people charging, when they are awful.

The girl and the horse is an oooold interwebz pic. I've been seeing it around for years.

Anyhow, why detract from people trying to support their hobby? I have a great time as an amateur, but have no way of buying new gear. I don't make that much money and I can not afford to go out and buy any pro or semi-pro level gear.

I'd love to have a D90. Or D300. Or a 105VR 2.8. Or a 200-400 2.8. Or a 24-70 2.8. Or a Zeiss Macro 100mm f/2 ZF Makro-Planar T*.

You know what all those things have in common? They're expensive. If somebody is willing to help me improve my gear by offering me money to do what I'd be doing anyway, why shouldn't I take it? There are certain situations I won't get myself into (like weddings) but I'll spend a couple hours photographing a kid for senior portraits and put it into my camera fund.

Why are people all butt hurt about this? I'd love to go to school to become a real pro, but I don't have $50k I'm willing or able to shell out.

Is photography supposed to be like polo where you have to be quite wealthy to get into it? I don't think so.
 
If you can take decent photo's (worth the money) then by all means, go ahead. The origional OP alluded to the fact that the person charging $$, was a hack, had little experience and took horrible pictures.

Maybe the bulk of the responsibility belongs to the buyer, for not checking out the credintials, or ignorance of the subject.

We have to understand, that the average buying public, probably doesn't know the differnce, as much as I don't know diddly about theoretical astro physics, so they are often "lured" in by either someone that can "talk the talk, rather than walk the walk"...

There are slick sales people out there that can "talk" about how good they are, or show you their "photoshoped-to-death" portfolio, and bake believers out of those who don't know better, or the right questions to ask.

J.:mrgreen:
 
While I agree that the majority of the responsibility lies with the buyer. The "photographer" is also responsible especially if they say they can photograph say a wedding with no experience as an assistant or second shooter at one. A wedding is a beast all it's own and if you can't keep up you shouldn't be there. To keep up you need experience and knowing what is going to happen next.

The same can be said for a lot of photography, for example product and architecture. There are certain things you need to know before you try it. You don't just stick your product in a light tent and click away. And photographing architecture with anything but large format is asking for trouble.

Do these "photographers" have any conscious or consideration for their clients at all?
 
So, I talked with someone about this yesterday, and with my job I have noticed a lot of newcomers to photography. Almost everyone starts the conversation with "I just got laid off, so I am doing this to make some extra money." Most from what I can tell are just using point and shoots and really are clueless on what they are doing. This is almost a daily conversation - I am grateful when I talk with someone and they know more than how to zoom in as far as the lens will let them and push the button.

I am by no means a great photographer (yet) myself, but I am not going to charge a lot for what I do for people (and it isn't crappy, I just don't think I'm up to par with pros yet).
 
While I agree that the majority of the responsibility lies with the buyer. The "photographer" is also responsible especially if they say they can photograph say a wedding with no experience as an assistant or second shooter at one. A wedding is a beast all it's own and if you can't keep up you shouldn't be there. To keep up you need experience and knowing what is going to happen next.

The same can be said for a lot of photography, for example product and architecture. There are certain things you need to know before you try it. You don't just stick your product in a light tent and click away. And photographing architecture with anything but large format is asking for trouble.

Do these "photographers" have any conscious or consideration for their clients at all?
To answer your question, I'd say no. There are only two ways to go here...that I know of...A. The photograher know's he/she is a fraud, and are ripping people off.
B. The photographer "thinks" that they are Pro's, and end up screwing everyone.

I'll give you an analogy: Last year we had a freak windstorm here. No rain, lightening, nada, just a freak windstorm. Hundreds of thousand of people lost power, had damage...etc..you get the picture.

The ripoff artists came out full force, to do "insurance" repair work.

I don't know the 1st darned thing about roofing, but I did do this:
I asked for a contractor's Lic #
I asked to see their insurance card.
I aked to see a workmans compensation document. (If the contractor didn't have one, in case you don't live in a state/country that issues these documents...you can get your a$$ sued off, in case of an accident.

I would think, that even if you didn't know squat about photography, you would have enough sense to ask for some sort of references before you chucked out 1500 or more bucks for a shoot of such grave importance as a wedding.....

On the flipside, someone might shop around and get quotes from ....$200 to $1500...
I would be asking myself, why??, and doing some homework. (Go back to the roofing analogy)...

I'm not heartless, and hate to see someone get ripped off, but sometimes, sometimes people bring a lot of this stuff on themselves. Yes it is unethical to promote yourself as a Pro, especially for something as important as a wedding, but people are responsible for their own actions, and should have at least asked for references.

'nuff of that, think I'll have a beer. Cheers to everyone on the forum...

J.:mrgreen:
 
While I agree that the majority of the responsibility lies with the buyer. The "photographer" is also responsible especially if they say they can photograph say a wedding with no experience as an assistant or second shooter at one. A wedding is a beast all it's own and if you can't keep up you shouldn't be there. To keep up you need experience and knowing what is going to happen next.

The same can be said for a lot of photography, for example product and architecture. There are certain things you need to know before you try it. You don't just stick your product in a light tent and click away. And photographing architecture with anything but large format is asking for trouble.

Do these "photographers" have any conscious or consideration for their clients at all?
To answer your question, I'd say no. There are only two ways to go here...that I know of...A. The photograher know's he/she is a fraud, and are ripping people off.
B. The photographer "thinks" that they are Pro's, and end up screwing everyone.

I'll give you an analogy: Last year we had a freak windstorm here. No rain, lightening, nada, just a freak windstorm. Hundreds of thousand of people lost power, had damage...etc..you get the picture.

The ripoff artists came out full force, to do "insurance" repair work.

I don't know the 1st darned thing about roofing, but I did do this:
I asked for a contractor's Lic #
I asked to see their insurance card.
I aked to see a workmans compensation document. (If the contractor didn't have one, in case you don't live in a state/country that issues these documents...you can get your a$$ sued off, in case of an accident.

I would think, that even if you didn't know squat about photography, you would have enough sense to ask for some sort of references before you chucked out 1500 or more bucks for a shoot of such grave importance as a wedding.....

On the flipside, someone might shop around and get quotes from ....$200 to $1500...
I would be asking myself, why??, and doing some homework. (Go back to the roofing analogy)...

I'm not heartless, and hate to see someone get ripped off, but sometimes, sometimes people bring a lot of this stuff on themselves. Yes it is unethical to promote yourself as a Pro, especially for something as important as a wedding, but people are responsible for their own actions, and should have at least asked for references.

'nuff of that, think I'll have a beer. Cheers to everyone on the forum...

J.:mrgreen:

I tend to agree. I consider myself cheap ($1500 for lowest package) for a wedding, and most people look at me like I am nuts for charging that much. Even after explaining and trying to educate the buyer, they still go out and hire a $200 photographer and then don't understand why the pictures don't look the same. Cheap people can not be convinced.

They weren't not aware, trust me. They only cared about bottom dollar until their pics came back. I'm going to an aquaintances wedding this weekend and the same thing happened here. I offered as a gift to shoot for half off and I was basically laughed at to my face for all images on disk for $800. I'm sure they think I will take my camera anyway since I generally do to any kind of "friend event" but, nope. My baby is staying at home and I am going to relax and enjoy myself for once and they can get what they paid for. I hope their photographer knows what they are doing! Hmpphhh! :lol:
 
There is "awful" music out there. People make it, they sell it, and people buy it.
There are "awful" movies out there. People make em, people sell em, and people buy em.
Look at sports....who in there right mind thinks some clown playing baseball deserves millions of dollars a year...but hey. Somebody pays them, and we sit in front of our idiot boxes and watch them, so they can make more money next year
...oh...and yeah, there are aweful photographers, who sell themselves, but somebody will also buy them.
The world goes round and round. :lmao:
Im not a pro, dont plan on being a pro, and will never sell myself as a pro, and dont advertise. I still get requests to do gigs, or offers for images, probably cause they dont want to pay a "pro". Sure I will take $50.00 to shoot your band. I enjoy my hobby, and just got myself some pocket cash. :greenpbl::greenpbl::greenpbl:
 
While I agree that the majority of the responsibility lies with the buyer. The "photographer" is also responsible especially if they say they can photograph say a wedding with no experience as an assistant or second shooter at one. A wedding is a beast all it's own and if you can't keep up you shouldn't be there. To keep up you need experience and knowing what is going to happen next.

I completely disagree.

Weddings are like anything else, it is all about your attitude.
 
Of course you all know the flipside to this argument?
The side that when you are good at shooting, very good infact and you do stat charging people will then tell you how much to charge. And if you undercharge they will start to get so shirty ;)

Of course its a lot easier to be told to charge more money for what you do that it is to stop taking money for what you do.... ;)
 
While I agree that the majority of the responsibility lies with the buyer. The "photographer" is also responsible especially if they say they can photograph say a wedding with no experience as an assistant or second shooter at one. A wedding is a beast all it's own and if you can't keep up you shouldn't be there. To keep up you need experience and knowing what is going to happen next.

I completely disagree.

Weddings are like anything else, it is all about your attitude.

My point was you need some experience to photograph weddings. They bring out the good and bad in people. So yes they are very different than say photographing in the park.
 
the first time i came across this (not that i had assumed it didn't happen, just never thought about it) was after my sisters wedding, about six years ago she hired this old man to shoot photos at her wedding. im not entirely sure what the cost was, but im pretty sure it was over a thousand, i think around 1500. the pictures were quite horrendous, and it just made me sad really, and then mad. skip ahead five or six years and i have this friend online, she is constantly shooting, promoting herself to family and friends on social networking sites, she doesn't charge much considering what she does, but i just find it offensive that she is charging people for her work. i dont know her well, but if i had to guess she doesn't even know what RAW is. don't get me wrong, im not a snob, i feel most of my shots are ok at best, and most of those i feel have a lot to do with luck, but i do know good work when i see it and hers is horrible.
w/o reading other's reply...
Glad i'm not alone feeling like that. These days, people buy "big cameras" and they look professional and unfortunately act as one.
I was in electronic store the other day, this girl comes in and wants to buy D5000, so salesman started asking her Qs as to what exactly she wants and such, she comes back with - "well I want to shoot professionally, you know..." and rest of the convo went towards the fact that she knows nothing about cameras or photography for that matter.
 
I was in electronic store the other day, this girl comes in and wants to buy D5000, so salesman started asking her Qs as to what exactly she wants and such, she comes back with - "well I want to shoot professionally, you know..." and rest of the convo went towards the fact that she knows nothing about cameras or photography for that matter.
So let me get this straight, you don't want people aspiring to become photographers? It's troubling to you that new people find the hobby/profession interesting and want to get into it?

You were that noob in the store with grand ideas about what you could do at one time too you know.

"Professional" can mean any number of things. I wanted a DSLR because I wanted "professional" looking pictures vs. those easily identifiable as taken with a point and shoot. I had no idea what I was in for... how much I had to learn. But I loved it.

I was at the other end of the spectrum, I had no aspirations to do photography professionally, I just wanted pictures of my son - the best I could take. That interest quickly blossomed into modeling and shooting more artistic stuff. Now days just about every week I get an offer of some sort for paid work. People wanting me to shoot stuff for their ads they're running in local rags, weddings, shooting sports, models wanting to work with me, bands, senior portraits, etc. I could easily make a go of photography as a side business.

Does that make me a pain in your rear end? Does this fact annoy you? Do you feel like ranting about me too? :D

I've never taken a formal course in photography, certainly nothing at the collegiate level. I've learned what I know thus far by reading lots of books, TONS of practice, talking with others online, etc.

I don't get all this angst against noobs to the hobby/business. It smacks of sour grapes... :)

If your concern is with the client, don't worry about it. It's the clients responsibility to interview the photog and to make an educated decision. I would say the vast majority of the time people hire new/less talented photogs for gigs because they're cheaper or they are family/friend. If they want to cut corners, and people often do when it comes to photography, so be it.
 
I was in electronic store the other day, this girl comes in and wants to buy D5000, so salesman started asking her Qs as to what exactly she wants and such, she comes back with - "well I want to shoot professionally, you know..." and rest of the convo went towards the fact that she knows nothing about cameras or photography for that matter.
So let me get this straight, you don't want people aspiring to become photographers? It's troubling to you that new people find the hobby/profession interesting and want to get into it?

You were that noob in the store with grand ideas about what you could do at one time too you know.

"Professional" can mean any number of things. I wanted a DSLR because I wanted "professional" looking pictures vs. those easily identifiable as taken with a point and shoot. I had no idea what I was in for... how much I had to learn. But I loved it.

I was at the other end of the spectrum, I had no aspirations to do photography professionally, I just wanted pictures of my son - the best I could take. That interest quickly blossomed into modeling and shooting more artistic stuff. Now days just about every week I get an offer of some sort for paid work. People wanting me to shoot stuff for their ads they're running in local rags, weddings, shooting sports, models wanting to work with me, bands, senior portraits, etc. I could easily make a go of photography as a side business.

Does that make me a pain in your rear end? Does this fact annoy you? Do you feel like ranting about me too? :D

I've never taken a formal course in photography, certainly nothing at the collegiate level. I've learned what I know thus far by reading lots of books, TONS of practice, talking with others online, etc.

I don't get all this angst against noobs to the hobby/business. It smacks of sour grapes... :)

If your concern is with the client, don't worry about it. It's the clients responsibility to interview the photog and to make an educated decision. I would say the vast majority of the time people hire new/less talented photogs for gigs because they're cheaper or they are family/friend. If they want to cut corners, and people often do when it comes to photography, so be it.

I'm with you. I bought my first SLR when I was unable to get a P&S to do what I wanted it to do. Since that time, I've made a deliberate effort to ensure that my equipment exceeds my personal abilities so that I will never be able to blame my equipment for a poor shot.
 
I was in electronic store the other day, this girl comes in and wants to buy D5000, so salesman started asking her Qs as to what exactly she wants and such, she comes back with - "well I want to shoot professionally, you know..." and rest of the convo went towards the fact that she knows nothing about cameras or photography for that matter.
So let me get this straight, you don't want people aspiring to become photographers? It's troubling to you that new people find the hobby/profession interesting and want to get into it?

You were that noob in the store with grand ideas about what you could do at one time too you know.

"Professional" can mean any number of things. I wanted a DSLR because I wanted "professional" looking pictures vs. those easily identifiable as taken with a point and shoot. I had no idea what I was in for... how much I had to learn. But I loved it.

I was at the other end of the spectrum, I had no aspirations to do photography professionally, I just wanted pictures of my son - the best I could take. That interest quickly blossomed into modeling and shooting more artistic stuff. Now days just about every week I get an offer of some sort for paid work. People wanting me to shoot stuff for their ads they're running in local rags, weddings, shooting sports, models wanting to work with me, bands, senior portraits, etc. I could easily make a go of photography as a side business.

Does that make me a pain in your rear end? Does this fact annoy you? Do you feel like ranting about me too? :D

I've never taken a formal course in photography, certainly nothing at the collegiate level. I've learned what I know thus far by reading lots of books, TONS of practice, talking with others online, etc.

I don't get all this angst against noobs to the hobby/business. It smacks of sour grapes... :)

If your concern is with the client, don't worry about it. It's the clients responsibility to interview the photog and to make an educated decision. I would say the vast majority of the time people hire new/less talented photogs for gigs because they're cheaper or they are family/friend. If they want to cut corners, and people often do when it comes to photography, so be it.

I don't personally have a problem with people wanting to be a photographer if they will put in the work to get there. I only started a couple years ago and had no idea going in that I would end up with a business. If they think a DSLR, kit lens and pop up flash set on auto is gonna do it, and have no aspirations to put in more effort than that, well then that does annoy me :lol:

I have a young lady right now that was referred to me that wanted to know, "Ok, so how do I get clients?" (heck if I can solve that one anyway!) I backed her way up and talked to her about everything involved in getting started on the technical side first. She wasn't aware but she is very determined and so she is going to come assist me on some shoots and learn how I process pictures, and she is already reading several books from her user guide to some books on photography basics.

People taught (and teach) me, so I don't mind passing on the little I know to someone else wanting to learn. I would rather teach someone to do it right than ***** that they aren't doing what they should.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top