people charging, when they are awful.

[foned]

the first time i came across this (not that i had assumed it didn't happen, just never thought about it) was after my sisters wedding, about six years ago she hired this old man to shoot photos at her wedding. im not entirely sure what the cost was, but im pretty sure it was over a thousand, i think around 1500. the pictures were quite horrendous, and it just made me sad really, and then mad. skip ahead five or six years and i have this friend online, she is constantly shooting, promoting herself to family and friends on social networking sites, she doesn't charge much considering what she does, but i just find it offensive that she is charging people for her work. i dont know her well, but if i had to guess she doesn't even know what RAW is. don't get me wrong, im not a snob, i feel most of my shots are ok at best, and most of those i feel have a lot to do with luck, but i do know good work when i see it and hers is horrible.

anyway, random rant.

 

[Derrel]

Yup. All it takes today is a d-slr, a couple of 8-gig memory cards, a computer, a copy of Photoshop, and you're a fa-tah-gra-fer,right? Oh, I forgot: a really big, obnoxious watermark plastered on all your images is also a prerequisite in this new age.

I agree with your random rant; never has there a period in photography when the barriers to entry have been so,so low. In the past, the cost of consumables was high enough that only reasonably 'serious candidates' would even try to make a go of it. Today however, the price of a decent d-slr and one really good lens will buy a camera that can easily provide the shooter with the equivalent of $45,000 worth of film, and proofing via computer is 'free' once one has a computer and monitor.

 

[foned]

Yup. All it takes today is a d-slr, a couple of 8-gig memory cards, a computer, a copy of Photoshop, and you're a fa-tah-gra-fer,right? Oh, I forgot: a really big, obnoxious watermark plastered on all your images is also a prerequisite in this new age.

I agree with your random rant; never has there a period in photography when the barriers to entry have been so,so low. In the past, the cost of consumables was high enough that only reasonably 'serious candidates' would even try to make a go of it. Today however, the price of a decent d-slr and one really good lens will buy a camera that can easily provide the shooter with the equivalent of $45,000 worth of film, and proofing via computer is 'free' once one has a computer and monitor.

glad to hear im not alone! i have recently thought of a possible name for these people, which albeit not incredibly clever, and has been done before, and only really works in text, but i label these people fauxtographers.

on one hand i am glad the prices have been lowered, it gave me the chance to have something other than a point and shoot, however it still came at a high cost unfortunately.

 

[musicaleCA]

You get what you pay for. True of all things, but so few people want to admit that to themselves.

 

[foned]

You get what you pay for. True of all things, but so few people want to admit that to themselves.

agree'd, but what about when you pay what a good photographer would charge, and get a crappy photographer? like what happened to my sister, and a few other people i know for their weddings.

 

[musicaleCA]

You get what you pay for. True of all things, but so few people want to admit that to themselves.

agree'd, but what about when you pay what a good photographer would charge, and get a crappy photographer? like what happened to my sister, and a few other people i know for their weddings.

I would blame that on the buyer not being wary enough. Look at the darn portfolio before handing over the monies.

 

[foned]

You get what you pay for. True of all things, but so few people want to admit that to themselves.

agree'd, but what about when you pay what a good photographer would charge, and get a crappy photographer? like what happened to my sister, and a few other people i know for their weddings.

I would blame that on the buyer not being wary enough. Look at the darn portfolio before handing over the monies.

if you've been shooting long enough its possible that you have a nice portfolio and you're still not a qualified wedding photographer.

 

[foned]

besides, it can be the buyers fault, but the person taking advantage is still lame. i dont know why its so hard to get behind the idea that shady people suck. but i suppose im just pointing out the obvious.

 

[musicaleCA]

but i suppose im just pointing out the obvious.

Quite.

 

[Garbz]

Did she complain? If not lucky photographer. The difference between the pro and the craptacular "photographer" is that the pro doesn't get sued. Well in theory anyway.

I don't like it either. I can only hope one day that the bad photographer ends up with a real bridezilla ripping his tongue out.

 

[Overread]

I agree with your random rant; never has there a period in photography when the barriers to entry have been so,so low. In the past, the cost of consumables was high enough that only reasonably 'serious candidates' would even try to make a go of it. Today however, the price of a decent d-slr and one really good lens will buy a camera that can easily provide the shooter with the equivalent of $45,000 worth of film, and proofing via computer is 'free' once one has a computer and monitor.

True, though I think other things have affected the market as well - a big one, I think is the lack of regulation bodies
Honestly I am surprised at this side of things, but the lack of any national recognised bodies which promote good photographic practice without degenerating into expensive memberships for anyone (basically milking off the membership fees) is a major setback for both professional photographers and clients. Its not about always having high prices - since there is always a lower end market in need of photographers as well - but having a body to give an assurance that the photographer you have hired is capable and knows what they are doing. It's also a good defence for the working pro as well
I do understand that there are such groups around - but I get the general feeling that many have fallen into bad practice (focused more on getting members and money in rather than ensuring good practice and skill)

Edit - oh and one more thing that is often overlooked with the new cowboy photographers -- many might setup shop and start work as a sideline, but I am pretty sure that many also totaly fail and fall apart rather quickly as well. Some will never get anything much more than friends/family into their business - they will simply fail to expand because they are not approaching things from neither a sound business practice nor from a good photographic basis. Others are going to come unstuck the nasty way when they charge the wrong person too much for too poor a product - and then the lawyers will come out and sting them.

Also I think its important to note that many of these lower grade photographers are in the lower price and market areas - not everyone can afford a several thousand £$ wedding tog - there is a lower market and these people are going to fill that market area. It's not a defence for bad practice, but it is where many of them end up ( were they to be better they would charge more - or risk the wrath of forum photographers complaining of htem undercutting the market )

 

[craig]

Typical rant. Generally speaking Mom's With Cameras and Guys with Cameras are slightly tarnishing the tough field of photography. Retail buyers and shooters are the ones most affected. Buyer beware and you get what you pay are words few people take to heart these days.

Personally; the retail market does not affect me. I can say to the MWC's and the GWC's go for it. We should keep in mind that everyone starts somewhere. Sure I would like to see stronger work out of these folks. Who is to say that 3 years down the road she is not producing amazing work.

In my 6 years on TPF I have seen some total newb's go from asking inane DOF questions to stellar wedding and portrait work.

Point is to never judge. Observe and help when you can. The transition from hobyist to photographer is never easy. Let's start helping to educate as opposed to posting the same ol' rant.

Love & Bass

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Typical rant. Generally speaking Mom's With Cameras and Guys with Cameras are slightly tarnishing the tough field of photography. Retail buyers and shooters are the ones most affected. Buyer beware and you get what you pay are words few people take to heart these days.

Personally; the retail market does not affect me. I can say to the MWC's and the GWC's go for it. We should keep in mind that everyone starts somewhere. Sure I would like to see stronger work out of these folks. Who is to say that 3 years down the road she is not producing amazing work.

In my 6 years on TPF I have seen some total newb's go from asking inane DOF questions to stellar wedding and portrait work.

Point is to never judge. Observe and help when you can. The transition from hobyist to photographer is never easy. Let's start helping to educate as opposed to posting the same ol' rant.

Love & Bass

Agreed. When I joined on here, and made my first post, if I could see back then, what I was doing now, I wouldn't have believed it.


I have a friend who 5 years ago didn't own a camera, worked at Adidas at a desk, left everything behind, taught himself off of Youtube and experimentation, and now shoots at one of the largest commercial studios here in the NW. (Studio 3)


It's amazing.

 

[manaheim]

Second rant on this today, in fact.

Get over it. Move on.

 

[Derrel]

Gotta' love the thought police who tell people what topics to talk about, and who will dismiss anything that *they* have already talked about in their prior 5,000 posts or so.

Come on newcomers, don't dare to bore the old-timers, who have already heard your thoughts before. Clearly, the only thing worth discussing here is a topic that the old guard hasn't already weighed in on multiple times before.

Obviously...