Everyone thinks they can be a pro! (RANT)

[Lyncca]

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation.

 

[LaFoto]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[McQueen278]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chiller]

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

 

[JerryPH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[abraxas]

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

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

...

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

...

Good links.

 

[abraxas]

And this is a real eye opener;

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

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

And this is a real eye opener;

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

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

 

[abraxas]

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

I had my suspicions. Good luck.

 

[ksmattfish]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[benhasajeep]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[McQueen278]

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

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

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

 

[benhasajeep]

.

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

I agree that I do not know everything.

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

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

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

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

 

[JerryPH]

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

Hey mods, care to look into this for us?

 

[Chiller]

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

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