Moms With A Camera, or MWAC

Status
Not open for further replies.
...and I don't know how to change that. Part of the problem is that the cameras *do* produce a great picture with no fiddling most of the time. It's a growing problem that pros will have to combat.


I'll make my point again here that your average American consumer equates "digital" with "easy to use."
 
It almost sounds elitist.

Because it is! :) Elitism is a very important aspect of the art world. It keeps people in their place, and eliminates competition. I mean what would happen if someone came out with a photographic product that reduced the need for expensive gear, time consuming inconvenient processes, and superior skills at twisting knobs and pushing buttons? What if someone made photography so easy to do that all it really required was imagination, an empathetic and insightful mind, and the interest and desire to be creative? (which unless actively supressed appears to be an innate component in all human beings) Oh wait! Kodak did introduce such a product about 120 years ago; it's called roll film. :lol:

Kodak said:
You press the button. We do the rest.

Sarcasm aside, it seems to me that photographers usually do their best work when working with subjects that inspire them. Moms (and dads) with cameras have always been the leaders in childrens' portrait photography. All the information needed to begin practicing and honing photography skills, and creating technically perfect photographs can be purchased for less than $30 at amazon.com. The passion and inspiration that lead to great photographs is not as easily attainable.

Alfred Stieglitz in 1899 said:
Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent.
 
I'll make my point again here that your average American consumer equates "digital" with "easy to use."

I would expand this to the average world consumer.

... and since it is not at all easy to use, so many ... lets call them carefully "not-very-outstanding images" are produced. And those who take those images are often not aware of it.

I know many of my images are very mediocre, OK, I took them, but at least I know they are not high quality.
 
Why? I don't understand the hostility/disgust? It almost sound elitist.:neutral:

My aggravation probably comes from two things:

One, I'm not in this for money. Like most people on this forum, I invest time into learning or studying or just talking about photography with other photographers. I shoot because I love to and one day, when/if I'm good enough, I'd like to make my living doing it. Sure I make money, but when I buy a new camera or lens, my underlying thoughts are "this camera/lens=ability to take pictures the way I'd like," not "camera/lens=income."

The second thing that really bothers me is willful ignorance. I'm ignorant about a lot of things, including a lot of things that have to do with photography. When we're learning, everyone is ignorant. But why waste time learning when that time can be spent making money and talking about your photography business with your friends at the gazebo?

So people who don't know how to wander off the green square on their digital camera and call themselves photographers just because they're being paid for it annoy me, much as my acquaintance who works in the portrait studio at Walmart annoys me when she talks about being a photographer. This might make me elitist, but that's okay, because this:

Other women have engineered portrait parties, where several families get together and the budding photographer snaps portraits of the children at play. If the parents like the results, they tell their friends and playgroups, and the photographer's phone starts ringing.
is AVON, circa 2007.
 
Yeah I see tons of them every day. Certainly there are a few who know what they're doing...somewhere. But I haven't seen any yet who take respectable photos.

Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...

I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?! Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots. Let's get real people!!
 
Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...

I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?! Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots. Let's get real people!!

Maybe Max just hasn't seen you yet, and so you fall into the "some who know what they are doing... somewhere" catagory for him.
 
Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...

I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?! Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots. Let's get real people!!

Did someone sign up for an account just to parody a MWAC?
 
Tone down the testosterone, there, momma.

You're getting a bit worked up over nothing. I don't have any competition. I don't run a business. If you're making money and you know what you're doing, more power to ya. I will say, though, that millions of people and companies around the world pay for some very mediocre photographs every day. You may be a very capable photographer. I don't know, I haven't seen your work. But the fact that you sell some photos here and there doesn't really have all that much to do with how good you are.

I object to anyone without a clue starting up a photography business, whatever gender, because I think it's pretentious.

Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...

I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?! Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots. Let's get real people!!
 
Why? I don't understand the hostility/disgust? It almost sound elitist.:neutral:

It IS elitist... and ignorant.

I have a day job and I do photography on the weekends. I don't understand why full time photographers hate the competition?
 
I have a day job and I do photography on the weekends. I don't understand why full time photographers hate the competition?


I can't speak for the full time photographers who hate competition, because I do photography in my spare time and someone in the portrait business isn't in competition with me. However, I don't understand why some People With A Camera assume that other People With A Camera are annoyed with them due to a perceived "competition"--- oh, wait, yes I do. Attributing annoyance to competition is a boost to a PWAC's ego, while attributing it for the real reasons is not. Or we can play hot potato with the word "elitist" because it serves the same purpose as the word "competition" right now.

Obtaining a camera requires money, but obtaining skill requires time. I don't see how I'm being elitist. Everyone here owns a camera.
 
Attributing annoyance to competition is a boost to a PWAC's ego, while attributing it for the real reasons is not.

I think RMThompson was responding to Garbz' quote:

"But what about race events where a bunch of amateurs go and take photos which are not as good as the pros and then sell them really cheap to the drivers."

In that case, it was, if you will, sour grapes about competition (IMHO).

Correct me if I'm wrong, AD, but your gripe about MWACs seems to be that they are using it to make money and socialize (your quip about AVON), and don't really care about "The Craft", and that annoys you/****es you off, correct?
 
On "competition," all business owners would rather be monopolists... But I don't think that's the issue. Consider this hypothetical:

1. "Pro" spends thousands of dollars and many years learning photography, and opens a business. Pro charges high rates for fantastic pictures.
2. "Amateur" buys a basic camera and a big flash (to look important), sets it to Auto, and starts a business. Amateur charges 50% of what pro does - and the pictures are maybe half as good.
3. Amateur's friends start hiring Amateur because...well, they're Amateur's friends.
4. Pro and Amateur bid for the same job. Amateur gets it because they charge half as much.

Should Pro be upset by that?

Maybe. The consumer can easily quantify Amateur's low rate, but it's hard to quantify quality. (Maybe Pro's stuff is really 1000 times better instead of just twice as good - if so, then "half price" is not really a bargain.) Or the consumer might be mislead into believing that they're getting the same service for half the price - when in fact they're getting half the service for half the price. (You'd like to think that the customer would carefully evaluate the two portfolios and decide...but that may not happen.) Plus, there should be a reward for all the hard work that Pro has put into learning the craft - they shouldn't have to charge half price for full-quality.

But maybe not. Some people, given the choice, would rather get half as much quality for half the price. You could tell me all the features of a Jaguar, and how great it is to drive. But I just want to get to work - I'd rather buy a Honda. I know it's not as good - but it's cheaper. Some people are happy with wedding photos from disposable cameras - they'd rather spend their money on an extravagent honeymoon. Likewise, maybe a couple who hires Amateur to shoot pictures of their kids would have otherwise hired Pro to do it - but they also might not have done it at all, because pictures of some rugrats wouldn't be worth what Pro charges. Amateur just gives them an option between "do it yourself" and "Pro."

So if you think that "MWAC's" are an example of consumers failing to recognize quality and being mislead into buying cheapo junk - then you should be upset. On the other hand, if you think that it's an example of people filling a gap in the market (low-price photography) by offering a decent product at a lower price, then you'd like it. I don't know which is the case, of course - but I think that's how it sorts out.
 
Since we are starting to put people in little boxes.. MWAC and PWAC and OWAC (Otters With A Camera) -- LP with a camera.. :) how about thinking of another stupid accronym to argue about? Would I be considered DrMWAC? (Dr. MOm with a Camera, since I take pictures for money on the weekends?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, AD, but your gripe about MWACs seems to be that they are using it to make money and socialize (your quip about AVON), and don't really care about "The Craft", and that annoys you/****es you off, correct?

MWAC isn't very nice. That's a derogatory term, it's not fair, and it's not very descriptive. There are a lot of talented mom/photographers, and it's not right that someone be taken less seriously because they happen to be a woman with children. My gripe is about anyone with a camera who.. and yeah, you got it right.

Recently, I spoke with a local writer about a local fine art photographer (his friend) who takes two Nikon DSLRs into the field with him. One is set to color and one is set to monochrome mode, "So he doesn't have to spent time switching between the two." I always handle statements like that with grace, but honestly, that sort of thing makes my brain hurt. I hope that making a few bucks never makes me so overconfident that I stop learning.

Edit: Using photography to socialize isn't bad, but remember I'm borderline autistic, so I really wish people on the street wouldn't use photography to socialize with me, or think that because I have a camera, I must be part of the party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top