Pro or Amateur?

[Robin Usagani]

Well.. look at this way.. Go look at my website. A few people here consider my work as "amateur" and label me as "fauxtographer". Compare mine with yours .

 

[Josh66]

The only way to say your a Professional is if you are making 75% of your living off of photography.

Wow. Very specific. What if I make 74% of my living off photography, and barter stolen goods for the other 26%?

 

[Tkaczuk]

Well.. look at this way.. Go look at my website. A few people here consider my work as "amateur" and label me as "fauxtographer". Compare mine with yours .

I would say your photography is better then some of the same people who would say yours is amateur. Opinion means nothing if you are making more money.

The only way to say your a Professional is if you are making 75% of your living off of photography.

Wow. Very specific. What if I make 74% of my living off photography, and bater stolen goods for the other 26%?

Ehh thats just a number. Would you consider yourself a photographer if stole even 26% of your income? You might, but everyone else would just say your a thief. :lmao:

 

[Josh66]

Nah - I wouldn't qualify for "thief" status till I reached 75% of my income through that avenue. At a mere 26%, I would just be a petty criminal.

 

[tmjjk]

After purchasing my first dslr camera and a 50mm lens I began to capture images here and there that evoked feeling. The occasional, wow look at the eyes in that one, or that looks magical, and of course these comments are coming from people who like me. I felt this passion that it was something I really loved. It's been an outright obsession for the last 8 weeks or so. I have been reading as much as I can about shutter, aperture, and iso and how they relate. Trying to wrap my mind around focal length and lens choices... cropped sensor vs full frame. I having been using as many outlets as possible to learn more and understand more. The misleading title was referring to if this is something I could do professionally... of course not now... I am just learning. To take on this endeavor is a risk... I have six children and work very hard every moment of my life... this is something others see as a hobby, and I would like to continue in this direction to eventually earn an income. I have seen other "Pro" photographers work, and some of it is awful... I just didn't want to be one of those american idol contests who perform terribly that says, "my mom always said I could sing"... This is still going to be my passion... I just might not show anyone

 

[sleist]

I just might not show anyone

Suit yourself, but hearing criticism is how you grow. I get far more out of negative comments than positive ones. Get good enough to know what to listen to and when to just decide you don't agree.
Just enjoy yourself and grow some thicker skin. It will help in other places besides photography.

The photo has issues as stated.

 

[Derrel]

If you've only been at it for two months, you've got a long upward slope before you shoot on a professional level. I'm not trying to discourage you, but it's very odd to expect to become a pro photographer over the course of a few months.

A lot of newly-minted professionals have been in the "game" for only a few months. There are buyers for photography of many different levels of quality and professionalism. The market is absolutely flooded with people who have been shooting for "a few months", and who are now "professionals". The OP has a ways to go.In another year, the OP could easily be selling baby and child pictures. Gone are the days when a photographer had to have training and experience to make some money. With digital capture, there's unlimited "film" for almost no cost, and Photoshop can be used to correct all kinds of mistakes.

The OP's shot is framed as a horizontal, with loads of dead space on either side of the child, which is an exceedingly common beginner's mistake. Failing to understand what compositional space "is", and how best to "use it" is one of the hallmarks of a beginning shooter, but it's something that one can learn how to eliminate, by posing people better, and by turning the camera to the vertical orientation when it will help the composition. THe 3:2 aspect ratio of the modern d-slr is problematic for many beginners; it's an aspect ratio that takes some study to best utilize. Square-format cameras are actually easier to shoot.

 

[Josh66]

Square-format cameras are actually easier to shoot.

Gotta agree - I always wonder why people say square format composition is hard. It comes very easily to me, especially when compared to 2:3. In 2:3, it seems like there is a whole third of the frame that you have to find something to do with.

 

[Derrel]

Square-format cameras are actually easier to shoot.

Gotta agree - I always wonder why people say square format composition is hard. It comes very easily to me, especially when compared to 2:3. In 2:3, it seems like there is a whole third of the frame that you have to find something to do with.

Decades ago, the Victor Hasselblad company (back when he was still alive) produced an entire series of very small, beautifully-illustrated and well-printed four color booklets on how best to use ALL aspects of the Hasselblad system. I read and re-read those booklets for many years. They had one devoted exclusively to composition with the square format, which Hasselblad was famous for. A camera that sees and captures in square format is very different than a 3:2 aspect ratio d-slr. Unless one has used a square-format camera (Rolleiflex,Hassy,Bronica,Yashica TLR,Argoflex, Maimya 6, Rolleicord, etc,etc) then it is difficult to appreciate how it actually works.

Your comment that ,"In 2:3, it seems like there is a whole third of the frame that you have to find something to do with." is an astute observation. Yes, one needs to "do something" with the entire compositional space. For many beginners, there's a great tendency to just plop the subject in the center of the frame,or wayyyyy off to the left of right third of the frame, and then snap the shutter. They call this dead space "negative space" in many cases.

WHat's interesting I think is that MANY beginners take photos that would actually be much,much better if they were presented AS SQUARE-FORMAT images, with all that dead, errr, "negative space", eliminated. In web galleries, square-format images actually have a lot of eye appeal,and allow more images to be presented in the same screen real estate.

 

[tmjjk]

I know I am a glutton for punishment.... but is this any better? I took this today

 

[Ernicus]

You're no more of a glutton than I. have you seen some of the crap I been posting? lol. Still fun though.

This picture I like better than the first one. I am no critic, so I won't advise. but I do have an opinion, and I like this one, but I am wondering if a better crop, to me, leaving off the part of her outfit isnt artsy or intereting, but leaves me wondering "why is the rest of her dress not there?"

my 2 cents.

 

[Josh66]

The second one is a lot better, IMO.

 

[Kerbouchard]

View attachment 9273I know I am a glutton for punishment.... but is this any better? I took this today

The second is a lot better but the processing needs work. The tone in the skin is not pleasing(kind of muddy) and the over sharpening is making it a bit too contrasty.

How about posting the original color image so we can see what kind of workflow you are going through?

 

[Tarayn]

based on the framing, lighting, and the somewhat muddy looking B&W conversion, I would say amateur!

Focus and DOF are ok.. even good.

The bright highlights on the subjects left cheek / face are too much.. as is the blown out area in the background. The blacks lack detail. Need to even out the lighting quite a bit.
Black and white conversion needs work also... IMO..

O although I am on a laptop right now, not my calibrated monitor.

Framing.. most pros shoot portrait type shots vertically for a reason... and seldom chop off parts of the head, or other body parts.

Im going to say that for the most part I agree with everything but the horizontal vs portrait framing rule can be broken and successfully. I quite often will shoot something horizontally leaving dead space left or right and that while yes I agree portrait framing is desirable for a lot of reasons I wouldnt be afraid to shoot both aspects because sometimes I like horizontal better.

It is more traditional to shoot portraits in portrait mode, but I think in shooting some in landscape mode on a portrait shoot it adds more imagination to the photo, cropping it to the left or right

 

[Kerbouchard]

It is more traditional to shoot portraits in portrait mode, but I think in shooting some in landscape mode on a portrait shoot it adds more imagination to the photo, cropping it to the left or right

As Scott Kelby says, you know when the best time to shoot in portrait mode? Right after shooting it horizontal...same for the 'flip' side.