# Can someone convince me about the professionalism of photography?



## zolito (Mar 9, 2015)

I was like anyone using the non- professional digital cameras and mobile camera to take shots of anything I want to keep or record. Several days ago I decided to buy a DSLR camera, a powerful camera that can really take good shots and compatible with a lot of lenses that can do many things.

My question is:

What is the professional photographer can do more than an amateur one?

The question might seems to be silly, not logic or even provocative to someones, and I know well that there might be a lot of reason and answers, my question was based on that any camera, is provided with preset modes that can allow you to take photos for sports, landscape, daylight.....etc, in each of these presets the camera which is extracted from a very complicated physics science adjusts everything and all parameters to suit the scene, weather and surrounded environment.

I am quit sure that the camera will adjust it self in an automatic mode in a way far more accurate than the best photographer can ever do.

It is like trying to simulate an ABS system with threshold in a car that doesn't equipped with ABS, the ABS system is more accurate and understand the road conditions in a way much more you can sense.

The same in cameras, they are very complicated and they can sense the light surrounded, the object and even now cameras can detect the faces and objects, how could possibly a professional photographer be more accurate and sensitive like a camera sensor, lens and overall system?

I believe according to what I know which is not much in the photography world that the good looking photo which receive thousands of likes on a photos networks depends on a very good scene shotted with a very good camera and suitable mounted lens, and then may be edited via a photo editing software.

Iso: to be decided by camera according to the light conditions, aperture, focal length and shutter speed.
Aperture: depends on the lens and the lens focal length used in the shot
Focal length: decided by the user according to the desired zoom
Focus: done easily by lens auto focus, can change to manual and to focus on the object, the background or the overall image.
Shutter speed: can be decided by the camera in static shots, while in fast moving objects can be adjusted by user.

I don't want to specify much details but in general all the above mentioned parameters affect each others.

May be some situations needs a human entry but I don't think they exceed 5% otherwise the good camera with suitable lens and auto mode will perfectly do the job.

Thanks


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 9, 2015)

that's pretty much all there is about the professionalism of photography. 
What is the professional photographer can do that is different from the amateur one is only knowing what equipment that can do the best job in any given situation, and how each part of the camera affects the other. If  you are happy with the cameras preset modes, and those pictures you shotted are liked by thousands, then I would call it a success.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 9, 2015)

IMO, a professional (whether they charge money or not) knows the craft and is consistent.  They know about composition, color, how to use the camera settings, the appropriate focal length, proper lighting and post processing.  They consistently produce high quality images.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 9, 2015)

The camera can only take it's "best guess", no matter what.  It doesn't know what it's looking at or how to best communicate the story of that thing.  It doesn't know if it should make that big gray thing white or black, or that big white thing white or gray or that big black thing black or gray.  It doesn't know for sure if it should be focused on the thing closest to it, or the thing right behind it, because it doesn't know what's important for that particular shot.  There are about a couple hundred more decisions like that to make as well.

A photographer does more than take a "best guess".  A photographer truly understands those hundreds of things, and understands them in a moment, adjusts, and fires.  A photographer takes into account composition, light, shadow, shape, subject, context, color, juxtaposition, where to focus and why, where to set the light meter and why from scene to scene, shot to shot, and more and more and more.

The difference is that a photographer has an actual human brain at the helm, crammed with a wealth of photography information far beyond the AI capabilities required for a camera to pull off the same feat.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 9, 2015)

Put your camera in one of the auto modes, then put a person directly in front of the sun, then take a wide angle picture.  Let us know how it goes.  

Oh, how about when you want sharp clear photos while at the same time motion blur to convey motion?  Which auto mode is that?

Wait, is there an expert composition mode?  If there is, oh I need it! 

How about just enough ambient light but not too much to balance out your OCF?   Is that in Aperture Priority or P mode?

Which mode is for shutter drag??

Have you tried auto focus while shooting a 1:1 macro lens?

Which lens will give me the beautiful Rembrandt lighting, and which will give me the butterfly lighting style?

I need to know which camera to buy so I can get that bokeh photography style.

Ever try back lighting your subject while using TTL with your on camera flash?

Ever try back lighting your subject using TTL with your off camera flash?

Have you tried the new facial recognition algorithm in crowded places?  

Oh don't get me wrong, I use some of the auto modes once in a while when I need to.    I'm curious to know how the heck did you come up with the 5% figure too.  Also, what's in it for anyone to spend their time to convince you?


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 9, 2015)

zolito said:


> I am quit sure that the camera will adjust it self in an automatic mode in a way far more accurate than the best photographer can ever do.



No. Just...no...This is something that can be debunked by a simple Google search.


----------



## RDenhardt (Mar 9, 2015)

The camera simply cannot know the best settings for what you want to capture, its impossible for it to.  It may get close sometimes but most of the time it wont.  Im no professional by any means but its the grasp of settings and situations that gets you there, something you don't learn in auto.

Your logic is much like someone saying why buy a D4s when it will take the same pictures as a d3300?  Because there is a difference whether you see it or care to know it or not


----------



## KmH (Mar 9, 2015)

zolito said:


> I am quit sure that the camera will adjust it self in an automatic mode in a way far more accurate than the best photographer can ever do.


Don't be so sure until you understand how the camera works.
The camera is just following a rote program and some of the camera's sensors don't know when they are getting misleading information.
Also the camera has no programming that addresses artistic intent.


----------



## rlemert (Mar 9, 2015)

If all you're concerned with is the technical side of photography, then you're at most half of a photographer. No camera that I've ever heard of can decide what to take a picture of or how to frame it. It can't anticipate what's going to happen to get a better shot, or push the studio lights around to better flatter the model's features. And, possibly most important, while they're smart enough to follow the rules much better than I can, no camera is smart enough to know when (and why) to break those rules.


----------



## waday (Mar 9, 2015)

I think you should post a couple of your best photos. Then we can discuss your questions.


----------



## tecboy (Mar 9, 2015)

Full auto and preset settings suck!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 9, 2015)

zolito said:
			
		

> SNIP>May be some situations needs a human entry but I don't think they exceed 5% otherwise the good camera with suitable lens and auto mode will perfectly do the job.



I'm not quite sure, but this newly-minted member's first post here almost smacks of a troll post. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and concede his point, that 95% of situations could be handled by say, a robot equipped with a camera with a decent lens, and the camera set to auto mode. sure. I'll agree with that.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 9, 2015)

zolito said:


> I am quit sure that the camera will adjust it self in an automatic mode in a way far more accurate than the best photographer can ever do.
> 
> May be some situations needs a human entry but I don't think they exceed 5% otherwise the good camera with suitable lens and auto mode will perfectly do the job.



Absolutely totally wrong.

I will bet that, in any situation, that  a reasonably proficient photographer, will produce a finished image that is at least 100% better than you (as a newbie) with the same camera.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 9, 2015)

May be a troll, but if not.  A professional with skill and experience can pick up a camera that has no automatic features and create great images. An amateur can pick up the best camera  on the market and not produce anything worthwhile.

It's not the camera, it's the person holding the camera.  I just take pictures.


----------



## Bebulamar (Mar 9, 2015)

First let me get it out of the way that I hate to use the word professional and amateur to indicate the level of skill. To me a pro is someone who earns money doing the work and an amateur is someone who doesn't. OK that's done.
Yes the camera in some source of preset mode can be more accurate than most human BUT it's often accurately WRONG. The reason is simply it doesn't know what kind of result you want or what it is it's taking a picture of. The preset modes are there to be used but only after one understands exactly how it derives the setting then one can determine if that's OK.


----------



## JoeW (Mar 9, 2015)

A camera set on automatic will successful take a picture most of the time (let's say 90% of the time).  But a camera won't make art.  It won't choose to go with a narrow DoF and focus solely on someone's eyebrows or the drop of water.  A camera won't compose a shot. A camera won't see the pattern that is there or the contrast possibilities.

Also, while I'm glad that the OP is excited with his DSLR, the reality is that film, for all it's hassles and limitations, still captures dynamic range better than a single shot from a DSLR.   So in some regard, the DSLR that he's excited about isn't even the best option for some types of photos.  That gap is closing but it's not there yet.  So the idea that a machine will be better is like thinking about computers (and how much more processing power than have over a human). 

 A camera is just a tool.  Some of us have very basic tools, some of us have very sophisticated tools.  A tool can be used brilliantly or crudely.


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 9, 2015)

zolito said:


> What is the professional photographer can do more than an amateur one?


Make their living doing photography.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't think you understand how ABS works......


----------



## weepete (Mar 10, 2015)

I like turtles.


----------



## tecboy (Mar 10, 2015)

Is that a same guy who wrote about the exposure triangle?


----------



## weepete (Mar 10, 2015)

As far as I can see not on this forum under that profile.

I like their shiny shell.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 10, 2015)

weepete said:


> I like turtles.





weepete said:


> I like their shiny shell.


Ooooo -- mobile homes!


----------



## tecboy (Mar 10, 2015)

It gotta be him.  He writes an article that is confusing and unclear.  Once again, not the right analogy about the abs.


----------



## waday (Mar 10, 2015)




----------



## Derrel (Mar 10, 2015)

Dave442 said:
			
		

> zolito said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just saw this this AM...some guy making a commentary about the sad state of affairs in the wedding photo biz...and a certain class of professional shooter doing poor wedding photography...10900012_10153171212994752_5806438880633192336_o.jpg


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 10, 2015)

The modern camera, like the modern man, can do many things but It cannot think for itself. At least, that's what my wife says.


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

Thanks


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

Many thanks all for the positive feedbacks and clarifications, I am newly registered here in the forum and I have never discussed anything related to photography here or anywhere else.

I am just surprised from some replies that attacked my self instead of replying positively and explain things, I already said I have a little experience in photography, and my question may appear to be not logic to some people, I also said the I know there are a lot of replies to my question those replies I didn't know till I get the answer from the wise people who discussed the question positively instead of criticizing and humiliating.

Someone says this topic is weird!! What could possible be my aim from asking this question, another one hey you don't understand ABS, I am sure that the owners of these replies don't understand neither photography nor ABS, these replies is not a mentality of someone who understands anything.

On the other hand the majority of the replies were really good and supportive.

Thanks to all of you for clarifications and reasonable replies.

Another question, I got camera with a 18-55 mm f3.5:5.6, actually the zoom it too small, 3x only due to its short focal length, what are the good lenses I may need? I believe 70-300 mm, and I also like the macro photos.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> I was like anyone using the non- professional *laptops and mobile phones to live my life and help make decisions*. Several days ago I decided to buy a *Supercomputer*, a powerful *computer* that can reallymake *decisions* and compatible with a lot of *programs* that can do many things.
> 
> My question is:
> 
> ...



Here, IFTFY



Edit: I don't mean to be insulting.. Just trying to point out the ridiculousness of your post and why people here may be offended by it or think that you are a troll. My point is.. there's a lot more to a lot of things in life than letting a machine do it for you. Robots don't rule the world yet!!


----------



## Braineack (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> Another question, I got camera with a 18-55 mm f3.5:5.6, actually the zoom it too small, 3x only due to its short focal length, what are the good lenses I may need? I believe 70-300 mm, and I also like the macro photos.


You don't need new lenses. just put the camera in auto mode.  it'll take care of the rest.


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

Braineack said:


> zolito said:
> 
> 
> > Another question, I got camera with a 18-55 mm f3.5:5.6, actually the zoom it too small, 3x only due to its short focal length, what are the good lenses I may need? I believe 70-300 mm, and I also like the macro photos.
> ...



Hey, come on, you seem don't understand anything in photography, may I conclude that your reply is a form of sense of humor? If someone told you that you are funny, actually don't believe him.

You can see the beginners threads and basics of cameras that reply sufficiently to your post


----------



## jake337 (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> Many thanks all for the positive feedbacks and clarifications, I am newly registered here in the forum and I have never discussed anything related to photography here or anywhere else.
> 
> I am just surprised from some replies that attacked my self instead of replying positively and explain things, I already said I have a little experience in photography, and my question may appear to be not logic to some people, I also said the I know there are a lot of replies to my question those replies I didn't know till I get the answer from the wise people who discussed the question positively instead of criticizing and humiliating.
> 
> ...



I understand photography and ABS.

Do you really think your ABS system is reading and understanding the road?

No,  it just stops your brakes from locking up.

It is quite annoying when my car does something I'm not directly making it do.

Just like it's annoying when my camera would do the same in auto.

Which is funny because my camera body has no auto or picture settings.

It only has M, A, S and P just like every other professional camera body.


----------



## waday (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> I am just surprised from some replies that attacked my self instead of replying positively and explain things, I already said I have a little experience in photography, and my question may appear to be not logic to some people, I also said the I know there are a lot of replies to my question those replies I didn't know till I get the answer from the wise people who discussed the question positively instead of criticizing and humiliating.


If you truly are a beginner and not a troll: Zolito, go back and reread your original post/question. Then, read it again with the understanding that you are asking this question to a bunch of photographers, many of whom do this professionally.

Your question is akin to asking, "Why should I go to a doctor when I can search my symptoms on WebMD?" One is a professional, with experience, that can correctly diagnose your symptoms and will not tell you you have cancer when you likely just have a cold. You should be able to figure out which one I'm talking about.


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

Just inferiority complex, when you see someone is new to something, just keep taunting him.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> Just inferiority complex, when you see someone is new to something, just keep taunting him.



Yes, we are all terrified that we are inferior to you. Have fun with your new camera that is obviously better than Ansel Adams and Weegie.

Good day.


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

Anyhow, let me deactivate my account here, and draw myself from the ill taunting community.
Good bye all and thanks again for the respected persons only who clarified the subject in a good manner.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> If someone told you that you are funny, actually don't believe him.



her. it was my mom!


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

Braineack said:


> zolito said:
> 
> 
> > If someone told you that you are funny, actually don't believe him.
> ...



Don't believe her please, just a compliment from a mother to her child.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 10, 2015)

Zolito before you go I have a serious question..

Assuming you arn't a troll, Why would you reply to Waday in the way you did when he was being perfectly honest and clarifying the subject in a good manner?


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> zolito said:
> 
> 
> > Just inferiority complex, when you see someone is new to something, just keep taunting him.
> ...


I have no problem with your reply, you just tried to explain and clarify my question to myself from your point of view, and thank you for that.


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Zolito before you go I have a serious question..
> 
> Assuming you arn't a troll, Why would you reply to Waday in the way you did when he was being perfectly honest and clarifying the subject in a good manner?



I didn't specify persons, I just said thanks for good positive replies, and directed my other words to people whose were just taunting and humiliating myself.

By the way, I don't know what people here mean by troll.


----------



## qleak (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> Just inferiority complex, when you see someone is new to something, just keep taunting him.


welcome to the internet!

If you can tolerate a little humor at your expense,  you've actually been given some fairly solid advise. 

I'm with braineak, you should learn how to use your current camera and lens 1st before you consider buying new lenses. 

from the questions you're asking it's clear that you don't have a firm grasp on basic photographic concepts and have very little experience with serious photography. 

I also wonder if you're just trolling us for what it's worth.

I wish you the best regardless.  Good luck


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> By the way, I don't know what people here mean by troll.



Troll Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> zolito said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I don't know what people here mean by troll.
> ...



Oh! So I am called that someone called troll

Although I will have no benefit from proofing that I am not that troll, but I don't really know how to proof I am not.

Actually misunderstanding, conflicts or arguments may happen anytime and anywhere and can be understood to be troll in many cases.

That was really my first time to know about it, but it is not me.


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

How can I ask the forum administration to delete that topic?


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 10, 2015)

Well I hope that you can understand why this misunderstanding occurred as people on internet forums are constantly expecting trolls to show up and sow discord. If so I think you could learn a lot about your questions by spending some time on here and learning about what it really is to be a photographer.


You can click on an administrator or mod's name and then click "start a conversation" to PM them about deleting it if you'd like


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 10, 2015)

zolito said:


> I was like anyone using the non- professional digital cameras and mobile camera to take shots of anything I want to keep or record. Several days ago I decided to buy a DSLR camera, a powerful camera that can really take good shots and compatible with a lot of lenses that can do many things.


Nice, that's very exciting.


zolito said:


> My question is:
> 
> What is the professional photographer can do more than an amateur one?
> 
> The question might seems to be silly, not logic or even provocative to someones, and I know well that there might be a lot of reason and answers,



Yes, there are a lot of reasons and answers.  It isn't especially logical and as you found out, it does provoke harsh words to question many people on here's life work's value.


zolito said:


> my question was based on that any camera, is provided with preset modes that can allow you to take photos for sports, landscape, daylight.....etc, in each of these presets the camera which is extracted from a very complicated physics science adjusts everything and all parameters to suit the scene, weather and surrounded environment.
> 
> I am quit sure that the camera will adjust it self in an automatic mode in a way far more accurate than the best photographer can ever do.



The science that scene modes use isn't all that complicated.  Mostly they just either expose for middle gray overall, or on a very specific point.  Some will tend towards higher shutter speeds (sports mode), some will tend towards lower ISOs and greater depth of field (landscape).  None of them are very complex and none know what it is you're trying to communicate with a shot.  


zolito said:


> It is like trying to simulate an ABS system with threshold in a car that doesn't equipped with ABS, the ABS system is more accurate and understand the road conditions in a way much more you can sense. The same in cameras, they are very complicated and they can sense the light surrounded, the object and even now cameras can detect the faces and objects, how could possibly a professional photographer be more accurate and sensitive like a camera sensor, lens and overall system?


No, This is an awful analogy.  ABS systems have a very simple job: making sure that your brakes don't lock up, and use very simple inputs to achieve that.  ABS systems have one, very explicit goal, to stop your car quickly.  Photography doesn't have one goal.  What you're essentially talking about here is getting an acceptable exposure.  That's literally the easiest part of photography there is.  Anybody who is above a mediocre amateur rarely worries about getting a proper exposure.  Exposure is something we rarely have to think about, other than in very exceptional cases, in which case a scene mode wouldn't likely work anyway.


zolito said:


> I believe according to what I know which is not much in the photography world that the good looking photo which receive thousands of likes on a photos networks depends on a very good scene shotted with a very good camera and suitable mounted lens, and then may be edited via a photo editing software.


And also the photographer found the scene, waited for the moment, framed it just right, from the right perspective, cut out elements in the frame that were distracting from the image's purpose, and distilled elements that enhanced the image's purpose.


zolito said:


> Iso: to be decided by camera according to the light conditions, aperture, focal length and shutter speed.
> Aperture: depends on the lens and the lens focal length used in the shot
> Focal length: decided by the user according to the desired zoom
> Focus: done easily by lens auto focus, can change to manual and to focus on the object, the background or the overall image.
> Shutter speed: can be decided by the camera in static shots, while in fast moving objects can be adjusted by user.


These are overly simplified, but basically kinda sorta right.  But again, this is the easiest parts of photography.  Getting something in focus and properly exposed is very easy.  When evaluating professional photographers nobody evaluates whether they missed focus or got the exposure right.  Those are givens.  That would be like evaluating a professional baseball player on their ability to play a game of catch.


zolito said:


> I don't want to specify much details but in general all the above mentioned parameters affect each others.
> 
> May be some situations needs a human entry but I don't think they exceed 5% otherwise the good camera with suitable lens and auto mode will perfectly do the job.
> 
> Thanks


The devil is in the details.


----------



## zolito (Mar 10, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Well I hope that you can understand why this misunderstanding occurred as people on internet forums are constantly expecting trolls to show up and sow discord. If so I think you could learn a lot about your questions by spending some time on here and learning about what it really is to be a photographer.
> 
> 
> You can click on an administrator or mod's name and then click "start a conversation" to PM them about deleting it if you'd like



Many thanks for your kind explanation and sincere support.

With all my respect.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 10, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> zolito said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to specify much details but in general all the above mentioned parameters affect each others.
> ...



To expound upon this.. in many situations 100s of the images a professional takes won't be considered "keepers" in the first place, and its usually those 5% of situations which create the most dynamic and interesting images, the ones the photographer would consider to be "keepers", so even if a camera is capable of predicting the exact exposure a photographer would want 95% of the time that 5% of the time it didn't would be a huge burden on the photographer while he was doing his job, to make great images for people.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 10, 2015)

I'm always late to a fun party lol


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 10, 2015)

I honestly don't know how I'm not... apparently my attention span matches those of others at work. hahahah


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 10, 2015)

I'm surprised this thread went as long as it did, mostly quite civil, considering the opening statement the Op made.  My original reply was far less polite.


----------



## Life (Mar 10, 2015)

I stand by everyone who disposed auto from the Get go. Lol.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 10, 2015)

jake337 said:


> Which is funny because my camera body has no auto or picture settings.
> 
> It only has M, A, S and P just like every other professional camera body.



One of mine only has ASA and shutter speed.


----------



## Life (Mar 10, 2015)

Oh and browse 500px.com, about 90% of all photos there are not done in auto mode, but rather Manual. Auto is basically snapshots. Un interesting. You mess with the ISO, shutter speed, Aperture, and you get very interesting results. You change the entire DoF with aperture, a lot of manual shooters shoot 1 - 2 stops lower shutter speed than the light meter says, as it creates nicer contrast etc. Auto mode shoots recommended everything, so it generally doesn't "pop" as if it were 2 stops below.


----------



## Bebulamar (Mar 10, 2015)

I dunno but I paid extra money to have a camera that doesn't the scene mode so perhaps I wouldn't know how well they work.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 10, 2015)

Auto mode = paint by numbers.  Most decisions already made for you.  In the hands of a beginner, auto modes get you better results than if the beginner tried to figure it out.  In the hands of a good, experienced photographer, auto mode is good because he/she already knows what the camera will come up with in that/those modes, and is fine with the settings, so can spend more time on the composition and other aspects.

But why is the human component important?  Because what the camera does is usually only a small portion of the image-making.  There's the staging of the shot, picking the right perspective and angle, choosing the light and modifiers, deciding on the best framing, thinking about what aspects need to be emphasized to tell the story (Deep DOF or shallow?  Fast shutter or slow?  wide-angle or telephoto?).  Is a grad ND filter appropriate?  If so, what kind?  What about the timing of the "key moment"?  Then there's the processing after the original image is made.  Decisions whether or not to use HDR, selective sharpening/blurring, dodging or burning, etc.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 10, 2015)

Perhaps we ought to look at the Google Street View photographs as examples of how an automated photographic system works. There are a lot of photos shot by their car-cameras, from a lot of places. I really have not seen a lot of their images, perhaps only 200 or so. Those photos would be mostly "automated" in terms of their origin, I would think.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 10, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Auto mode = paint by numbers


I might just have to grab this for my signature!


----------



## pgriz (Mar 10, 2015)

snowbear said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Auto mode = paint by numbers
> ...


  Cool!  Does that mean that I get automatic "like" royalties for anytime someone likes your posts?


----------



## snowbear (Mar 10, 2015)

pgriz said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > pgriz said:
> ...


Sure, why not -- cool by association!


----------



## timor (Mar 10, 2015)

pgriz said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > pgriz said:
> ...


You got "automatic" like from me, I like that statement... but usually I go deeper with it.


----------



## weepete (Mar 11, 2015)

Two words....

Great light.


----------



## Bebulamar (Mar 11, 2015)

zolito said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > zolito said:
> ...


Who should one believe if one can not believe his/her mother?


----------



## table1349 (Mar 11, 2015)




----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 13, 2015)

Bebulamar said:


> zolito said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



His or her's self.


Wait.. was that a rhetorical question?


----------



## soufiej (Mar 13, 2015)

IMO your actual question is not in keeping with the title to your thread.  "Can we convince you about the 'professionalism' of photography?" is not really the same as asking what differences exist between the novice and the "professional" in any field.  To my way of thinking, the person who desires a title and status of "professional" simply has a different drive to succeed in their chosen field than the person who is content to be very good and possibly happens to be exceptionally talented while maintaining an "ameteur" status.  How they arrive at being "pro" is different for each individual and being a "pro" doesn't necessarily imply higher skill levels or greater talents.  The title "professional" is like any other title, just a title and a title alone doesn't apply equally to all who share the same title.   There are great numbers of "pros" in the minor leagues of baseball.  Most don't make it to the big leagues and, of those who do, only a very few are considered to be exceptional while an even smaller number have a name that is remembered after they retire.  And, yet, each year another crop of wanna be's will be starting their rookie "pro" year in the minors.  

One advantage a "pro" has over the ameteur is time.   First, it's likely the pro has spent more time getting to where they have arrived.  They have probably either spent more time learning and mastering more information and its practical application than the ameteur can or than the ameteur is willing to afford to the effort.   If they have succeeded at their drive to be a pro, they likely have the advantage of being paid to spend more time with any assignment.  With time comes to ability to think on their feet and react quickly, and in the correct fashion, to most situations as they develop.  While I expect a few pro's here to say they are under a deadline, IMO a pro has the opportunity to explore a subject far more than the average weekend or travelling photographer.  The pro can spend their time looking and observing how light changes the subject over time.  Just as you would pay a professional carpenter for their time spent analyzing and developing a plan for how to build a special fit cabinet, so too does the pro photographer get paid for the time spent in evaluation and preparation.  How their shooting position and angle can make for a more interesting image is a part of that.  And, unlike the "average" shooter, they are often allowed the luxury of shooting dozens of shots of the exactly or close to exactly the same thing and type of shot.  

All of this goes to the answer to the question, how do I get my shots to look like "that"?  As explained to me a very long time ago, you must first shoot one thousand shots before you get to that one and then you must shoot several thousand more before you get to the next "best" shot.  Most ameteurs simply do not have that luxury.  Go out on an organized photo "safari" and you're probably going to come back with more keepers than shooting on your own over one weekend.  

Think of how most photos you see from the weekend shooter have been taken.  Very few have the luxury of being somewhere for more than a day or so.  Most are taken while the photographer feels a little pressure to get a shot and move on to the next before time runs out.  So the ameteur takes a quick look around and conceives their shot in their head all the while setting up their gear and taking the shot before moving on.  In most cases, that is not how I think most pro's would work.   A pro may return to the same spot several times before they really begin to think of the final shot they want to get.  Time simply makes a tremendous difference between results.  

Next, would you expect a professional musician to come on stage with a cheap, made to a price point, student instrument?   Would you say B B King would just as well be playing a $200 Fender Squier guitar?  Probably not.  While guitarists will concede King would sound very much like King if he played an inexpensive guitar, you wouldn't expect King to do so.  While a better guitar does have the potential to make any reasonably good player sound like a better player, so too does the better quality instrument demand more of the player to achieve the best results.  Being more sensitive to the user's input is a knife which cuts both ways.  Once again time spent with the better instrument allows the pro to devote more effort to their chosen instrument while also allowing them to better comprehend how to achieve more "professional" results from any instrument.  If King picked up that $200 guitar, he would simply know how a guitar works and therefore know how to achieve his desired results from any guitar.  And he wouldn't be trying to make the guitar perform in ways it simply cannot.   Translating that to photographer, a better understanding of their own equipment, better equipment to begin with and a far better comprehension of the concepts of photography are values you're likely to find in the pro that typically escapes the ameteur.  Though, once again, the real difference between pro and ametuer may be very slight.  I wouldn't though expect the average audiophile/music lover to be capable of designing from scratch and then building on their kitchen table their own audio equipment.  I would expect the designer of the equipment to also be capable of being an "audiophile" extremely familiar with the live music experience.  In between those two points, there are hundreds of individual steps.  


PS: This is, in my experience, a very tough forum to enter into.  Particularly when asking a question which is essentially about the value of someone's title or how they think of themself.  No one, no matter how inexperienced they may be nor how honest their question, is beneath contempt by the "established" members.  Approach the forum as if you were back in junior high school and you have been deemed not one of the "cool guys" and you'll know what to expect.

Good luck.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 13, 2015)

that reply was very professionalism.


----------



## Designer (Mar 13, 2015)

zolito said:


> My question is:
> 
> What is the professional photographer can do more than an amateur one?



This is where you should have stopped to wait for an answer.

My answer: 

A professional will know how to compose the scene, make adjustments to the light, operate the camera skillfully, edit the image (if required) with skill and finesse, and of course be paid for his efforts.


----------



## timor (Mar 13, 2015)

All this considering, that title "professional" in photography... or baseball, is only social courtesy for people engaged deeply in their trade. Anyone heard of "professional lawyer" ? Or "amateur lawyer" for that matter ?


----------



## pgriz (Mar 13, 2015)

timor said:


> All this considering, that title "professional" in photography... or baseball, is only social courtesy for people engaged deeply in their trade. Anyone heard of "professional lawyer" ? Or "amateur lawyer" for that matter ?



'course we have.  half of them are on this forum.  Amateur lawyers that is.


----------



## timor (Mar 13, 2015)

Beside internet.... Here anyone can be anybody. It's a virtual world.


----------



## timor (Mar 13, 2015)

Thanks. You see, I am not really Timor, I am experimental computer program built by... well, you know... Name comes from the words: The Intelligent Machine Of Ridiculousness.


----------



## otherprof (Mar 13, 2015)

jake337 said:


> zolito said:
> 
> 
> > Many thanks all for the positive feedbacks and clarifications, I am newly registered here in the forum and I have never discussed anything related to photography here or anywhere else.
> ...


Is there anyone else out there who relies on auto in certain situations? I like having the  control manual settings allow me, but there are some times I think my camera is going to be "smarter" or faster than me, and I just really want to get the shot.


----------



## Designer (Mar 13, 2015)

pgriz said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone heard of "professional lawyer" ? Or "amateur lawyer" for that matter ?
> ...


YO!


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 13, 2015)

soufiej said:


> PS: This is, in my experience, a very tough forum to enter into.  Particularly when asking a question which is essentially about the value of someone's title or how they think of themself. * No one, no matter how inexperienced they may be nor how honest their question, is beneath contempt by the "established" members.*  Approach the forum as if you were back in junior high school and you have been deemed not one of the "cool guys" and you'll know what to expect.
> 
> Good luck.



Until your last paragraph, I pretty much agreed with you.
(that in bold really doesn't make a great deal of sense to me)

I would say it differently.
Anyone who comes here and expresses, as the OP did, semi-disdain for photographers and evinces a belief that all it takes is a smart camera to take great pictures is going to take a raft of crap from people who know how hard it really is and have spent lots of time working at it.
He said, effectively, 'you guys don't know crap, now convince me I'm wrong.'
No one, professional or dedicated amateur, wants their efforts to be denigrated - particularly in their own space.
If the OP was less quick to be negative about our skills that he knows nothing about, he would have had a much more gracious reception.


----------



## soufiej (Mar 13, 2015)

otherprof said:


> Is there anyone else out there who relies on auto in certain situations? I like having the  control manual settings allow me, but there are some times I think my camera is going to be "smarter" or faster than me, and I just really want to get the shot.



I remember a lot of kids in Little League baseball would try to use a heavier bat than they were able to control.  They did it because their favorite player - who happened to be 10 to 20 years older and 75 to 100 pounds heavier than they were - used a heavy bat.  No matter what, you couldn't really talk them out of using a heavy bat.

A lot of people buy expensive DSLR's and then seldom if ever get off "Auto" shooting mode.  I often suggest to a newbie wanting to understand the rules of photography they begin by allowing the camera to make the "decisions" in automatic settings.  Pay attention to what the camera does and try to learn why it does so.  Keep notes.  If you're paying attention and can put this with that, pretty soon, you'll likely get tired of the overall similarity between shots when using strictly auto.  That's when it's time to move a bit away from pure auto and try to stretch your skills and comprehension of how your camera actually operates and how you can control the camera rather than it controlling you.

I do think it's a bit of a shame though when someone new to photography buys an expensive camera set up and immediately tries to shoot in "Manual" because they've been told that's how the "pro's" do it.  Photography has a large technical component to achieving good results.  I wouldn't sit someone down at a metal lathe without any prior experience or training and expect good results first time out - let alone that they might not injure themself.  Photography is not quite that dangerous but it must be learned as a process of this before that.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 13, 2015)

otherprof said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > zolito said:
> ...



What fun would that be?   You wouldn't be getting the shot.   The camera would.   I have nothing against auto modes and I could care less if someone else uses them.   

Also,  this has nothing to do with which is smarter,  me or the camera.  

 It has everything to do with me creating the image,  not the camera


----------



## soufiej (Mar 13, 2015)

[QUOTE="The_Traveler, post: 3445412, member: 12413

Until your last paragraph, I pretty much agreed with you.
(that in bold really doesn't make a great deal of sense to me)

I would say it differently.
Anyone who comes here and expresses, as the OP did, semi-disdain for photographers and evinces a belief that all it takes is a smart camera to take great pictures is going to take a raft of crap from people who know how hard it really is and have spent lots of time working at it.
He said, effectively, 'you guys don't know crap, now convince me I'm wrong.'
No one, professional or dedicated amateur, wants their efforts to be denigrated - particularly in their own space.
If the OP was less quick to be negative about our skills that he knows nothing about, he would have had a much more gracious reception.[/QUOTE]

Well, Traveler, since you wish to make this an issue, I have to disagree.  As someone who was definitely not warmly welcomed to this forum and subsequently told I "got off on the wrong foot" with several members, I understand the op's question of why did so many jump his S**t.

Reading your response here I almost see someone itching for a fight.  I don't think that's you, you and I seem to have gone along rather well.  But look at the op's avatar, he claims to be a "noob".  He's is not, IMO, "denigrating" what a skilled and talented photographer does or how long and hard they might work at their craft.  He is, IMO, asking a honest and sincere question about a subject which escapes his comprehension at this time.  He certainly is not berating anyone personally.  He simply does not understand and is asking to be educated.  

I remember one forum member who asked for critiques of her shots when everything, by her own admission, was taken in full "Auto" mode.  She stated quite plainly she was content with that shooting mode and given her results saw no reason to adjust to someone else's opinion of what she should do and how she should be doing it.  There really was no criticism of the technical merits of her shots.  For what they were, there wasn't much to criticize. No, she wasn't stretching herself at all but the images on their own would have stood up against many taken by more skilled and knowledgeable shooters in some manual mode.  

The folks on this forum, IMO, are too thin skinned and too ready to find an insult where none exists nor intended.  And, really, what difference does it make to any of you whether someone thinks what you do is easy and the camera does most of the work?  IMO if you are a real pro, you don't take offense at that.  IMO you both would be better off if you instead took them by the hand and gently explained why you do what you do and why the camera can't.  Educate not humiliate.  That's why the question was asked in almost any instance on this forum.

The forum would be a lot better for it if people weren't so eager to see their results "denigrated".    You can pretty much bet the op hasn't even looked at your gallery.  So, how could he possibly be looking down on anyone?  Looking at it from the outside, it almost makes one wonder just how secure you all can be with how much difference you really achieve over just a decent camera set to Auto.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 13, 2015)

Too much Internet typing and not enough photos.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 13, 2015)

Sorry, as Vtec said, too many words.
I get it, we're nasty.
Less typing, more pictures.
That's what counts.


----------



## timor (Mar 13, 2015)

This discussion goes nowhere. Photography is about photographs. Business one can make from anything. As long as there are buyers. This one thing I can assure you, guys: we all are buyers. Of mythology.
Vtek is right: if you want to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. (Tuco)


----------



## sashbar (Mar 13, 2015)

zolito said:


> My question is:
> What is the professional photographer can do more than an amateur one?
> 
> Thanks



The answer to this question is very simple. The professional photographer can sell his photos and make a living photographing things or people. In other words, a professional can run a business side of photorgaphy better than an amateur who simply does not need to worry about it. That is the ONLY thing a professional photographer can do more than an amateur.

...and since you have compared cameras with cars and their ABS systems, that "feels the roadbetter than any driver", you need to understand that "ABS" is not what makes a good photo, it is just what gives you an opportunity to make a good photo.

If you are into cars and want some parallels, consider this:

If a car is a camera, then all its gears and pedals etc are just like camera buttons.  You need to learn it to be able to start the engine and make the car moving
.
But you will not be able to drive anywhere even with the greatest ABS on earth, if you do not know the Highway code, road signs and basic rules of driving. If you do not know it, you will be sitting in your car in you garage or making rounds in the field behind your house, marvelling at all those buttons and ABS and  driving nowhere.

Highway code, road signs and  all that are  an equivalent of basic photography rules like exposure, composition, contrast, visual weight, perspective, lines, proportions, spaces, angles, dynamic tension, focal point and all those formal aspects that help make a great photo.

Is knowing all that enough to become a good photographer? Have you earned your licence to shoot? Absolutely not. You need to actually start driving and aquire real driving skills . Which in photography language means basically aquiring practical skills, learning to use the light  and making creative decisions  that no ABS will make for you. Such as choosing the key tone in a scene you are about to photograph.  How on earth  a camera can make that decision  for you if the dynamic range is too high for it to swallow? Probably  you do not know yet what key tone means .

Anyway, after you will have learned all that and aquire all those skills, you will have a POTENTIAL. to become a great photographer.

Why just a potential?

Because here you will need to make by far the most difficult step. All that previous learning curve was easy peasy, just read, try, take some courses and practice, practice, not a problem. The next step is reeealy difficult and no photography course will teach you it.

Because even if you have learned how to drive your wonderfull new clever car and  use its ABS and SatNav and know the Highway code  and all what is needed, and you can safely drive down the streets around your block, skillfully overtake and park it in tightest of spaces, it all does not make any sense whatsoever, unless you KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO DRIVE , WHICH ROUTE  AND WHY?  You will become a great photographer only when you know what your journey is.

And that last paragraph is what separates a truly great photographer from a technically potent one.  99% of guys and girls with a camera,be it a P&S or the very top pro gear, will never ever figure out the destination and the path to it. This is a somewhat sad reality, but that is the nature of art and creativity.

Not many car lovers buy cars just to aimlessly drive around, taking random corners and play with it, having fun and showing off how good a driver they are. Most buy it with some particular destinations to drive to.  Unlike cars, a lot of camera lovers buy expensive  camears not having a clue what is their creative destination, neve mind the path to it.

As I said, that is normal,  although a bit harsh.


----------

