I have no technical knowledge.. Now give me money please.

[Art of Emotion]

That NYT article was good. It reminds me of this girl from my area. She got a T2i about 6 months ago and is charging I believe $100 creative fee and giving the photo's on a disc with the option to buy prints. She has a good eye, but in general she doesn't have a clue what she is doing. She bought one speed light with a stand and an umbrella and is has a rented space now that will very soon be her "studio". She put a couple photo's that I thought were decent (just decent) on Facebook and I told her why I like one over the other. It wasn't a critique or anything, but she flipped out saying she didn't care for critiquing because I was just trying to intimidate her because I have more experience. I tried to tell her that I was trying to help her out because I have more experience, but she wasn't hearing it.

I have absolutely no worries or insecurities about MWAC, but I think some of them are ridiculous and sometimes I can do noting but sit back and laugh at how they think their new dslr makes them so much of an expert that they have nothing to learn. It is even more amusing when they have that attitude and their photo's are trash.

Edit: I also personally do not consider myself a "professional" because to me it has more of a meaning pertaining to skill. I do make most of my income from photography, though.

That's the hardest part about Facebook is you don't know who's willing to hear 'gentle' constructive criticism. At times you just have to submit to the fact that if she's not willing to hear any sort of criticism she won't really grow. I thrive on constructive criticism whether it's asked for or not. I find that the "That's a nice photo" gets me no where. BUt a "This photo is ok but you could really practice a bit more with x, y , z." sometimes it helps me to think of different approaches. Hopefully she'll come around :/

 

[Art of Emotion]

I'm with you. I don't look down at anyone unless they have a bad attitude as the girl I was talking about did. I have a couple selective color photo's in my body of work. Like 3 or 4, but I agree. I have seen a lot of people do it and try to use it as a gimmick of sort when they first start out. I think it's because they genuinely don't realize how much it is played out.

Well, I look down on you. Because... becauuuuuuse... um... because I have a cat and you don't? (Wait... you don't have a cat do you?)






Sorry. I'm tired. :lmao:

And I look down on you because of .. well just because

 

[Overread35]

I'm with you. I don't look down at anyone unless they have a bad attitude as the girl I was talking about did. I have a couple selective color photo's in my body of work. Like 3 or 4, but I agree. I have seen a lot of people do it and try to use it as a gimmick of sort when they first start out. I think it's because they genuinely don't realize how much it is played out.

Well, I look down on you. Because... becauuuuuuse... um... because I have a cat and you don't? (Wait... you don't have a cat do you?)

Pfft well


sooo
:mrgreen::mrgreen:

 

[David-Wayne]

Wow this post got long quick! I agree with Reckd (sp? its been 3 pgs since i saw his name) As a long time veteran in the industry (yes 3yrs makes me a vet and soon to be collecting Social security) I have to say that while there is a huge influx of moms and old dudes with DSLRs trying to shoot weddings, their work is sub par and will stay that way BC they dont have the drive to survive even one real (wedding) season. When the going gets tough, shooting for 25% of what a real pro would do will make the work start sucking quick and they drop off. In my short 3 yrs i've seen many come and go. Its the handyman VS the pro, and while I'm still not the best, I'm not too worried

 

[pbelarge]

No, but you can often tell the difference between a photog that has a background in art, and one that doesn't.

Artists, yeah...those guys with the hats and beards.....

 

[pbelarge]

It never ceases to amaze me how upset people get at other people for doing what they want to do, whether they do it well or not.

I thought we live America...the land of opportunity.

 

[Overread35]

No, but you can often tell the difference between a photog that has a background in art, and one that doesn't.

Artists, yeah...those guys with the hats and beards.....

OI! Nature photographers are not artists!
Well ok maybe we are (or try to beat least), but we also have hats and beards and are way different from the snooty artists!

It never ceases to amaze me how upset people get at other people for doing what they want to do, whether they do it well or not.

I thought we live America...the land of opportunity.

I don't

 

[pbelarge]

No, but you can often tell the difference between a photog that has a background in art, and one that doesn't.

Artists, yeah...those guys with the hats and beards.....

OI! Nature photographers are not artists!
Well ok maybe we are (or try to beat least), but we also have hats and beards and are way different from the snooty artists!


I am looking at your picture, and it looks like you have both a hat and beard. The ascot gives it away though, you are one of those snooty artists... :mrgreen:

 

[pbelarge]

Hello Emily
I have been busy this fall, and I use this site with guerrilla tactics...swoop in, post and run.

I see you have also been busy.

 

[Overread35]

Artists, yeah...those guys with the hats and beards.....

OI! Nature photographers are not artists!
Well ok maybe we are (or try to beat least), but we also have hats and beards and are way different from the snooty artists!


I am looking at your picture, and it looks like you have both a hat and beard. The ascot gives it away though, you are one of those snooty artists... :mrgreen:

Pfft!!

Is it bad though that I debated putting a pocket watch into that shot - decided against it in the end (was pretty sure it would end put at best licked and at worst chewed and buried!)

 

[Chamelion 6]

Maybe it's beause I'm new here, but I really don't get all these "who has the right to be a photographer" threads. Seriously, I'm at a loss.

Photography is an "end result" kind of activity. It doesn't make a difference if you spent 10 minutes, 10 months or 10 years hoening your craft, all that matters is that end result. Somebody with 10 minutes worth of craft under their belt and a good eye is just as capable of making a great photograph as some one with years of effort and formal training.

The difference is consistancy. It's been that way for as long as I can remember... All the way back to the film days. Doing it once is one thing, doing it day in and day out is another. Buying a camera and shooting a few portraits is one thing, making a living at it is another. How much time you put into it is completely irrelevant. If you can consistantly make your clients happy then you have a market. If not you'll be back at your old day job before too long.... And that's true whether you have a string of alphabets after your name, a certificate, a letter from your 9th grade teacher and a $9000.oo camera or not.

I can honestly say I never gave this a whole lot of thought till I got here. For me this is a hobby, albeit a serious one. I'm not looking to go pro but I'll sell my work to anyone that wants to buy it. For me it's about the art and the expression. I don't care what you label me, but I do care what people think of my work.

I also write. I learned that every mother and their dog wants to be a writer... of those less that 1% want to actually write. It's not about what you're called, it's about what you do.

 

[burgo]

There is a thread going around where quite a number of people have expressed how under-whelmed they are by the photography of Ansel Adams. My point is don't get hung up on what others think of your work. Some one can look at a Van Gogh painting and think it is crap while another person becomes immersed in the wonder of it. That is the nature of art. So be true to yourself and if some people like it then well and good, if not, then who cares.

 

[Chamelion 6]

There is a thread going around where quite a number of people have expressed how under-whelmed they are by the photography of Ansel Adams. My point is don't get hung up on what others think of your work. Some one can look at a Van Gogh painting and think it is crap while another person becomes immersed in the wonder of it. That is the nature of art. So be true to yourself and if some people like it then well and good, if not, then who cares.

I know the thread. I posted a couple of thoughts in it.

And I agree with you in principal, but I think every artist likes to think their work is reaching someone. I don't even mind the "it's crap" opinions if I can figure out the what and why of it. But when I'm shooting, I shoot to please me first. It's got to touch something in me first...

 

[Derrel]

That NYT article was good. It reminds me of this girl from my area. She got a T2i about 6 months ago and is charging I believe $100 creative fee and giving the photo's on a disc with the option to buy prints. She has a good eye, but in general she doesn't have a clue what she is doing. She bought one speed light with a stand and an umbrella and is has a rented space now that will very soon be her "studio". She put a couple photo's that I thought were decent (just decent) on Facebook and I told her why I like one over the other. It wasn't a critique or anything, but she flipped out saying she didn't care for critiquing because I was just trying to intimidate her because I have more experience. I tried to tell her that I was trying to help her out because I have more experience, but she wasn't hearing it.

I have absolutely no worries or insecurities about MWAC, but I think some of them are ridiculous and sometimes I can do noting but sit back and laugh at how they think their new dslr makes them so much of an expert that they have nothing to learn. It is even more amusing when they have that attitude and their photo's are trash.

Edit: I also personally do not consider myself a "professional" because to me it has more of a meaning pertaining to skill. I do make most of my income from photography, though.

Amusing story Blake! Well-told,and insightful. I think you are going to make it as a full-time pro shooter. You seem to have a good way about you.

 

[Boomn4x4]

I guess for me as a photographer I couldn't charge someone if I knew my photos really weren't somewhat on the professional playing level. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Something inside me couldn't condone the quoted line of thinking.

Define "professional playing level"

In my opinion, professional playing level is defined by the customer, not the photographer. A magazine editor is going to have a completly different expectations from a professional than a bride. From a brides persepective, "a professional" is someone who follows them around with a bulky camera all day long and gives them a photo album 2 weeks later. They want to see smiles, their gown blowing in the breeze, people jumping up and down and a shot or two with selective coloring. They will NEVER notice if a shot is under exposed, a horizon isn't level, there is a little bit of noise in the sky, or if the subjects don't follow the rule of thirds.

Understanding all of this is where I feel a lot of photographers fall short. A photographer that charges $10,000 for a wedding shoot may pick up an album from a guy that charged $500 and say, "This is aweful". But the bride will look at both of them and not notice a difference. The only difference is that one person got paid $500 the other got paid nothing.