I have noticed something. Have you?

[astroskeptic]

There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.

I would be willing to bet that a reasonably intelligent, motivated person with integrity could develop into a high quality pro using nothing more than the web as a resource; the fact that this may be a departure from tradition is irrelevant IMO.

I think much of the dialog around here assumes pseudo-pros without integrity but let's not forget that many people do have high levels of integrity and IMO there is exactly zero problem with a person selling a service, regardless of its quality, as long as they do not misrepresent themselves.

The problem you are all discussing, that of low-quality services flooding the market is something that, by assumption, a free market will take care of. It is certainly not unique to the photo industry. Digital cameras simply lowered entry barriers to the point where anyone can get into the game. Yes, the service supply side has gone way up and demand presumably hasn't changed so the inevitable result according to economic theory is price reduction. But the good news for you pros is that supply has only dramatically increased at the low-quality end of the service spectrum so hopefully if you're not competing in that end of the market, you're still in good shape.

 

[israel09]

I don't think how you learned Photography should affect your merit as a Photographer.

Web,Books,Class,Self or Whatever. It will never teach you to see art, art is defined by ones soul or mind, each is different.

All a class will teach you is how to use a camera and what the functions mean. Maybe some basic rules of composition.

Actually using a camera on your own time and putting passion into to it can far surpass Class and text.

Someone who just wants to become good at photography so they can look cool among others will have a harder time than someone who actually has a passion and loves it.

You can know what every function on a camera does but you can still be a crap photographer...... but if you have knowledge AND talent it may give you an advantage

BUT! if you are a passionate photographer, you can easily figure out what every setting does, it's COMMON SENSE and words. not Quadratic Equations!!!! The Simplicity of art has a difficulty that is immeasurable when compared to trivial camera functions and small rules of photography.

You cant buy talent. You can only Practice it.

 

[Derrel]

There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.

I would be willing to bet that a reasonably intelligent, motivated person with integrity could develop into a high quality pro using nothing more than the web as a resource; the fact that this may be a departure from tradition is irrelevant IMO.

I think much of the dialog around here assumes pseudo-pros without integrity but let's not forget that many people do have high levels of integrity and IMO there is exactly zero problem with a person selling a service, regardless of its quality, as long as they do not misrepresent themselves.

The problem you are all discussing, that of low-quality services flooding the market is something that, by assumption, a free market will take care of. It is certainly not unique to the photo industry. Digital cameras simply lowered entry barriers to the point where anyone can get into the game. Yes, the service supply side has gone way up and demand presumably hasn't changed so the inevitable result according to economic theory is price reduction. But the good news for you pros is that supply has only dramatically increased at the low-quality end of the service spectrum so hopefully if you're not competing in that end of the market, you're still in good shape.

I want to go to a doctor who learned medicine all on his own, with no classes, no books, no mentors--just from the web.

I want to board a jet aircraft that is maintained by self-taught mechanics who learned all about aircraft mechanics from the web. No stuffy schools or mentors or certificates of accomplishment, just web-educated.

I want to hire a dentist who never went to dental school, never had a professor, never had an associate, but is a sole practitioner who learned entirely from YouTube videos.

I want the United State military (Army,Navy,Air Force,Marines, Coast Guard) to fire all the officers who attended the military academies,and who have studied warfare and battle tactics and strategies, and to replace them all with self-taught "leaders" who have learned from YouTube and back issues of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

I think we should all look toward hiring 20-something year-old carpenters with six months to two years' experience to build our dream house. Forget those old dudes who learned the business first-hand from actual master carpenters...a year's worth of YouTube videos is a far,far better education than learning from multiple masters and apprenticing to learn how the business is supposed to be done.

Yeah, "how" and "from whom" one learns has absolutely, positively NO BEARING on how qualified and well-taught a person is. Right.

 

[dannystoria]

I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)

Now what I have noticed is that anyone with an SLR now thinks they can shoot professionally within a few months of owning a camera. I would be glad to shoot you for free, but wouldn't think of accepting money at this point in my experience. Just yesterday a friends sister asked me if I would shoot her engagement and bridal portraits. I told her, "I would be glad to do them for free and if she likes them, then she could keep them. If not, then get a professional to shoot them. I just like the practice."

Do people jumping in quickly not ruin the reputation of professional photographers? I just wanted your thoughts. This spawned from a friend of mine who does photography with about the same experience as I have, and charges people for the shoots.

I guess my question is to you all is. What defines a professional, or can art be defined? How off track am I in thinking this?

Cheers,

Your post contains several questions that have been beaten to death over the past two years or so. But yes, yes, and yes. Oh, no,wait, I mean, yes, hard to define, and it can be defined, and your observations have been noted. The current craze of MWAC and GWC photography has brought the standards of "professional" photography down to incredibly low levels, probably as low as they have ever been. We now have one- and two-year "professionals", who are entirely self-taught, having taken no classes, had no mentors, and read basically no books, starting up photography businesses.

Today, the web is FILLED with absolutely horrible MWAC and GWC shooters who cannot even handle something as simple as white balance, have no idea when to turn the camera vertical (if they ever do!), have no idea about composition or lighting or anything except how to run Photoshop actions. Entirely self-taught. Think about that. There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.

The Judge Joe Brown wedding photographer episode was a laugh riot.

You should see the listings in the local Craigslist for photogs. Hell, just the other night I was out shooting and was talking to a guy with a new D3s, he was shooting on auto! As a matter of fact, I was watching a parade recently and noticed that all of the DSLRs around me were in auto. These are the same people advertising on CL as event and portrait photogs. (just for fun I will sometime check the exif on these "pro" photogs images) I think the sour economy hasn't helped as people see the camera as a quick way to make some extra money. Entry level DSLRs have replaced Amway and Mary Kay as ways for uneducated jobless individuals to try and "make it" or just make ends meet. The fact that most people know nothing about photography and are so awash in snapshots that they use them as a meter doesn't help matters as it encourages poor photography.

I think its a mix of dSLRs being so cheap (compared to the film days) but also the fact that the majority of people now use various social media sites to display their images (myspace, facebook,...). These places compress the crap out of images and they will look like crap, no matter who takes them. Not many people print and mount.

So with the expectation bar set so low in terms of quality, add to that the influx of people with cameras..you get a very oversaturated market at the low end.

There is a similar effect in music that is termed the "MP3 effect", people have become so adjusted to listening to poor quality renditions of their favorite music that they begin to prefer it to higher fidelity alternatives.

I am an amateur photographer. I admit I don't know a lot about photography. And I'm probably one of those people that you would get mad at for using auto all the time. I am willing to learn and to get better but the problem I have run into is people not being helpful. I have tried to learn how to do different things and to get critique but all I get is criticism. That helps nobody grow. I was hoping to learn a few things from this forum on how to develop my skills but the more I look at the posts the more discouraged I feel. I wanted to post some pictures for you guys to critique but I'm afraid all I will get is what's good and what's not good. Not how to fix things or make it better. I think it's a shame because I am very passionate about photography and I want to share but I am afraid of being picked apart. I am all for CONSTRUCTIVE critique but not for being dogged for producing something someone might not like. Some people aren't yet pros at this and I think it would be good for people to keep that in mind.

 

[israel09]

Although I see your point Derrel. my post was just to state that not having a education about the subject doesn't automatically make you crap at photography.

but imo the examples you gave were a little extreme when compared to photography as an ART. Though some of the skills you listed are technically an art in there own sense. But they completely in a different spectrum than photography. though your point is. respected and taken

but someone really wants to learn and has passion will pick up a book and read it , they will find photographs and accomplished photographers that inspire them.

 

[Whootsinator]

There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.

I would be willing to bet that a reasonably intelligent, motivated person with integrity could develop into a high quality pro using nothing more than the web as a resource; the fact that this may be a departure from tradition is irrelevant IMO.

I think much of the dialog around here assumes pseudo-pros without integrity but let's not forget that many people do have high levels of integrity and IMO there is exactly zero problem with a person selling a service, regardless of its quality, as long as they do not misrepresent themselves.

The problem you are all discussing, that of low-quality services flooding the market is something that, by assumption, a free market will take care of. It is certainly not unique to the photo industry. Digital cameras simply lowered entry barriers to the point where anyone can get into the game. Yes, the service supply side has gone way up and demand presumably hasn't changed so the inevitable result according to economic theory is price reduction. But the good news for you pros is that supply has only dramatically increased at the low-quality end of the service spectrum so hopefully if you're not competing in that end of the market, you're still in good shape.

I want to go to a doctor who learned medicine all on his own, with no classes, no books, no mentors--just from the web.

I want to board a jet aircraft that is maintained by self-taught mechanics who learned all about aircraft mechanics from the web. No stuffy schools or mentors or certificates of accomplishment, just web-educated.

I want to hire a dentist who never went to dental school, never had a professor, never had an associate, but is a sole practitioner who learned entirely from YouTube videos.

I want the United State military (Army,Navy,Air Force,Marines, Coast Guard) to fire all the officers who attended the military academies,and who have studied warfare and battle tactics and strategies, and to replace them all with self-taught "leaders" who have learned from YouTube and back issues of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

I think we should all look toward hiring 20-something year-old carpenters with six months to two years' experience to build our dream house. Forget those old dudes who learned the business first-hand from actual master carpenters...a year's worth of YouTube videos is a far,far better education than learning from multiple masters and apprenticing to learn how the business is supposed to be done.

Yeah, "how" and "from whom" one learns has absolutely, positively NO BEARING on how qualified and well-taught a person is. Right.

You, Sir, are just plain silly. I can't put it any other way. I don't even have the time or motivation to argue in depth with a post like yours. Ignoring governmental regulations, photography doesn't exactly decide whether someone lives or dies.

 

[tnvol]

Your post contains several questions that have been beaten to death over the past two years or so. But yes, yes, and yes. Oh, no,wait, I mean, yes, hard to define, and it can be defined, and your observations have been noted. The current craze of MWAC and GWC photography has brought the standards of "professional" photography down to incredibly low levels, probably as low as they have ever been. We now have one- and two-year "professionals", who are entirely self-taught, having taken no classes, had no mentors, and read basically no books, starting up photography businesses.

Today, the web is FILLED with absolutely horrible MWAC and GWC shooters who cannot even handle something as simple as white balance, have no idea when to turn the camera vertical (if they ever do!), have no idea about composition or lighting or anything except how to run Photoshop actions. Entirely self-taught. Think about that. There are millions of people who call themselves photographers, and they are for the most part entirely self-taught. No teachers. No mentor(s). No associates. No courses of study. No books, just the web. And many of these people are shooting "professionally" these days, meaning they accept money from people who will pay for their products. That's kind of what has happened lately. That is absolutely,positively NOT the way professional photography has been conducted and entered as a profession for the prior 150 years.

The Judge Joe Brown wedding photographer episode was a laugh riot.

You should see the listings in the local Craigslist for photogs. Hell, just the other night I was out shooting and was talking to a guy with a new D3s, he was shooting on auto! As a matter of fact, I was watching a parade recently and noticed that all of the DSLRs around me were in auto. These are the same people advertising on CL as event and portrait photogs. (just for fun I will sometime check the exif on these "pro" photogs images) I think the sour economy hasn't helped as people see the camera as a quick way to make some extra money. Entry level DSLRs have replaced Amway and Mary Kay as ways for uneducated jobless individuals to try and "make it" or just make ends meet. The fact that most people know nothing about photography and are so awash in snapshots that they use them as a meter doesn't help matters as it encourages poor photography.

I think its a mix of dSLRs being so cheap (compared to the film days) but also the fact that the majority of people now use various social media sites to display their images (myspace, facebook,...). These places compress the crap out of images and they will look like crap, no matter who takes them. Not many people print and mount.

So with the expectation bar set so low in terms of quality, add to that the influx of people with cameras..you get a very oversaturated market at the low end.

There is a similar effect in music that is termed the "MP3 effect", people have become so adjusted to listening to poor quality renditions of their favorite music that they begin to prefer it to higher fidelity alternatives.

I am an amateur photographer. I admit I don't know a lot about photography. And I'm probably one of those people that you would get mad at for using auto all the time. I am willing to learn and to get better but the problem I have run into is people not being helpful. I have tried to learn how to do different things and to get critique but all I get is criticism. That helps nobody grow. I was hoping to learn a few things from this forum on how to develop my skills but the more I look at the posts the more discouraged I feel. I wanted to post some pictures for you guys to critique but I'm afraid all I will get is what's good and what's not good. Not how to fix things or make it better. I think it's a shame because I am very passionate about photography and I want to share but I am afraid of being picked apart. I am all for CONSTRUCTIVE critique but not for being dogged for producing something someone might not like. Some people aren't yet pros at this and I think it would be good for people to keep that in mind.

I agree. It sucks that people can't be nicer when providing feedback on pictures. Reading things like "This hurts my eyes" and how this is "dreadful" and that is "horrid" is kinda lame. Not very constructive at all. If looking at a poorly composed picture hurts your eyes, maybe you need to find a different hobby. The internet let's anyone be a prick. Sadly enough, some are allowed to be pricks because they can take good pictures. It's the nature of message boards.

 

[white]

I agree. It sucks that people can't be nicer when providing feedback on pictures. Reading things like "This hurts my eyes" and how this is "dreadful" and that is "horrid" is kinda lame. Not very constructive at all. If looking at a poorly composed picture hurts your eyes, maybe you need to find a different hobby. The internet let's anyone be a prick. Sadly enough, some are allowed to be pricks because they can take good pictures. It's the nature of message boards.

All feed back is useful, even one word comments. Some people don't feel like writing a thesis, and we sure as hell don't get paid per word.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Well, while I see where you're coming from Derrel, I think that israel09 raises the important point that photography differs very much from some of the examples you provide.

Doctors and military strategists must rely upon a thousand-year-old legacy of information just to educate themselves to the level of today's playing field. Photography requires comparatively very little background knowledge. Granted, entire shelves of books can be filled with worthwhile information on photography... but entire libraries could potentially be filled with all of the knowledge that humans have amassed on the topic of warfare and medicine. That's no small consideration.

If anything, the field of visual art is one of the few remaining fields in this specialized world where autodidacts can still excel and impress the world... seemingly emerging from the shadows... previously unheard of... with no formal education to be found in the records. Some the finest nature photographers of the past decades never completed their freshman year of college. If they did get a degree, it oftentimes didn't even relate to photography... psychology, business, etc. Note that outdoor/nature photography is my interest, which is why I refer to it in particular.

But let's even think of "people" photography. I've looked at whole lot of historic portrait photography. I've sifted through hundreds of portraits in my father's genealogy collection... taken from many parts of the world during all eras of the camera's evolution. Some are well-done... others scream," I was taken by the only guy in town that knew how to use a camera in a half-way decent fashion."

Let me just say this: contrary to what some would like to believe, there has been no era of history since the development of photography when so-so photographers weren't making damn good money here and there.

But, interestingly, people somehow seem to recall "back in the day" as this very idealized time when things were "as they should be". Well... it was never really like that.

Even in 2,000 year old Taoist texts, there is speak of the dire situation that characterized the ways of the modern world. How terrible things were becoming... how backwards things were... how degraded and without honor and respect and learning people had become...! Surely, they thought, the world would soon come to an end. Every successive generation, for dozens upon dozens of generations, has said the exact same thing in different words. Yet, here we are. Things go on... And the generation that was harshly criticized by its predecessors becomes the new "good old day" for the proceeding generation... and so on and so on.

Sure... there are tons of crappy photographers out there. Sure... because of wide-spread access to the Internet, we see their work unendingly. Sure... some are able to swindle buyers into sub-standard products.

But what else is new? That's just business as usual folks... for the last couple thousand years. To say that the over-abundance of affordable D-SLRs will over-turn professional photography is simply an over-reaction to change. It reveals a latent insecurity on the part of professionals, really... either in themselves and their own ability to compete, or in the intelligence of their customer.

Either way, H. G. Wells said it best: "Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative." Change is the nature of the beast...

 

[LiveStrong2009]

I guess I don't feel that people actually are considering themselves professional, they just wish to. I think many realize that they are still amateur, however many have slightly more advanced skill and knowledge than the idiots who just point and shoot, without taking a second to consider composition etc...

Some of us like to try to advance our skills, but do not come close to calling ourselves professional. It is almost a disappointment looking at professionals' photos because they have soooo many. I look through my 3,000 photos from when my interest was sparked, and I can pull out ohhh 30 that are pretty good, 2 or 3 that I am really really proud of.

 

[Neil S.]

I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)

Now what I have noticed is that anyone with an SLR now thinks they can shoot professionally within a few months of owning a camera. I would be glad to shoot you for free, but wouldn't think of accepting money at this point in my experience. Just yesterday a friends sister asked me if I would shoot her engagement and bridal portraits. I told her, "I would be glad to do them for free and if she likes them, then she could keep them. If not, then get a professional to shoot them. I just like the practice."

Do people jumping in quickly not ruin the reputation of professional photographers? I just wanted your thoughts. This spawned from a friend of mine who does photography with about the same experience as I have, and charges people for the shoots.

I guess my question is to you all is. What defines a professional, or can art be defined? How off track am I in thinking this?

Cheers,

You will never have any credibility in what you say if you exaggerate this much.

Obviously not everyone that owns a DSLR is trying to be a pro, this is simply absurd.

I will agree that a lot of people try to be a pro when they aren’t ready. The good photographers will still be the good photographers though, and the earth will continue to turn.

Just a few days ago my friend asked me to screen 3 photographers for an event he needs shot. It was two guys and a woman, and they all had websites with galleries.

I looked at all three, and the woman's work was simply terrible compared to the other two. Poor lighting, poor composition, WB way off, etc.

Guess what she didn’t get the job, based on my recommendation.

I recommend you stop worrying so much about this.

 

[Sharfy]

I am an amateur photographer. I admit I don't know a lot about photography. And I'm probably one of those people that you would get mad at for using auto all the time. I am willing to learn and to get better but the problem I have run into is people not being helpful. I have tried to learn how to do different things and to get critique but all I get is criticism. That helps nobody grow. I was hoping to learn a few things from this forum on how to develop my skills but the more I look at the posts the more discouraged I feel. I wanted to post some pictures for you guys to critique but I'm afraid all I will get is what's good and what's not good. Not how to fix things or make it better. I think it's a shame because I am very passionate about photography and I want to share but I am afraid of being picked apart. I am all for CONSTRUCTIVE critique but not for being dogged for producing something someone might not like. Some people aren't yet pros at this and I think it would be good for people to keep that in mind.

Totally agree! we amateurs need a constructive criticism. If we are posting something that means we need ideas on how can we make our work better. So sad those comments which are disgraceful and not good came from amateurs also and some pro's who have superiority attitude (not all). There is always an improvement in us who are passionate and dedicated amateurs in photography. For me I will only get those good advices and filter those bad comments in evaluating my work. Don't let someone push you to limitations but say I CAN DO BETTER and I CAN IMPROVE what I love most

 

[Neil S.]

I want to go to a doctor who learned medicine all on his own, with no classes, no books, no mentors--just from the web.

I want to board a jet aircraft that is maintained by self-taught mechanics who learned all about aircraft mechanics from the web. No stuffy schools or mentors or certificates of accomplishment, just web-educated.

I want to hire a dentist who never went to dental school, never had a professor, never had an associate, but is a sole practitioner who learned entirely from YouTube videos.

I want the United State military (Army,Navy,Air Force,Marines, Coast Guard) to fire all the officers who attended the military academies,and who have studied warfare and battle tactics and strategies, and to replace them all with self-taught "leaders" who have learned from YouTube and back issues of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

I think we should all look toward hiring 20-something year-old carpenters with six months to two years' experience to build our dream house. Forget those old dudes who learned the business first-hand from actual master carpenters...a year's worth of YouTube videos is a far,far better education than learning from multiple masters and apprenticing to learn how the business is supposed to be done.

Yeah, "how" and "from whom" one learns has absolutely, positively NO BEARING on how qualified and well-taught a person is. Right.

Derrel...

I think if you read your post again verry carefully you will see that these things are nothing like being a pro photographer.

These are jobs where peoples lives depend on them doing things correctly.

Edit:

Also most of these jobs are not something that people do for a hobby...

 

[MissCream]

I have only been into photography for a short time. Mostly landscapes for about a year. Here recently in the last couple of months I have been shooting portraits. So this just gives you an idea of my experience. (Not Much and not a claim to be professional)

Now what I have noticed is that anyone with an SLR now thinks they can shoot professionally within a few months of owning a camera. I would be glad to shoot you for free, but wouldn't think of accepting money at this point in my experience. Just yesterday a friends sister asked me if I would shoot her engagement and bridal portraits. I told her, "I would be glad to do them for free and if she likes them, then she could keep them. If not, then get a professional to shoot them. I just like the practice."

Do people jumping in quickly not ruin the reputation of professional photographers? I just wanted your thoughts. This spawned from a friend of mine who does photography with about the same experience as I have, and charges people for the shoots.

I guess my question is to you all is. What defines a professional, or can art be defined? How off track am I in thinking this?

Cheers,

You will never have any credibility in what you say if you exaggerate this much.

Obviously not everyone that owns a DSLR is trying to be a pro, this is simply absurd.

I will agree that a lot of people try to be a pro when they aren’t ready. The good photographers will still be the good photographers though, and the earth will continue to turn.

Just a few days ago my friend asked me to screen 3 photographers for an event he needs shot. It was two guys and a woman, and they all had websites with galleries.

I looked at all three, and the woman's work was simply terrible compared to the other two. Poor lighting, poor composition, WB way off, etc.

Guess what she didn’t get the job, based on my recommendation.

I recommend you stop worrying so much about this.

He said ANYONE, not EVERYONE.

 

[Neil S.]

He said ANYONE, not EVERYONE.

From Dictionary.com
an·y·one
Any person at all; anybody: Did anyone see the accident?

—Usage note
Anyone as a pronoun meaning “anybody” or “any person at all” is written as one word: Does anyone have the correct time? The two-word phrase any one means “any single member of a group of persons or things” and is often followed by of: Can any one of the members type? Any one of these books is exciting reading. Anyone is somewhat more formal than anybody

You are failing to comprehend the context of the word usage.

He meant "anybody", which means "any person".

Nice try though.

I am an English Major by the way...