People who take money but know nothing.

[12sndsgood]

I agree 100% with Lew. And my agreement has nothing do with my age or disposition.

It's a very challenging time for the business of professional photography. DSLR's flood the market, and a signifcant number of new DSLR owners seem to have this illusion that just because they own a DSLR, they are a professional photographer. It's like buying a pair of basketball shoes, and claiming you're a professional basketball player.

The point Lew is making here is that people (noobies especially) should have enough respect for this established profession that they SHOULD NOT take money before they learn. And if they do take money, and then try to learn, Lew wants nothing to do with them.

It's a completely logical point.

I guess I'd still have to disagree. You can buy as many basketball shoes as you want, the NBA is not going to give you a tryout. Same thing applies to me, I own a DSLR but just because I do I can't go into sports illustrated and get a job shooting cover models. That is just not how it works.

Now stop and consider your audience for a moment - you've got a newbie with a camera who's got his head filled with dreams about being a professional photographer someday. Well if you come along and try to convince him he can't, guess what - if you are able to talk him out of it he never had a shot at being a pro in the first place. You have to be one seriously stubborn SOB to make a go of it in photography, someone who's willing to ignore pretty much everything and everyone telling you that you can't do it and just to out and do it anyway.

As for the "logic" of the point, personally I don't find much logic to it at all. If the goal is to change the photography profession then guess what, posting a rant on an internet website will have pretty much zero impact. I don't see a lot of logic to that, to me it's just ranting so you can feel better about the situation. If it has no positive impact and doesn't do anything to fix the problem, merely complaining about what cannot be changed does not seem logical at all to me.

it seems rather simple to me. the guy is saying he will help those that opened a business who have the basics down. have some respect for the field itself and who aren't trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their clients. he won't help those that basically jump into it without any experience to make a quick buck. who take jobs without having the knowledge to do the jobs and want to hop on a forum to get bailed out.

 

[robbins.photo]

As for me if at some point I choose to charge someone to take photo's, honestly it's really none of your concern how much I know or don't know about photography. If the client is happy with my work or unhappy with it, well that would be between me and my client. So unless it's your dime, well then it's really none of your business at all.

Logic check:

As for me if at some point I choose to charge someone to treat their diseases, honestly it's really none of your concern how much I know or don't know about treating diseases. If the client is happy with my work or unhappy with it, well that would be between me and my client. So unless it's your dime, well then it's really none of your business at all.

Industries have standards that make this sort of logic impossible and silly.

Photography is a professional industry, but not everyone treats it as such. Mainly because they don't think they have to.

There are laws that stop someone from practicing medicine without a proper education. There are no laws that stop someone with inadequate knowledge from taking on a wedding a ruining someone's memories forever.

Ok.. I should probably warn you in advance that arguing logic with me is not the best idea you've probably ever come up with, but since you asked for it:

Your argument is a pristine example of a non sequitur. You cannot compare charging for the treatment of a disease to charging for the taking of a photograph. If I screw up and don't get the proper exposure taking a photograph then you will be inconvenienced and possibly disappointed. You will not however suffer any permanent ill effects from this if my services are substandard. Professional licensing for health care providers is something entirely different, in that case there is an actual interest in protecting the public from the ill effects of substandard service.

But just for fun lets apply your logic to another profession. Lets say we should require convenience store employees to obtain a professional license before they are allowed to work the cash register. After all, if they fail to ring me up properly I might be inconvenienced or annoyed - a situation far more equatable to me paying for a photograph that did not meet my expectations. So what happens when we do follow this "logic"? Well since the store now has to pay to have all of it's employees licensed this will require you to pay $150 for a gallon for gas. After all, licensing all of these employees is going to require a tremendous outlay of capital for the store itself and their expenses will naturally go through the roof - but it will be worth it right? I mean that way you'll never run the risk of getting bad service again.

Also your remark about "industry standards" I think was rather funny. What "standards" does one apply to an artistic medium, and how would you go about applying them? An even more important consideration, who is it that determines those "standards"? Me I can't stand modern art. I never did understand it. Was never a big fan of cubism either. Not my cup of tea. So if I am to be the standard bearer, does that mean all Picasso's should be discarded simply because I don't happen to care for them myself? Do they suddenly lose all value and should there owners be subjected to shame and ridicule simply because I have determined that they are not "art" according to my own standard?

Again the only "logical" thing here is to allow the market to decide. If I don't like Picasso, I don't have to buy one. For those that do, they can. For those that can't afford a Picasso, they might buy something done in a similar style by an unknown artist. Who cares if you find the work by the unknown artist "substandard", if the guy buying it likes it then frankly it's none of your business.

Likewise if I pay someone to take photographs and I'm not happy with the results, that's between me and the photographer. Just like when I pay anyone for any other sort of service where a professional license is not required. I'm just not sure how you come to the conclusion that the public needs to be "protected" from bad photography in the same fashion that it needs to be protected from incompetent health care providers. I see no correlation between the two, and I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could think of that as being "logical".

 

[robbins.photo]

I agree 100% with Lew. And my agreement has nothing do with my age or disposition.

It's a very challenging time for the business of professional photography. DSLR's flood the market, and a signifcant number of new DSLR owners seem to have this illusion that just because they own a DSLR, they are a professional photographer. It's like buying a pair of basketball shoes, and claiming you're a professional basketball player.

The point Lew is making here is that people (noobies especially) should have enough respect for this established profession that they SHOULD NOT take money before they learn. And if they do take money, and then try to learn, Lew wants nothing to do with them.

It's a completely logical point.

I guess I'd still have to disagree. You can buy as many basketball shoes as you want, the NBA is not going to give you a tryout. Same thing applies to me, I own a DSLR but just because I do I can't go into sports illustrated and get a job shooting cover models. That is just not how it works.

Now stop and consider your audience for a moment - you've got a newbie with a camera who's got his head filled with dreams about being a professional photographer someday. Well if you come along and try to convince him he can't, guess what - if you are able to talk him out of it he never had a shot at being a pro in the first place. You have to be one seriously stubborn SOB to make a go of it in photography, someone who's willing to ignore pretty much everything and everyone telling you that you can't do it and just to out and do it anyway.

As for the "logic" of the point, personally I don't find much logic to it at all. If the goal is to change the photography profession then guess what, posting a rant on an internet website will have pretty much zero impact. I don't see a lot of logic to that, to me it's just ranting so you can feel better about the situation. If it has no positive impact and doesn't do anything to fix the problem, merely complaining about what cannot be changed does not seem logical at all to me.

it seems rather simple to me. the guy is saying he will help those that opened a business who have the basics down. have some respect for the field itself and who aren't trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their clients. he won't help those that basically jump into it without any experience to make a quick buck. who take jobs without having the knowledge to do the jobs and want to hop on a forum to get bailed out.

Well I guess my question, yet again, would be, who makes that determination? I mean are we going to have a list of stuff that if someone asks about it they are unworthy of being helped with an answer? And isn't the mere fact that they are coming to a forum and trying to gain that knowledge worthy of our respect and consideration?

 

[KmH]

The supervision of resident doctors is necessary because life and death are at stake.

Supervision is not required for entry-level photography businesses.

 

[runnah]

Honestly I often disagree with Lew on things but I feel like he made an cogent air tight statement.

Fact is that with the access to information these days no one should be asking 90% of the questions that get asked here. What makes it tolerable is that most come from hobbyists. But when a working "professional" asks a basic question that could be answered in 1 google search and two minutes of reading it is infuriating.

Now what is acceptable is professional grade questions that are asked intelligently and are more experienced based.

Asking what lens you should use for a wedding you booked days before the event deserves the collective scorn of the Internet.

 

[table1349]

We are all prostitutes in one form or another when it come to making money. Some are just less knowledgeable and less experienced then others. I call the less knowledgeable, less experienced ones FEMA. (Slow to respond and not a lot of satisfying results)

 

[12sndsgood]

I guess I'd still have to disagree. You can buy as many basketball shoes as you want, the NBA is not going to give you a tryout. Same thing applies to me, I own a DSLR but just because I do I can't go into sports illustrated and get a job shooting cover models. That is just not how it works.

Now stop and consider your audience for a moment - you've got a newbie with a camera who's got his head filled with dreams about being a professional photographer someday. Well if you come along and try to convince him he can't, guess what - if you are able to talk him out of it he never had a shot at being a pro in the first place. You have to be one seriously stubborn SOB to make a go of it in photography, someone who's willing to ignore pretty much everything and everyone telling you that you can't do it and just to out and do it anyway.

As for the "logic" of the point, personally I don't find much logic to it at all. If the goal is to change the photography profession then guess what, posting a rant on an internet website will have pretty much zero impact. I don't see a lot of logic to that, to me it's just ranting so you can feel better about the situation. If it has no positive impact and doesn't do anything to fix the problem, merely complaining about what cannot be changed does not seem logical at all to me.

it seems rather simple to me. the guy is saying he will help those that opened a business who have the basics down. have some respect for the field itself and who aren't trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their clients. he won't help those that basically jump into it without any experience to make a quick buck. who take jobs without having the knowledge to do the jobs and want to hop on a forum to get bailed out.

Well I guess my question, yet again, would be, who makes that determination? I mean are we going to have a list of stuff that if someone asks about it they are unworthy of being helped with an answer? And isn't the mere fact that they are coming to a forum and trying to gain that knowledge worthy of our respect and consideration?

the person giving out the information decides. they are the person with the knowledge. nobody is being paid to come here and answer questions. they do it out of there own desire to help. people shouldn't feel they Have to help every single person. and again there is a huge difference in someone gaining knowledge, and someone hopping on a forum to save there butt because they took a job they had no clue how to do for money.

someone who is taking money for something they don't know how to do, then running on a forum in hopes of being bailed out isn't someone I would respect. I would respect and help the person who told someone they weren't experienced enough to do the job and then came on a forum to learn so that the next time the job comes up they are skilled and qualified to do the job.

 

[robbins.photo]

Honestly I often disagree with Lew on things but I feel like he made an cogent air tight statement.

Fact is that with the access to information these days no one should be asking 90% of the questions that get asked here. What makes it tolerable is that most come from hobbyists. But when a working "professional" asks a basic question that could be answered in 1 google search and two minutes of reading it is infuriating.

Now what is acceptable is professional grade questions that are asked intelligently and are more experienced based.

Asking what lens you should use for a wedding you booked days before the event deserves the collective scorn of the Internet.

Don't get me wrong Runnah - I don't think anyone who doesn't know the basics should start presenting themselves as a professional and charge money for their services, I'm not a big fan of anyone that doesn't strive to be good at what they do for a living. My point here is that if someone asks for my help, they'll get it. If they started a business and got in over their head, well I'm still going to try and help them out. The fact that they are asking for my help to me means they are worthy of receiving it. That is the only "bar" I set.

As I mentioned previously I do see Lew's original point. However I also see something inherently dangerous with this line of thinking as well - I merely am advising that we guard against starting to think of ourselves as some sort of "gatekeepers" or "policeman" when it comes to who or who doesn't deserve to take a shot at earning money as a photographer. So really all I'm saying is, Danger Will Robinson, Danger! - Lol

 

[robbins.photo]

it seems rather simple to me. the guy is saying he will help those that opened a business who have the basics down. have some respect for the field itself and who aren't trying to pull the wool over the eyes of their clients. he won't help those that basically jump into it without any experience to make a quick buck. who take jobs without having the knowledge to do the jobs and want to hop on a forum to get bailed out.

Well I guess my question, yet again, would be, who makes that determination? I mean are we going to have a list of stuff that if someone asks about it they are unworthy of being helped with an answer? And isn't the mere fact that they are coming to a forum and trying to gain that knowledge worthy of our respect and consideration?

the person giving out the information decides. they are the person with the knowledge. nobody is being paid to come here and answer questions. they do it out of there own desire to help. people shouldn't feel they Have to help every single person. and again there is a huge difference in someone gaining knowledge, and someone hopping on a forum to save there butt because they took a job they had no clue how to do for money.

someone who is taking money for something they don't know how to do, then running on a forum in hopes of being bailed out isn't someone I would respect. I would respect and help the person who told someone they weren't experienced enough to do the job and then came on a forum to learn so that the next time the job comes up they are skilled and qualified to do the job.

So if I decide to help someone that starts a photography business even though they probably shouldn't have that should be sufficient right? I mean if I'm the person with the knowledge and I choose to offer it to this person, then those of you that would have declined to offer the same knowledge will.. what exactly? Decry me for offering it since it didn't meet your guidelines? How do you determine who is "running to the forum to be bailed out"? I mean isn't that pretty much a completely subjective standard in and of itself?

 

[12sndsgood]

I see your reasoning and if you want to help every single soul no matter who or what they have done to be in the position they are in that is great. But that doesn't mean everyone is going to want to dole out there hard earned knowledge to every single soul that demands it. I recently took on a girl as an apprentice of sorts. she comes out when I shoot and try's to learn as much as she can because she thinks she may want to go into business later at some point. so she is trying to learn all she can to see if that is something she will do. she comes out. holds lights, holds flashes, carries gear and she soaks up everything she can, her I will teach her as much as I know (not much) because she is putting in the time and effort. I'm not going to sit there and spend as much of my time with some kid who has no experience, already has opened a business and wants to come to me to learn something he's promised to do for someone else for money.

 

[12sndsgood]

Well I guess my question, yet again, would be, who makes that determination? I mean are we going to have a list of stuff that if someone asks about it they are unworthy of being helped with an answer? And isn't the mere fact that they are coming to a forum and trying to gain that knowledge worthy of our respect and consideration?

the person giving out the information decides. they are the person with the knowledge. nobody is being paid to come here and answer questions. they do it out of there own desire to help. people shouldn't feel they Have to help every single person. and again there is a huge difference in someone gaining knowledge, and someone hopping on a forum to save there butt because they took a job they had no clue how to do for money.

someone who is taking money for something they don't know how to do, then running on a forum in hopes of being bailed out isn't someone I would respect. I would respect and help the person who told someone they weren't experienced enough to do the job and then came on a forum to learn so that the next time the job comes up they are skilled and qualified to do the job.

So if I decide to help someone that starts a photography business even though they probably shouldn't have that should be sufficient right? I mean if I'm the person with the knowledge and I choose to offer it to this person, then those of you that would have declined to offer the same knowledge will.. what exactly? Decry me for offering it since it didn't meet your guidelines? How do you determine who is "running to the forum to be bailed out"? I mean isn't that pretty much a completely subjective standard in and of itself?

nobody will do anything. all they are saying is they won't be the one helping that person. And if you read my very first post where I posted 2 questions that someone asks you can very easily see who needs bailed out. most of them admit openly that they do.

This is a public forum where people choose to answer or choose not to. there is no standard or rule that states if you know the answer you have to help.

 

[Redeyejedi]

i have seen 'contractors' in the bigbox homeimpovement kennels, ask the guy with the apron how to do/complete jobs....makes me cringe, and feel sorry for the "contractor's" client.

i think it comes down to two things:
what defines a professional photographer
and laziness

i don't consider a professional contractor a pro solely because he/she drives a full size pickup and has a table saw in the bed, the same i don't call a photographer a pro because he/she has a full-frame flagship rig and a speedlight.

....and the the unwillingness to make the inquiry in a search bar prior to making a forum post. (this happens on many many boards)....and then read. then re-search.

 

[Tailgunner]

I don't really care. As long as the fauxtographer delivers photos like his/her portfolio, then why does it matter? If someone sees their portfolio and they want to pay for photos like that, so what?

The fauxtogrpaher is probably using fauxtos in his/her portfolio.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Ok.. I should probably warn you in advance that arguing logic with me is not the best idea you've probably ever come up with, but since you asked for it:

I stopped reading right about here. No offense, but I'm not going to read your novel when you start your post like this.

 

[Tailgunner]

Ok.. I should probably warn you in advance that arguing logic with me is not the best idea you've probably ever come up with, but since you asked for it:

I stopped reading right about here. No offense, but I'm not going to read your novel when you start your post like this.

You got further than I did.

Anyone got the Cliff Notes?