PRO vs. Amateur

[John Thawley]

I saw his Obama shots. Quite a few of them are really what anyone with a film camera (or similar Photoshop action) could accomplish. Not suggesting that photojournalists are artist (because they are), but perhaps that fellow isn't the keenest example to use.

The line between pro and amateur is quickly being thinned with the main differences now being experience and contacts. Talent is not (and truly has never been) lacking on either side of that line - it is merely access that is creating the barrier.

Sorry... but THAT train of thought will keep the pros in business. First, the devil is in the details, and if you can't see the difference in those details you're probably never going to get there. Pete Sousa is actually THE PERFECT example to use. Subtlety is an art. I suggest you look long and hard at his work and deconstruct it in your mind how he got those shots. Consider the quality of the exposures... do you see flash shadows or harsh light? When you see four or five individuals together, they are ALL in focus and they are ALL properly exposed. They are subtle, they are accurate and they're nothing but money. I challenge anyone to duplicate them. ESPECIALLY with Photoshop actions. LOL

 

[Chiller]

Y'all gotta see the shot my professional camera just took. Unfortunatly I cant post it here, cause Im an amateur.

 

[MrRamonG]

Just looked at P. Souza's site and the first image nearly brought a tear to my eye.

 

[ANDS!]

First, the devil is in the details, and if you can't see the difference in those details you're probably never going to get there.

I actually have no interest in "getting there" so thats cool.

Pete Sousa is actually THE PERFECT example to use.

What makes his "art" any different than any White House press photograher for a national/regional rag, other than the access he is allowed? I really truly don't see any "uniqueness" in his craft that would make me stand back and say "Yes, this guy. This guy above all others." Not all photographers can grab the same shot given the same access, but so far none of those photos linked strike me as once-in-a-lifetime shots that tax the skill of the shooter. A shot of Obama with interns eating pizza, austounding! Over the shoulder shot about to greet the press corps/multitudes of fans. . .amazing!

I challenge anyone to duplicate them.

Wow seriously? Really? Lu Guang is a photojournalist of note. Pete is. . .he's Obama's personal shutterbug. Sorry but I do not see anything in his stream that any compotent photographer could not get as well. I mean if the bar is a well focused, well "staged" shot - Pete really shouldn't count his job as being too secure.

 

[usayit]

Y'all gotta see the shot my professional camera just took. Unfortunatly I cant post it here, cause Im an amateur.

If I had the resources of a NASCAR driver, I bet I can compete with the best of them. Just how hard is it to drive in circles?

 

[usayit]

Seriously... if you are going to compare photographer's works, you should compare apples to apples. Linking to a portfolio presentation of Lu Guang in reference to another photographer's FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM isn't a fair comparison. You are talking a few VERY SELECT pieces of Lu Guang's work to Pete Souza's 1,660 of virtually unedited, unsorted frames just thrown on a web page.

Anyways...

The topic was Amateur versus Professional. Not who is a better professional photographer. John specifically commented towards a statement placing Pete Souza as a amateur.... I think most anyone will agree Pete Souza's an accomplished journalist/photographer making a living from it and producing very good work.

Ironically, I think Pete Souza's WORST photo was the presidential portrait of Obama. Then again... he's a journalist not a portrait photographer.

 

[skieur]

OMG... Pete Sousa not a professional? I'd say he is a classic example of a professional photographer! He's been a professional journalist since the day he obtained a Master's in JOURNALISM. He didn't go from "I think I'll pick up a camera and learn photography"... and try make a living from it. He went from "How do I tell THE story?... oh look... a camera.. that should be a valuable tool".

If you guys haven't found it yet.... he (and the White House) have a Flickr stream:

Flickr: The White House's Photostream

Every time I peak, I find a single frame thats just grand! Just looked... yup.. there's another that caught my eye:

P111209PS-0196 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Sorry, but I was not impressed by these shots. Camera angles could have been better. He should have moved in closer on many or used a telephoto lens. Some should have been cropped. Many should have been post processed. Some seem under-exposed.

skieur

 

[NateWagner]

well, absolutely, if you were to print them they should be cropped and processed, but again that's not the point of this. I mean, he has 1600 images on the flickr page.

The point of this is not to have a few amazing shots, but instead to tell the continuing story. Could he improve these shots if he took them to LR or PS? sure, should he? not if it means reducing his story telling capabilities.

 

[ANDS!]

Seriously... if you are going to compare photographer's works, you should compare apples to apples. Linking to a portfolio presentation of Lu Guang in reference to another photographer's FLICKR PHOTOSTREAM isn't a fair comparison. You are talking a few VERY SELECT pieces of Lu Guang's work to Pete Souza's 1,660 of virtually unedited, unsorted frames just thrown on a web page.

This is the OFFICIAL White House stream. It's not "some guys" photo stream. And the photographs I mentioned were from Souza's personal webpage, not the White House photostream. I would hold any of Guangs work against Souza's in a heartbeat.

Not who is a better professional photographer. John specifically commented towards a statement placing Pete Souza as a amateur.

I don't see anyone who did that. He brought up the guy as a counter-point to the suggestion that a photo journalist couldn't make art. I suggested that the fellows White House photostream and hell even his hand picked shots on his page, are probably not the best examples of a photo journalist able to make art. The photostream itself is one event snapshot after another. They aren't "bad" photos, but they sure as hell aren't marvels of photographic synergy either.

 

[Plato]

Y'all gotta see the shot my professional camera just took. Unfortunatly I cant post it here, cause Im an amateur.

If I had the resources of a NASCAR driver, I bet I can compete with the best of them. Just how hard is it to drive in circles?

But you're in New Jersey. You have no experience making left turns!

 

[John Thawley]

Well, obviously the short sightedness being expressed here is not limited to photography.

A Flickr "stream" is NOT a portfolio... it is a stream. And, let's be a little more realistic... the White House stream is probably the only true stream on Flickr. And by that I mean, the guy is shooting virtually non-stop 24x7 one single subject. LOL

So, I think that is a bit unfair to expect portfolio pieces with each click of your mouse. I shot 50,000 70,000 images per year. Basically 5000 per event. Of that 5000, approximately 600 are marked for archived inventory. Approximately 200 are displayed available for managed rights. About 20-25 really float my boat and maybe 1 or 2 will make it to my year end portfolio.

Certainly I could put up a 600 image stream per each event.. though I fear it would be a bit monotonous.

I don't think my numbers vary that much from any of my contemporaries.

FWIW, http://www.petesouza.com/gallery.html?gallery=The Rise of Barack Obama - and I'm quite sure he's not in fear of losing his job or any book sales for that matter.

The man is an outstanding photographer.

 

[ANDS!]

I'm quite sure he's not in fear of losing his job or any book sales for that matter.

Indeed. Never underestimate the publics tolerance for the mediocre elevated to the "grand" by way of mass repetition.

 

[John Thawley]

Indeed. Never underestimate the publics tolerance for the mediocre elevated to the "grand" by way of mass repetition.

Well... I'll grant you that. Hence the reason for the success of digital dumps like Flickr full of Photoshopped salvaged misses and worse.. HDR.

 

[ANDS!]

Well now you're just being reactionary and silly. I am consistently amazed at the wonders that non-pro, pure hobbyists are creating, and uploading to Flickr on a daily basis.

No one said Souza isn't a "pro", or that he knows how to use a camera. Simply that his work inspires not the least bit of awe or wonder from me. Even if he submitted the best 100 of these shots, I still wouldn't be bowled over because they are quite tame and about what one would expect from someone competent with a camera. As someone (I think) was trying to say earlier, you expect some emotion to be evoked by a photo - all I see here are quite satisfactory shots documenting and recording the actions of one Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[John Thawley]

Well now you're just being reactionary and silly. I am consistently amazed at the wonders that non-pro, pure hobbyists are creating, and uploading to Flickr on a daily basis.

No one said Souza isn't a "pro", or that he knows how to use a camera. Simply that his work inspires not the least bit of awe or wonder from me. Even if he submitted the best 100 of these shots, I still wouldn't be bowled over because they are quite tame and about what one would expect from someone competent with a camera. As someone (I think) was trying to say earlier, you expect some emotion to be evoked by a photo - all I see here are quite satisfactory shots documenting and recording the actions of one Barack Hussein Obama.

OK... half full of Photoshop salvaged misses and worse... HDR.

What truly is silly is your inability to distinguish the difference between the White House Flickr stream and Mr. Souza's portfolio. In all of this discussion it appears you've never looked at his portfolio as you are intent on supporting your argument via the White House Flickr stream.

The Flickr stream is the equivalent of a blog. Would you also hold up your favorite author's blog as a representation of his/her books? Would Dan Brown's blog be an example of what we read in Da Vinci Code?

Either way, this conversation has become ludicrous. My original comments were to another post. And I stand by them. You parachuted in somewhat out of context... and frankly, you're assessments are neither informed or accurate.

I simply cited Pete Souza as an example contradicting the original poster's comments. Certainly Souza's name would not appear on my top 10 list of favorite photographers. None-the-less, the man is very good at what he does.

So, since you are so deeply entrenched in your Flickr based point of view, I will leave you to be "consistently amazed at the wonders that non-pro, pure hobbyists are creating, and uploading to Flickr on a daily basis." I too am amazed... albeit for different reasons.

Thanks for the spirit discussion.