Having a Camera and a Website

Having a camera and a website does NOT make you a professional photographer. Being PROFESSIONAL makes you a professional photographer.

And that means...knowing how to put your big panties on, and run a business. Not just taking some "snaps" that in your opinion are killer insane. It's not about putting up a "myspace" or even a real to God website of your favorite photos of bands, sunset, flowers, and your besties besties.

Why do I keep going on about this? Am I worried about you? Crazy Jealous? You judge that for yourself. Should I be crazy insane jeaolus?

Or maybe MAYBE I just don't want to see you guys go down the tubes in more way than a million. I could tell you allllllll the many ways your posting your bravado on the interent is going to put you in hock for infinity.

I could for instance, tell you how going into business before you are ready will hurt not only but your clients and open you up to lawsuits.

I could futher state, how when your competitors see you fail, they will take it to eveywhere the internet goes.

Don't. Be. Stupid.

Do it right. All of it. Make the photographic community proud. You need that community to do well. Be respected.

I know two things in life.

If you take shortcuts you will fail. Withou doubt.

If you do things the way they should be done, you at least have a chance.

I read your post a couple of days ago and at first was pretty put off by it. I have followed the thread over the last couple of days and am now curious what pitfalls you are referring to. Are you thinking of "professional" photographers who shoot weddings, events, and such, or simply anyone with a website and a camera.

I ask because we fall into the second category. We have website and cameras but we are definetely not professionals. We just have had a little success in seeling our work. The only reason we would call it a business is that the State requires it for the collection of sales taxes and the feds require it for filing income taxes, as does the state on that one too. We also have very little money invested into it as we are not pros.

We also don't shoot people or anything for pay. Its not where our skill set allows us to be at this point. Maybe someday but not now. I ask mainly because at first your post seemed like a harsh critique of anyone in our shoes. Now it seems like more of an advice from someone with experience and I am curious what advice you would offer folks like us? Other than take better photos:lol:
 
Because it is quite capable... that's the only argument I'm making. I also said it wasn't necessarily the best choice, but it can deliver - you're saying it cannot, that's the difference between our arguments.

I don't need geotagging for photography, I already stated that - it's just something I enjoy, and if there's a way to make it easier, I'm all for it. :)

I do enjoy the 51 focal points when attempting birds in flight or trying to keep up with my kids running around, there ARE benefits to more expensive bodies - but I've already stated that as well.

Capable vs Mandatory = 2 different things.

You're saying the D40 simply cannot be a professional camera, I'm saying yes it can.



Truth be told any camera can get good results in anybodies hands.. OK you win that one... My point is that the D40 simply is not the camera to shoot anything "professional" with. I moved up to the D300 because I needed better High ISO capabilities... The D40 sucks above 400... I know this because I had one. I moved to the D80....Sucked at 800.... Te d300 Awesome at 1600.. It was what I could afford right now...Yes there are better cameras out there( INTEMPUS INPUT HERE)

My point is this. Even when I had a D80..I had offers for jobs. During a couple of the sit downs to talk about the jobs the asked what Equipment I used.. After learning had a D80 they told me my Equipment was not "PRO" grade. They knew nothing about photography but knew that my equipment was not what they were looking for. As I stated... YES ANY camera can look good in a studio with expensive lights and good gear, but I would love to see you shoot a D40 in a darker church during a wedding where they would like you NOT to use a flash. It is not going to happen. most sports event do not allow flashes and ost anything professional (besides portraits and simple freelance work) will almost always ban the use of flashes. A friend of mine shoots OU football for a local mag and he has to use ISO 800+ on his 1d MII (I think) to get good shots... The D40 would look like crap. The d40 will only provide pro results in one setting where every camera in the world could provide the same results.... STUDIO PORTRAIT WORK. Thats it!
 
Alright, whatever man... We disagree.

I had already mentioned the no flash wedding being one limitation.

Landscapes, sports (not necessarily all sports/conditions), wildlife, street, portraiture, senior photos, studio work, weddings (not necessarily all weddings/conditions), strobist work, automotive, product photography, food photography, real estate photography, macro photography...
 
Last edited:
I say you both just buy canons and shut up!:smileys:
Canon power!lol
 
We might not agree on everything, but we're not stupid!

LOL I like my Nikon too. My biggest selling point is that I can use just about Any Nikon Lens out there. Canon I think kinda hurt themselves by changing the mounting type.
AS far as the D40 eh... Whatever.... To each there own..We may not agree but I know we can both agree that the D300 line is a sweet camera. :)

CHEERS
 
Canon I think kinda hurt themselves by changing the mounting type.
That was 23 years ago...we are over it. :er:

You could also say that Nikon hurt themselves by not putting AF motors in their entry level cameras (D40, D60 etc)....which is the result of not switching their mount back when they introduced AF into the mix. ;)
 
Canon I think kinda hurt themselves by changing the mounting type.
That was 23 years ago...we are over it. :er:

You could also say that Nikon hurt themselves by not putting AF motors in their entry level cameras (D40, D60 etc)....which is the result of not switching their mount back when they introduced AF into the mix. ;)

I agree totally. They did.
 
Having the right kit for the job is very important.... but maybe we should not totally discount users of cameras such as the "Canon d40" as being "not worthy" to enter the professional arena. With a good selection of lenses, there is no reason why someone with a professional attitude and a highly artistic eye cannot produce imagery that paying clients will push over each other to book for good money.

The Progression of Jasmine Star, who has become a bit of a rock star in wedding photography circles, shot her whole first year of weddings in 2006 with a D20... I guess sometimes its not "what you've got", but "what you do with it" that counts.
 
Having the right kit for the job is very important.... but maybe we should not totally discount users of cameras such as the "Canon d40" as being "not worthy" to enter the professional arena. With a good selection of lenses, there is no reason why someone with a professional attitude and a highly artistic eye cannot produce imagery that paying clients will push over each other to book for good money.

The Progression of Jasmine Star, who has become a bit of a rock star in wedding photography circles, shot her whole first year of weddings in 2006 with a D20... I guess sometimes its not "what you've got", but "what you do with it" that counts.

LOL:thumbdown::chatty: whatever.... Canon d40...... LOL...

Canon 40D vs Nikon D40.... HUGE difference buddy.
 
LOL! No Comment. I am a public figure. I am fair game too. LOL
 
Last edited:
You guys do realize that Ken Rockwell is exactly that, just a guy with a camera and a website.:lmao:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top