trespassing arrest of the century.  We may as well see the cool picture.


----------



## RMThompson

Right, confessing, evidence, etc... ALL seperate from the act of taking the picture... no reason NOT to share it.


----------



## prodigy2k7

Actually, confessing means nothing, a "confession" has to be written and signed, unless its on video (i think), the photo isnt evidense of you taking the shot, only that someone took the shot, it doesnt prove YOU took the shot. You should be able to share it


----------



## rufus5150

It's evidence that someone took the shot. 

Then there's a post saying 'I took this shot'.

No, it's not a signed confession, but if it were a more serious offense than trespassing (unless of course he was doing this at Area 51 or something), it might be enough to get someone interested. 

What someone said on a message board (or in email or what have you) can be admissible evidence. 

If he has a photo of potentially criminal activity that could by some means be traced back to him taking it in a manner that would be allowed and believed by a a judge or jury, the safe bet is to _not_ show that image.

And wow have we EVER derailed this thread


----------



## nikks24

What is wrong with you guys?

Let someone who takes pictures call them selves a photographer, there are no requirements to be a photographer.  Like someone else said, anyone who takes pictures, regardless of seriousness, is a photographer.  What is wrong with buying a D40 Costco kit and going around taking photos? So what if someone has no idea what exposure, or iso is?  LET THEM HAVE THEIR FUN, AND STOP PUTTING YOUR NOSE IN THEIR BUSINESS.   Do you want photography to be something that is so intimidating and full of rules and requirements that no one would ever want to pursue it?  If someone wants to call them selves a professional, hey LET THEM.  IT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU.  

Photography should be fun and fulfilling, so let there be people that buy a d80 as there first camera, only to take family snapshots, and let there be professionals that started on a point and shoot.  Photography is an awesome hobby/career, no matter how serious you take it, so let people have fun with it!
relax


----------



## Harmony

Ummmm.... nikks24 - BREATHE.

We're debating 'professional', here. Not 'photographer.'

But... carry on as you were...


----------



## Harmony

Oh, btw, yes, calling themselves a professional and charging for sub-par work not only concerns professionals, it threatens business practices. I once again refer to the first post I made in this thread and the link contained within it.


----------



## MikeBcos

Harmony said:


> Oh, btw, yes, calling themselves a professional and charging for sub-par work not only concerns professionals, it threatens business practices. I once again refer to the first post I made in this thread and the link contained within it.



Yes it does threaten business practices, in much the same way the advent of the home computer and inkjet printer threatened my trade, the printing business. Those two items, and the amateurs that own them, have been responsible for the demise of many, many small printing companies.

Those of us who survived didn't do it by screaming and crying about the unfair competition from these people, we just marketed ourselves better and showed the general public that our work was good value for money. I print wedding stationery, my services cost far more than a ready made pack from Walmart but from me you get a custom designed piece that reflects you and your wedding, fortunately, I have managed to get that mesage across to people and am never short of work.

If you're scared of the competition market yourself better, being a good photographer isn't enough, you have to be a good business person too.


----------



## manaheim

la la la la...

Tra la laaaaaaaaaaaa...

la la mooooooooooooooooo...

mooo ba ba ba la la truffle bake!


----------



## Harmony

I know, manaheim... it's STILL going. 

Let's have a bet: how many more days will this endure? 

I think it will peter out by Dec 9.


----------



## manaheim

Harmony said:


> I know, manaheim... it's STILL going.
> 
> Let's have a bet: how many more days will this endure?
> 
> I think it will peter out by Dec 9.


 
Well, see, it'll NEVER die now.

It'll go on for another few days or so... and then it'll quiet down for a bit... and then 3 weeks from now some noob will respond to it, once again lighting the fires, and then it will burn just as brightly as it did on the first day.

<sigh>

:lmao:

Well, I suppose I can bet on when it will temporarily die... I say Dec 16th.   Oh and it will be reborn the day after Christmas, when all the new people who get their new cameras come sign onto the forums.


----------



## Harmony

I'll be conspicuously absent that day.


----------



## Samriel

I surprises me too see how many people in this day and age take the word professional as some kind of title indicating skill. Professional does not necessarily equal good, nor does amateur equal bad. Professional really only indicates if you live and eat from it or not. Amateur indicates you might have other motives then money.

While driving my car yesterday, I was listening to the radio. There were talking about how at some zoo somewhere in the US, a women came up with the idea to collect deer poo, shape it and paint it, and sell it as ecological Christmas tree decorations for $5+ a piece. After many years, my theory that in today's world you could sell $hit if you did some marketing, got finally confirmed. 

It does amaze me how this thread still survives.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

stsinner said:


> Got news for you, there, Jerry... Just as computers can pretty much beat the best chess player today, AUTO mode is earning its place at the top.. Unless you are doing, "artsy" shots or emphasizing something in a shot that most people wouldn't emphasize, AUTO is pretty smart.. I don't think I've ever taken an AUTO shot with my D50 that wasn't a viewable photograph.. I say viewable because some elitists believe that unless the entire background is out of focus or the picture isn't b&w, then the picture isn't good.. I think that the improved AUTO and program modes mean that the only thing that will matter soon is the composition, so you should get used to it.. I'm sick of wielding an expensive camera and being told that I'm no good unless I'm shooting Manual... Sometimes it's the eye... After all, isn't it sometimes your desire to document what you're LOOKING AT....??? Not everyone looks at life through a B&W/Sepia or Photoshop lens.... I kind of see things the way they are, which AUTO captures well...


 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## prodigy2k7

Harmony said:


> Ummmm.... nikks24 - BREATHE.
> 
> We're debating 'professional', here. Not 'photographer.'
> 
> But... carry on as you were...






Alleh Lindquist said:


> I still wonder what makes people think photography does not take the same amount of practice, skill and dedication as any other professional title. "Hey everyone I just bought a Porsche so now I am a lawyer, what should my attorney fees be." Your Costco bought D80 kit, that super great best bang for the buck 50 1.8 and your 5 months of shooting TONS of photos of your family *does not even come close to making you a photographer*



This is from the OP, so yes we are.


----------



## Jedo_03

Dunno about practice and dedication - but SKILL equates with professionalism

Jedo


----------



## fwellers

Well this thread is missing the biggest point.
No matter how good you are technically, no matter if you know everything about cameras, and can build a d3x with your bare hands, and can code photoshop with your right hand while playing pacman with your left, you aren't a photographer at all unless you've gone on the pilgrimage to the east and learned the way of the grasshopper.
Only then can you "see" the eternal now through the viewfinder.

Sheesh. I'm soooo disappointed none of you knew that. :coffee:


----------



## JerryPH

nikks24 said:


> What is wrong with you guys?






nikks24 said:


> Let someone who takes pictures call them selves a photographer, there are no requirements to be a photographer


Really?  I suppose you are right.  Just like there are no requirements to calling someone a bus driver, pilot, dentist.  

An implied title represents that you have at least a good foundation in the basics and skills of such, otherwise, lets just call all 300 pound men who carry batons cheerleaders and majorettes, why don't we?

Someone who presses the shutter on a camera without knowing what they are doing is NOT a photographer, its a PWAC(*) pretending to be a photographer, maybe even wishing to be a photographer... they are NOT a photographer.



nikks24 said:


> What is wrong with buying a D40 Costco kit and going around taking photos? So what if someone has no idea what exposure, or iso is?  LET THEM HAVE THEIR FUN, AND STOP PUTTING YOUR NOSE IN THEIR BUSINESS.   Do you want photography to be something that is so intimidating and full of rules and requirements that no one would ever want to pursue it?  If someone wants to call them selves a professional, hey LET THEM.  IT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU.



Wow, are you talking about yourself?  Are you intimidated by ISO, shutter and aperture?  Feeling a little threatened perhaps?  

There is nothing wrong with going to Costco and getting yourself a camera and snapping away.  There *is* a problem with someone going to Costco, picking up a D40, slapping the battery and card in it and thinking they are a photographer... much less a PROFESSIONAL photographer (*which is what we are discussing here!*).



nikks24 said:


> Photography should be fun and fulfilling, so let there be people that buy a d80 as there first camera, only to take family snapshots, and let there be professionals that started on a point and shoot.  Photography is an awesome hobby/career, no matter how serious you take it, so let people have fun with it!
> relax



You see, this is the attitude of people today.  This just screams "let's all be mediocre, there are no differences between me and someone that actually understands what they are doing".  It screams of needing personal justification irrespective of ignorance or lack of skill.  I'm OK, you're OK, and even though your pictures SUCK and you've ruined the wedding photos of a couple that paid you good money, it's ok, because... you had fun with it!

PUH=leeez!

(*) - PWAC - "Person With A Camera".  Someone with NO real experience or knowledge to speak of on how to PROPERLY use a camera.


----------



## JerryPH

fwellers said:


> Well this thread is missing the biggest point.
> No matter how good you are technically, no matter if you know everything about cameras, and can build a d3x with your bare hands, and can code photoshop with your right hand while playing pacman with your left, you aren't a photographer at all unless you've gone on the pilgrimage to the east and learned the way of the grasshopper.
> Only then can you "see" the eternal now through the viewfinder.
> 
> Sheesh. I'm soooo disappointed none of you knew that. :coffee:


Totally.  I am ashamed and humbled to have been taught that.

My tickets to the east are bought and my pilgrimage planned... I just wonder where in Newfoundland (you said EAST!),  I am going to find my master.  I have your cell number and give you a call... I'll need more directions once I get there.


----------



## fwellers

JerryPH said:


> Totally.  I am ashamed and humbled to have been taught that.
> 
> My tickets to the east are bought and my pilgrimage planned... I just wonder where in Newfoundland (you said EAST!),  I am going to find my master.  I have your cell number and give you a call... I'll need more directions once I get there.



You have my cell number ?   Maybe you already are a guru. 
but anyway, I was thinking for in the line of Tibet, not Newfoundland. I think the best photographic "third eye" is to be had in a blend of Tibetan buddhism, Chinese Daoism and Northern Indian Hinduism. 
A master of such a blend should live within the southern eastern Tibet/Northern Nepal mountains.


----------



## rufus5150

fwellers said:


> ... unless you've gone on the pilgrimage to the east and learned the _*way of the grasshopper*_.
> Only then can you "see" the eternal now through the viewfinder.
> 
> Sheesh. I'm soooo disappointed none of you knew that. :coffee:


I was waiting for the 'if you don't shoot macro, you're not a real photographer' argument.


----------



## fwellers

How about a little 'consensus reality check'

A *photographer* is a person who takes a photograph using a camera. A _professional photographer_ uses photography to make a living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographer


----------



## nikks24

Jerry PH (quote):
Really?  I suppose you are right.  Just like there are no requirements to calling someone a bus driver, pilot, dentist.  

Someone who plays guitar is a guitarist, someone who takes photos is a photographer.  Plain and simple.

Jerry Ph (quote):
Someone who presses the shutter on a camera without knowing what they are doing is NOT a photographer, its a PWAC(*) pretending to be a photographer, maybe even wishing to be a photographer... they are NOT a photographer.

Get of your high horse! Do you think every prays at night that they can be a big photographer like you, because your just so great?  Anyone who takes pictures is a photographer, there wishing to be a little better at it, not wishing for a title.

Jerryph (quote):
Wow, are you talking about yourself?  Are you intimidated by ISO, shutter and aperture?  Feeling a little threatened perhaps?  

What in the world are you talking about?  No, i'm not intimidated by the controls of a digital camera, no i'm not threatened by learning about photography.  I do it for fun, because its a fun activity, not a chore.

Jerryph(quote):
You see, this is the attitude of people today.  This just screams "let's all be mediocre, there are no differences between me and someone that actually understands what they are doing".  It screams of needing personal justification irrespective of ignorance or lack of skill.  I'm OK, you're OK, and even though your pictures SUCK and you've ruined the wedding photos of a couple that paid you good money, it's ok, because... you had fun with it!

When did I ever say that! I said its for fun, i mentioned nothing about comparing it to other's work, or charging for mediocre work.  

Relax Jerryph


----------



## Overread

Well lets start with a definition - what is a photographer?
Well we can take the dictonary answer that its a person who uses a camera to take a picture.
And what is a professional photographer?
Again the dictonary answer is a person who makes an income out of their photography

But both of these definations appear false in the real world it seems. People seem to think that quality must also be attributed to the above two groups in order for people to warrent the title to be given to them. However the level of quality is totally subjective since this is an art and not a science - there are no strict right or wrong answers nor exposure to be had since even a total blowout might be the actual intent of the person using the camera. There are conventions and basic compositional "rules" which prove to give popular and desirable results however its also agreed that each of these conventions and rules can be broken for the end result.

This is why this argument will never end - people are not arguing on facts but rather on the point what a photographer is to them in their mindset - some see that a pro must be of a certain level of quality and also use a certain level of kit otherwise they are not worthy of the title.
Fact is anyone who sells their work and any level can call themselves a pro - just as anyone of any level can call themselves a photographer if they have a camera and take photos.

Just like anyone who can drive a bus can call themselves a bus driver - and anyone who makes a living out of it can call themselves a professional bus driver - they don't have to actually be any good at it at all.
Of course if you are no good at it chances are you won't stay at it for very long - failures will get noticed and you will be either fired or unable to get customers after a point = this is the same for almost any job or work; the only difference is that most are regulated by large bodies which set a standard tests which have to be passed in order for people to get a legal title.
Photography has its groups and memberships (elite some call them) but at the end of the day its an art and thus its very hard to impossible to make fixed rules to control who does and does not deserve to get the titles.



And at the end of the day who really minds if sports mums call themselves photographers even though they only know auto mode? And who cares if people see photos taken by people who are not top of the game and yet still like and even buy what they see?
OR are people going to argue that other people are not allowed to like work which is not top quality?


----------



## JerryPH

nikks24 said:


> Someone who plays guitar is a guitarist, someone who takes photos is a photographer.  Plain and simple.



A guitarist (lol), perhaps... sure doesn't make them a musician!

"Camera-ist"... sure.  Photographer?  Not unless they understand photography, and it sure doesn't give them the right to call themselves a professional photographer on top of that.

I never said I was "that good", but at least it seems that I have a much better idea of what it takes to get better than you.  You may continue to snap away, if you wish, I will continue to LEARN and improve. 

You may continue to label yourself anyway you wish,  Ms Thang.



> I was thinking for in the line of Tibet, not Newfoundland.


You said east... nothing much more east of me than Newfoundland.  Ticket is non-refunsdable.  Guess I am going to Newfoundland now anyways... lol

Concerning the "photographer" word... one wold assume that ownership of an article doesn't automatically imply any level of skill or competence in it's usage nor right to be called a an adept in the field.  Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer anymore than owning a plane make you a pilot or owning a scalpel make you a brain surgeon.  Owning a guitar does not make you a musician, it makes you the owner of a guitar.

Same for photographer.  Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer... unless you know a little more than the difference between your camera and your elbow.


----------



## nikks24

JerryPH said:


> A guitarist (lol), perhaps... sure doesn't make them a musician!
> 
> "Camera-ist"... sure.  Photographer?  Not unless they understand photography, and it sure doesn't give them the right to call themselves a professional photographer on top of that.
> 
> I never said I was "that good", but at least it seems that I have a much better idea of what it takes to get better than you.  You may continue to snap away, if you wish, I will continue to LEARN and improve.
> 
> Concerning the "photographer" word... one wold assume that ownership of an article doesn't automatically imply any level of skill or competence in it's usage nor right to be called a an adept in the field.  Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer anymore than owning a plane make you a pilot or owning a scalpel make you a brain surgeon.  Owning a guitar does not make you a musician, it makes you the owner of a guitar.
> 
> Same for photographer.  Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer... unless you know a little more than the difference between your camera and your elbow.



What makes you think you "have a much better idea of what it takes to get better than" me?

And i said playing guitar makes you a guitarist not owning one.  But I agree with you the fact that "owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer unless you know a little more than the difference between your camera and your elbow"  But I also believe that someone who regularly practices taking photos is a photographer.  You don't need to be the best in the world.

Lets just make peace hah


----------



## viridari

usayit said:


> As much as I love digital, I find that it has spawned off more and more photographers with less willingness to progress forward.



Let me tell you my story and offer up a different point of view.  I'm not going to say that I'm a typical case but do know that we're out there.

There was always a curiosity about photography for me, but in my youth I didn't have the means to get started properly.  I did take a class in high school but when I asked my family for a Pentax K1000 they ended up giving me a 35mm point-n-shoot camera.  I was never able to put into practice the lessons of that class with regards to manually setting the exposure.  Pretty much all I got out of it was some time developing film and a little dark room time (though that was largely wasted due to the poor state of the school's chemicals that had been used over and over).

I never really tried getting a film camera after that because I didn't have access to a dark room, and my wife would never tolerate having one in the house.  Besides, I didn't know if I'd like it or not so why go to the trouble or expense, right?

Spring of 2008 I found that prices were down and capabilities were up on DSLR's.  I sold some of my worldly possessions, bought a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and a 50mm f/1.8 lens, and got started.  First was just using the P-mode just to get a comfort level with the camera.  Then gradually learning how to piece together the various settings that comprise the overall exposure.  Then I started shooting RAW and doing the additional processing.  Now I'm incorporating multi-point off-camera flash.

A friend of mine from work, who is an amateur photographer with decades of experience, saw my rapid progress and invited me out for some beers to talk about it.  He sent me home that night with a Mamiya C330 and all of the 120 film that he had left in his freezer.  He said I'd put it to better use than he ever would since it was sitting in his closet and asked only that I share my progress with him so he can see how the old camera is doing.

I saved up some more and got a Sekonic L358 meter.

Now I've also been gifted a Minolta X-700 35mm camera.  I'll be using that one tonight when I head to downtown Raleigh for the First Friday art gallery walk.

I had been taking film to the lab, but now I'm getting the stuff together to start developing my own.

This is all in less than a year's time.  And it never would have happened if I did not have access to an affordable and capable DSLR.  The DSLR made photography more approachable for me.  I can dial in an exposure, take a picture, and look at the histogram immediately to see if I got it right or not.

So now I enjoy working in digital and film.  I still use digital a lot for self-education because of the immediate results.  I can try something, see if I did it right or not, and then adjust my technique based on what I learned.

Yes, there are a lot of lazy photographers out there who got into it because of cheap and abundant digital SLR's.  But there are a few of us who take it seriously and strive to be better.  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Dweller

I think they need a new forum with a big "Amateurs keep out!" so all the "Pros" have a place to go massage each others ego's and everyone else can get back to what this forum used to be about. Maybe theprophotoforum.com

It's sad to see what it has become. And yes, I know I am just being one of those "remember the good old days" people here, but seriously this place has gone downhill and this thread is an example of it, IMO. this forum was built on its reputation of being friendly to newcomers. Threads like this go completely against that.


----------



## Lyncca

I think that a lot of people think that Jerry and others don't want noobs in the field, but let me tell you that is not the case. Several people (Jerry being one) have written to me directly and gave me helpful advice, articles, links to books, etc. to help me.

If you take it (photography) seriously, they take you seriously and will go over and beyond to help you. I've been at this for less than a year, and I personally think I'm doing pretty well.  I strive to improve every day, I take critisism and evaluate its worth. I read, read, read. I also help others where I can. 

If you just want to take pictures of your family. Fine. If you want to stay on AUTO (ugh), fine. If you just want to have fun, fine! But, if that is all you want to do, don't call yourself a PROFESSIONAL Photographer. Don't take your bridge camera or D40 and charge others for a wedding.  

I won't do a wedding yet, and won't for some time to come. Three things have to happen. I have to go assist another established photographer; I need more equipment; and I need to have the ability to compose on the fly and not screw up AT ALL.


----------



## viridari

I am not a D40 shooter but I am a digital rebel shooter.

I'm just curious what's with the D40 bashing.  Why do some of you think it is incapable of providing professional quality images?  The camera body seems to me to be perhaps the least relevant element in the equation whereas light, glass,  composition, exposure, photographer, subject, and timing all contribute far more quality to the final image.


----------



## mrodgers

My one question for JerryPH is, what kind of car do you drive and what type of transmission is it?  Do you call yourself a driver?  I see you are in Canada, and I think Canada "drivers" are more like US "drivers" than the rest of the world in that the majority can't/don't drive a manual transmission.  Thus, at least for the US and maybe for Canada, 90% of the "drivers" out on the road are not drivers at all.

The simple fact is, if you have a camera and enjoy taking photographs, you are a photographer.  Everyone may be at a different level of photographer, but they are still all photographers.  It doesn't matter if you use a point and shoot in auto mode or if you shoot $5000 worth of equipment with everything manual.

My definition of a photographer is someone who actively takes photographs as a hobby or profession.  Thus, someone who just snaps vacation memories or birthday parties aren't shooting for the sake of photography, but for the memories.  If one shoots for the enjoyment of shooting and the results of having a photograph, they would be a photographer.  The difference is having results of memories versus "art".


----------



## table1349

> JerryPH;1460499]A guitarist (lol), perhaps... sure doesn't make them a musician!
> 
> "Camera-ist"... sure.  Photographer?  Not unless they understand photography, and it sure doesn't give them the right to call themselves a professional photographer on top of that.



This is where I would disagree.  If you use a camera and take photographs you are a photographer.  

If you can sell those photos then you are a professional photographer.

That however does not make you an Artist. An artist in the photography world understands their art and has a grasp on the foundations of photography. That makes them as I prefer to term it an accomplished photographer.  There is no such thing as the totally accomplished photographer, as there is always something new to learn.  The accomplished photographer however always strives to learn.  

Yes, that means getting the camera out of auto mode and creating the photographic art as you not the camera envisions it.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

Titles are attributed with skill. No there is not a solid line you can cross and then have the "right" to call yourself a photographer but there seems to always be a point in which people feel comfortable giving themselves the title of the hobby they do. It just happens to be with photography being the cool new fad that level have dropped down to if you own a camera and want to call yourself a photographer then that&#8217;s what you are. It shows a complete disrespect for the trade and nobody that truly has a passion for photography would want to degrade something they find sacred.

I have owned a few guitars in my life and taken a few classes, I can even play some cords but would I dare to call myself a guitarist or a musician? Absolutely not, because I know what talent is and I wouldn&#8217;t want to disrespect the people who truly are musicians.

I spent a year rock climbing. I loved it but I was still just a beginner and even though I had developed some skill it was still nothing in comparison to some of the really good climbers. They dedicated more time and had been climbing far longer than I and they had conquered some pretty intense cliff faces.

Point being 

Just because I played guitar did not make me a musician. It made me someone who enjoyed playing  guitar.

Just because I enjoyed rock climbing did not make me a rock climber. It made me someone who liked to go rock climbing.

Just because you take photographs does not make you a photographer. It makes you someone who enjoys photography.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

Seems I also do a lot of writing should I call myself a writer?


----------



## Arch

gryphonslair99 said:


> This is where I would disagree.  If you use a camera and take photographs you are a photographer.
> 
> If you can sell those photos then you are a professional photographer.




Correct.

This is the way the world works. Photography was only for the more dedicated people who regularly enjoyed taking a few rolls of film and getting them developed... or even developing the rolls themselves.
Nowadays the consumer market is flooded with digital cameras... this makes it more accessible to people... lots of people... people who can call themselves photographers if it makes them feel better. It doesn't mean they are any good. But who is the next guy to say they are not?


What happens also, is you get a load of people doing it for a living saying that people cannot be photographers... 'because..., because,... im so much better than them!!!'..... 

Personally im confident enough in my own ability to not have much of an opinion of people either way, words are just words... i think some pro portfolios are crap... i think some are amazing... i think some 'myspace kids' are brilliant... others i can't stand.

Also, you could pick the absolute worst photographer you can find who is making money off craigs list and, yes, they can call themselves professional... it is thier profession even if they are terrible.

All you can do is be safe in the knowledge that you are better than the average photographer... your not?... learn how you can be.


----------



## viridari

Arch said:


> Correct.
> What happens also, is you get a load of people doing it for a living saying that people cannot be photographers... 'because..., because,... im so much better than them!!!'.....



And ironically enough they are often overestimating themselves (not pointing fingers here but I've seen it on other sites where the loudest complainers were often the most mediocre professionals).

I'm content to stick with the dictionary definition of "photographer" and not engage in elitism or establishing a caste system by way of trying to redefine it from what the rest of the civilized English-speaking world has accepted long ago as the definition.


----------



## Chiller

Woo hoo....its official. Im happier then a fat kid in a candy shop alone. I just sold 4 photos for cash to a customer of our company...and we even printed them here.  He came in...saw my book up front, went through it and picked 4 images he wanted for his office wall. 
So, now Im a professional photographer working as a warehouse manager on the side.


----------



## eyeye

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Just because you take photographs does not make you a photographer. It makes you someone who enjoys photography.




Actually it does :er:
pho - tog - ra - pher
noun
a person who takes photographs


----------



## eyeye

So I really don't want to get sucked into this topic.  It goes on and on so.  I understand  people who have been working at photography a long time would be offended by people who are not committed misrepresenting the field, taking work, or just being out and out annoying.

And its human nature to try to keep the noobs out of your secret club.

But why would you let Joe with a P&S even effect you?  If you are good, people who want good will come to you.  If you are great, you will look even better next to Joe P&S.  Joe cant bring down the quality of YOUR work.  So if you are in photography for the passion and not the status, as so many claim, then why let Joe P&S even be a blip on your radar?


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

eyeye said:


> Actually it does :er:
> pho - tog - ra - pher
> noun
> a person who takes photographs


 
Here is what Dictionary.com says if we are going to go to that. 

*pho&#8901;tog&#8901;ra&#8901;pher*&#8194; &#8194;/f&#601;&#712;t&#594;g
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





r&#601;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




f&#601;r/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [f_uh_-*tog*-r_uh_-fer] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 

*&#8211;noun *a person who takes photographs, esp. one who practices photography professionally.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 
Cite This Source 



Seems you left out the second half of the definition to help your point.

They also list two more definitions from other sources...

*photographer*
_-noun_
someone who takes photographs professionally 


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. 
Cite This Source 


*Photographer*
Pho*tog"ra*pher\, n. One who practices, or is skilled in, photography.



Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. 
Cite This Source


----------



## eyeye

esp isnt always


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

nikks24 said:


> Someone who plays guitar is a guitarist, someone who takes photos is a photographer. Plain and simple.


 
Just to poke fun at your example here is the definition of a guitarist.

*guitarist*
_-noun_
a musician who plays the guitar 

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. 
Cite This Source 


Now I guess we need to know what a musician is to take this all the way through.

*mu&#8901;si&#8901;cian*

&#8194; &#8194;/myu&#712;z&#618;&#643;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




&#601;n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [myoo-*zish*-_uh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_n] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 
*&#8211;noun *
1.a person who makes music a profession, esp. as a performer of music.
2.any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.
*Origin: *
1350&#8211;1400; ME _musicien_ < MF. See music, -ian






Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


Looks like just the act of playing a guitar does not in fact make you a "guitarist" just like the act of taking photographs does not make you a "photographer".


----------



## viridari

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Looks like just the act of playing a guitar does not in fact make you a "guitarist" just like the act of taking photographs does not make you a photographer.



You did fine until this last bit.  You're contradicting your own flow of logic.

What is the first (meaning the most widely accepted and used) definition of "photographer" in the same dictionary?


----------



## Overread

esp stands for especially - ergo professional photographers are photographers.
It says nothing against others.
2 of the definitions state that it is a person who practises (in this case partakes might be the better word) the art of photography (note photography as an art means taking photographs). Ergo anyone who takes photographs is a photographer.
The middle term is not valid since we already divide people into photographers and those who earn off photography (pros)

if we're pulling dictionaries we really should only be quoting the Oxford one


----------



## Chiller

So now you guys are ruining everything. :er:There I thought I just become a professional photographer .    Now I need ESP to be a photographer too. :lmao::lmao:
  Maybe I will just call myself a Professional Picture Taker then. :lmao::lmao:


----------



## Overread

Actually google says that you also have to be Dr. Joseph Golden, NOAA in order to be a photographer!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aphotographer&meta=


----------



## eyeye

dude.  I know WAY more about photography then the button pushers at target, kiddie kandids, sears, picture people etc.

So like, who is going to administer the test I need to pass in order to be called a photographer?


----------



## Overread

There isn't one - which is why this debate cannot end until some people realise that its not the term photographer that they are debating about but their own personal interpretation of a photographer.

Besides for art subjects its almost impossible to have defined boundaries - I mean some people like the stuff in the Tate Modern - by MY definition most of it aint art in any form, but some consider it so.
(well actually most seem to just hope that these overpriced things will someday be the early works of great artists and that by promoting and buying them they are making an investment -- hoping that the artist responcible will one day actually be good )


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

Your right you can skew the definition any direction you want because it has a grey area due to the fact that photography does not require any credentials to practice.

You would think that if people had respect for photography and took pride in creating images that they would want to attain a certain level of skill that would allow them to feel confident in the title &#8220;photographer&#8221; before they start toting their own horns.

I only recently started to really call myself a photographer and in the past when I would occasionally use the title I felt ashamed because I didn&#8217;t feel I had quite earned it yet. I still feel like my work teeters on the edge of being good work and it is defiantly not great and certainly not amazing but I have spent enough time practicing and learning photography and my skill level has continued to increase to a point where I am starting to feel confident with the title of photographer. 

My intentions with the first post were not to debate the definition of photographer or professional. My point was if you truly love photography and have a passion why would you not want to feel like you earned the right to call yourself a photographer rather than degrading the level of work people associated with photographers. 

Other titles such as writer or painter still hold a level of respect when you tell someone that is what you are but photography has lost a large amount of the respect associated with the title. Now when you tell someone you are a photographer you don&#8217;t get respect from people you get &#8220;oh yeah? My sister, brother, mother, father, uncle, grandmother and grandfather are also&#8221;

People have been flooding the market with crap photographs under the title &#8220;photographer&#8221; that it now does not pertain to skill but rather just someone who takes photographs.


----------



## Overread

So you accept that its your view of what makes a photographer that you are trying to push rather than the understood term itself.  
We all have our own interpretation and with no formally accepted tests that is all we have to go on - we might have higher expectations of what makes a true "photographer" than the average person does - but in the end does that really matter?

Its the same for painters and writers- the only difference being that those hobbies require more time to complete a single item and thus there are fewer of them- but that still does not mean there are not hords of bad ones  and differences of opinion (the Tate Modern again I think)


----------



## Chiller

So before I unsubscribe from this thread and retreat to my crypt, am I a professional or not.  :lmao::lmao:


----------



## Overread

your more pro than me
at least that is as much as I can work out


----------



## Chiller

Overread said:


> your more pro than me
> at least that is as much as I can work out


Thank you my friend. Im officially out of here.  And  your work is stellar.


----------



## table1349

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Your right you can skew the definition any direction you want because it has a grey area due to the fact that photography does not require any credentials to practice.
> 
> You would think that if people had respect for photography and took pride in creating images that they would want to attain a certain level of skill that would allow them to feel confident in the title &#8220;photographer&#8221; before they start toting their own horns.
> 
> I only recently started to really call myself a photographer and in the past when I would occasionally use the title I felt ashamed because I didn&#8217;t feel I had quite earned it yet. I still feel like my work teeters on the edge of being good work and it is defiantly not great and certainly not amazing but I have spent enough time practicing and learning photography and my skill level has continued to increase to a point where I am starting to feel confident with the title of photographer.
> 
> My intentions with the first post were not to debate the definition of photographer or professional. My point was if you truly love photography and have a passion why would you not want to feel like you earned the right to call yourself a photographer rather than degrading the level of work people associated with photographers.
> 
> Other titles such as writer or painter still hold a level of respect when you tell someone that is what you are but photography has lost a large amount of the respect associated with the title. Now when you tell someone you are a photographer you don&#8217;t get respect from people you get &#8220;oh yeah? My sister, brother, mother, father, uncle, grandmother and grandfather are also&#8221;
> 
> People have been flooding the market with crap photographs under the title &#8220;photographer&#8221; that it now does not pertain to skill but rather just someone who takes photographs.



Perfect, you just proved the point.



> I only recently started to really call myself a photographer and in the past when I would occasionally use the title I felt ashamed because I didn&#8217;t feel I had quite earned it yet.


Seems pretty self ordained to me.  Have you also ordained yourself as the judge and jury of what is good and what is, in your terms "crap" in the world of photography?  How does one define where someone else's "crap" ends and their art begins?

I would assume then that you would consider Picasso's work to be crap.  Much of the established art world in 1907 considered Picasso's Cubism to be crap.  Damn expensive "Crap" these days at auction, if you can find one.    

Frankly, if someone is in the business of taking and selling photographs and they have time to worry about what others are doing it makes me wonder if their business abilities are lacking, their photography skills are lacking, their creative skills are lacking or their security level is lacking.  

When I was in the business back in the 70's working in a fashion/portrait studio we didn't have time to worry about others.  We were worrying about understanding and meeting our customers needs and meeting deadlines.  I left the business because I enjoy the art of photography for my self better than I enjoyed the art of shooting what a customer wanted.  I selected a different career path for life and kept photography for the art and the enjoyment.


----------



## fwellers

Alleh Lindquist said:


> Now when you tell someone you are a photographer you dont get respect from people you get oh yeah? My sister, brother, mother, father, uncle, grandmother and grandfather are also



The people who are fooled like that shouldn't matter to your estimation of yourself and your abilities anyway. 
The average person, who isn't "into" photography, either as a taker of pictures or as an admirer of them, isn't even educated enough about it to be able to judge your work from mikey mouse's . So who cares ?


----------



## fwellers

Overread said:


> So you accept that its your view of what makes a photographer that you are trying to push rather than the understood term itself.
> We all have our own interpretation and with no formally accepted tests that is all we have to go on - we might have higher expectations of what makes a true "photographer" than the average person does - but in the end does that really matter?
> 
> Its the same for painters and writers- the only difference being that those hobbies require more time to complete a single item and thus there are fewer of them- but that still does not mean there are not hords of bad ones  and differences of opinion (the Tate Modern again I think)



I wonder what true painter artist's think when they see a bunch of photographers, picking up a black box, snapping a picture, going into a computer program, futzing with some keystrokes to make the picture look like a painting, and then putting it next to their work on display.
hahahahahaha.


----------



## prodigy2k7

I think anyone who takes pictures, for the fun of it, not just for family photos, for a hobby, profession, or something alone those lines, your a photographer.

*Dentist* - That comes with schooling, and its a profession. Who acts as a "dentist" and doesnt get paid?
*Bus Driver* - Who drives buses except for people who drive buses for a job? Nobody...
*Pilot* - Well for one thing, there are laws, just as you need a license to drive a car, because uhh, you can kill yourself. I dont think you can crash into someone else with a camera unless you have a large lens ;D

*Photographer* - MANY MANY MANY people, take pictures for fun and are not paid. Does this make them not a photographer? Many people dont even know what they are doing or understand exposure. They shoot in auto. Does this make them not a photographer?

My sister, knows nothing is ISO/Shutter/Aperture etc...She uses the "Sports, Portrait, Landscape" etc... But she loves to take pictures. Is she not a photographer? I think she is...

I think a photographer is about the fun and art of it...If you take pictures for a job, art, or fun, (or some other reasons not mentioned) then you are a photographer.


----------



## Dao

haha . I think this thread can last for few years.

Anyway, I agree that Photographer is a person who take picture.  And Professional Photographer is a person who make money by taking photographs.  And the person work in a drug store and take passport photo for others are Professional photographer.  Because he earn money that way.


The reason Beckham is a professional soccer player because he make money from playing soccer.  If a person make a lot of money in Photography and at the same time, he is very good at playing soccer.  On top of that, his skills is as good as Beckham.  But I do not think  he is a professional soccer player though.  Because his profession is photography.


----------



## notelliot

I wasn't going to even poke this thread with a long pole...

But did anyone see David Hobby's (Strobist's) blog post from today? About shooting for free? 

I'm not going to express my opinion for issues of bandwidth (that's right - big opinion).


----------



## eyeye

I work for free


----------



## Overread

essentailly he is saying that in the current market with people not having deep pockets for things like photography, getting noticed (Which is the biggest part of the business side) is difficult as few people are willing to employ you. So he makes the point of you taking the initiative to offer serivces for free - the idea being that your name gets out into the world.
The idea of you offering yourself for onetime free projects is a different appraoch to being employed for free since its you being proactive and offering your services rather than the company looking for a freebee. It gets your name out and might send some work your way
Getting branded as a free photographer would be hazy since you are not selling your services for free, you are choosing to offer them for free in select projects - ergo you are controling the free aspect rather than the employer choosing such


----------



## JerryPH

... and if you are a crap quality photographer and deal with crap clients... you can get all kinds... like this:

http://roflmailer.com/2008/11/17/man-tries-to-pay-bill-with-spider-drawing/

 :lmao:


----------



## eyeye

I do free photography because I hold myself to high standards and dont believe I am qualified enough.  After all I have only been shooting for a year or so.  Soon I will begin asking people to make a donation to my favorite chairity though.  

But, just because I am not pro, I dont think I am not a "photographer".  I am.  People refer to me as a photographer all the time.  I dont call myself a photographer, because I am not pretentious.  But I love photography.  I study every day.  People allow me to take their time to produce photos of them.  It is something I want to do for the rest of my life.  I always want to get better and grow.  Its my art.


----------



## ryan7783

I think that a lot of you "professional photographers" are extremely cynical and that your heads have grown larger than your neck can hold. Frankly I'm tired of the whining and crying about how little johnny is stealing money from the bullies. 

Get over yourself - if your work is worth having, then people will buy it. If you're worried about the degradation of "good" photography, then strive harder to produce better photos instead of bitching about it like a bunch of bitter old crones with a chip on your shoulder. People will forever buy expensive cameras and call themselves photographers, even if they don't measure up to this standard you so pretentiously call your own. We all start somewhere and I think that a lot of you forget that. 

It's not up to you to decide who gets to be a photographer and it certainly isn't up to you to tell me I can't charge for my time. If the customer decides she doesn't want to spend $3000 on a wedding photographer, she'll find someone else. Just because you decided to start charging an arm and a leg for your brand doesn't mean she has to buy it. The customers decision is the final word, not yours. And don't try to tell me the customer doesn't know what she wants - you can eat me. 

I don't call myself a photographer because I don't like to associate with pompous ass clowns who give everyone else a bad name because they can't stop whining about crap like this. 

/rant


----------



## JerryPH

lol... so what do you call yourself... a mechanic with a camera?
Talk about pompous... and this coming from someone who bought their FIRST camera in May 2008... lol !


----------



## ryan7783

Well to quote you, Jerry...I'm "Just a very enthusiastic "kinda-sorta" amateur with a Nikon". But to clarify, when I said I don't call myself a photographer, I meant that when people ask me what I do, I don't tell them I'm a photographer - even though by definition, I guess I am since I have a camera and I take photographs. 

I didn't say I was better than anyone else or that I'm even all that good. I just like taking pictures. I don't let the compliments I do get go to my head. 

I don't think I was pompous at all since I'm not the one whining about how everyone with a camera considers themselves a pro. And I see you visited my website. I appreciate that


----------



## JerryPH

ryan7783 said:


> And I see you visited my website. I appreciate that



I did.  I saw something that I liked a LOT:

_"-Weddings-
Although in recent months, I have been asked to shoot weddings, I am temporarily suspending this service as I hone my skills. 
That being said, if you would like me to attend your wedding. I will bring my camera and take pictures for free. My only condition is that you hire a primary photographer. "_ 

:thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## ANDS!

> Your Costco bought D80 kit, that super great best bang for the buck 50 1.8 and your 5 months of shooting &#8220;TONS&#8221; of photos of your family does not even come close to making you a &#8220;photographer&#8221;



Uhm.  No.



> I think that a lot of you "professional photographers" are extremely cynical and that your heads have grown larger than your neck can hold. Frankly I'm tired of the whining and crying about how little johnny is stealing money from the bullies.



No kidding.  Nevermind that some of the "professional work" I've seen here and elsewhere can be copied by anyone given the time and patience to learn the basic in's and out's of their camera and their flash set up.  

Photography is a subjective sport.  Sure there are glaring technical weaknesses that anyone can agree with, but the great majority of what is considered "art" is really up to personal sensibilities.  Suggesting otherwise and that there is some standard is a crock of poopoo that peolpe are trying to promulgate to make their "art" more exclusive and thus more valuable.


----------



## manaheim

ryan7783 said:


> I didn't say I was better than anyone else or that I'm even all that good. I just like taking pictures. I don't let the compliments I do get go to my head.


 
Really?  Cuz I think you just called a lot of us "pompous ass clowns", which, while a deeply hysterical insult, didn't strike me as terribly complimentary.


----------



## ryan7783

manaheim said:


> Really?  Cuz I think you just called a lot of us "pompous ass clowns", which, while a deeply hysterical insult, didn't strike me as terribly complimentary.



Calling someone a pompous ass clown has nothing to do with stroking my own ego. I'm glad you got a kick out of it though


----------



## fwellers

ryan7783 said:


> Calling someone a pompous ass clown has nothing to do with stroking my own ego. I'm glad you got a kick out of it though



Well, actually it is.
Whenever we put someone else down, we are in effect building up our own ego with the between the lines implication of our statement, which is "I am better than that 'pompous ass clown'.

We all do it, but let's see it for what it is.


----------



## manaheim

^^^

Exactly.

Look, this whole thread is wicked unconstructive and has been so for a long time now.  It's a huge emotional argument based all around whether or not someone is allowed to don a badge with a particular label on it.  

Let's just drop it.


----------



## Overread

This thread makes otter sad






please think of the otters and end this thread


----------



## rufus5150

That otter has no business calling itself a professional otter.


----------



## ryan7783

rufus5150 said:


> That otter has no business calling itself a professional otter.




Well that depends. How long has the otter been an otter? How much does the otter charge for his/her otter services? Maybe the otter is said because a less expensive otter stole an otter job from him/her.


----------



## manaheim

Damned cheap otters.


----------



## Dmitri

ryan7783 said:


> Well that depends. How long has the otter been an otter? How much does the otter charge for his/her otter services? Maybe the otter is said because a less expensive otter stole an otter job from him/her.



No offense, but you're being otterly ridiculous.

Yeah, I said it.


----------



## MikeBcos

Dmitri said:


> No offense, but you're being otterly ridiculous.
> 
> Yeah, I said it.



On the otter hand, they do have a point.


----------



## manaheim

We really otter consider this thread concluded now.

Someone please lock it!


----------



## Dmitri

manaheim said:


> We really otter consider this thread concluded now.
> 
> Someone please lock it!



Hey, no censorship. If you don't like our freedoms, then pack up and move to the Otterman Empire. Ok, I stretched far for that one.


----------



## Joves

Oh man! The last few posts have been otterly ridiculous.


----------



## MikeBcos

Joves said:


> Oh man! The last few posts have been otterly ridiculous.



That's a motter of opinion.


----------



## JerryPH

I recon it'll be otterly locked up any point soon now.

In before the lock!


----------



## Dmitri

You guys really otter know better than to mock the mammal.


----------



## manaheim

It's really an udder disaster.

*Chris scores with a transition to cow references in before the lock*


----------



## dEARlEADER

manaheim said:


> It's really an udder disaster.
> 
> *Chris scores with a transition to cow references in before the lock*




you otter know better than to change the direction of the thread...


----------



## Orgnoi1

OK I made it to page 3... I just couldnt go any further and waste anymore of my time on it... so just in a nutshell...

not ALL professional photographers get paid... thats completely false... some work as staff photographers (volunteers) for museums and other establishments where you dont make a red cent...


----------



## Overread

*sigh*
if they are not earning directly or indirectly off their craft (ie photography) then they are not professionals.
They are simply very talented amateurs/hobbyists/enthusiasts etc.....

so sayeth the wise otter who consults the Stone of Truth


----------



## rufus5150

> OK I made it to page 3... I just couldnt go any further and waste anymore of my time on it... so just in a nutshell...
> 
> not ALL professional photographers get paid... thats completely false... some work as staff photographers (volunteers) for museums and other establishments where you dont make a red cent...



I think you should have read all of the otter pages.


----------



## Orgnoi1

rufus5150 said:


> I think you should have read all of the otter pages.


 
LOL If I had known I would have not wasted all my time listening to a bunch of blathering and went right for them...LOL

But believe me... even the otter can be wrong... so sayeth the rough-legged hawk...


----------



## sabbath999

Overread said:


> This thread makes otter sad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please think of the otters and end this thread








Yes, think of the otters folks... really...


----------



## Battou

Orgnoi1 said:


> LOL If I had known I would have not wasted all my time listening to a bunch of blathering and went right for them...LOL
> 
> But believe me... even the otter can be wrong... so sayeth the rough-legged hawk...



But that sucks all the fun out of it


----------



## usayit

Maybe everyone wants to be a professional photographer in hopes to change in their life from "boring" to "exciting"...

"5. Photographer

Why: A photographer's life might not seem ripe for exciting tales, but it is. Portrait studios, brides and grooms, print and online publications, and crime scene investigation units employ photographers. Each client gives a photographer a new set of entertaining tales.

Stories you'll hear: Petty drama during a family portrait; all-night partying with rock stars; scary experiences documenting a war."

from.. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/12/08/cb.good.party.conversation/index.htm


----------

