Proud of Myself - Declined A Low Paying Gig

[imagemaker46]

Ghache,
You just don't understand any of this. You never will.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The average person doesn't care about quality

Tah dah!

 

[Forkie]

So as a guy trying to just make a living like everyone else is getting hit because someone with a camera and a full time job wants to make a little extra spending money. I know how to do body work, I know how to paint as well, (I took classes years ago) but I wouldn't start doing it simply because I want to make a few extra bucks, I have too much respect for the guys that need the business and is more experienced. This applies to every job on the planet, so we don't need to start adding more examples.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with people making a little extra money on the side doing something that isn't their main job. Hundreds, thousands, millions of people have more than one job or have extra little money makers to subsidise their income. My father was a mechanical technician in the Air Force (now retired), but had hobbies in various other things such as painting and decorating, building computers and making wrought iron gates which he made for people and charged them for it to make a few extra quid. What's the problem with that?

If you have a skill and can charge for it but don't want to do it full time, do it part time or at weekends and make some extra pocket money. It has nothing to do with "respect for professionals" in those fields - it has to do with using YOUR skills for YOUR gain. If you have various skills, use all of them and if people are willing to pay, great!

I find this "it's not fair, he's doing my job as well as his own" attitude a little childish. If you're not taking advantage of the body work or painting skills you learnt then that's up to you, but don't knock other people for doing as they see fit with the skills they saw fit to learn.

 

[epatsellis]

...Personally I have clients that I have had for over a decade, I change with the times, upgrade when I can, I'm not losing clients, neither are most of the photographers I know, they aren't getting enough new clients, this is where the flood of camera owners comes into play, doesn't matter if it's a friend of the family, and aunt or uncle, if they own a camera people will settle for that now. The average person doesn't care about quality, they don't know a great photo from a happy snap, read the comments on this forum, the word awesome gets used and the picture is out of focus, how is that awesome, and ask them to explain why it's awesome, they can't, they don't know the difference.

I've seen the same thing in over 20 years of being a commercial shooter, what was once a barrier to entry, a full studio with view cameras, lighting, etc. (at a cost approaching six figures), is now considered at the least a luxury by some, and totally unneccesary by others. The fact that having experience, control of the focal plane, image geometry and having a solid background in lighting is important is the only way to ensure a high quality image is lost on most photographers, art directors and clients today. My client base understands this, and typically comes to me after spending a fortune with others, only to find soft images, poor focus control or images unusable for offset printing without significant compromises. The largest part of product/commercial work still is printed conventionally, and not understanding how to create images that will reproduce properly is the single biggest issue I see today. In fact, like you, I get a large amount of my income from fixing other peoples mistakes, and ultimately gaining a client in the process as well. I'm in the same boat as you, I've seen limited to no growth in my sector, while the work I see out there continues to get worse and worse.

Typically, the majority of my work is shot in studio, with a view camera and scanning back, at a native resolution of 6,000 x 7200, as once you've gotten to the point of capture, a few mins isn't really that big of a deal, and having a high res file to work from makes life easier in so many ways later, when your client decides to use the image for billboards, posters, etc. A reference image is typically shot on chrome as well, and get's filed away with the job file, in the off chance that something bad ever happens to the digital image, I still have a 4x5 transparency that can be scanned. There's no comparision to images shot with a DSLR, from an overall image quality standpoint, some customers understand that and are willing to pay what it costs to do it right the first time, other's will have a friend, relative or employee shoot it, then wonder why the images aren't up to commercial standards or require hours of post processing to get a usable image. Overall, the cost are comparable or even higher, you can only get away with that once with a client before they start looking elsewhere.

 

[imagemaker46]

I've said my piece on this, those that really deal with this understand what I'm talking about, those that don't, never will........ well not until that day their job is out sourced to the lowest bidder.

 

[ghache]

I've said my piece on this, those that really deal with this understand what I'm talking about, those that don't, never will........ well not until that day their job is out sourced to the lowest bidder.

Maybe you could reconsider doing what you do for a living and do something else if your not making enought money I heard only a small % will make it full time.

 

[epatsellis]

ghache,
I think you would find, were you to look, a small group of us here on TPF that have, in fact, been making it full time for at least a decade or two. And over that time, seeing a decline in quality and expectations is what we're talking about. Never mind explaining to a client about licensing fees, creative costs, etc. There's a sense of entitlement by new photographers I've never seen before, as if they don't have to work their way up anymore. (maybe because they think they can buy their way to being a professional)

I spent nearly a year loading film holders and doing general grip work before I even got close to a camera. And even today, my "creativity" is surpassed by the art director's "vision" and my job is to help him portray that vision. Sometimes you can advise and they will accept that advice, other times, it's not even an option. That is what commercial photography at the level I work at is, and I suspect a few of the others here as well.

 

[Destin]

I've said my piece on this, those that really deal with this understand what I'm talking about, those that don't, never will........ well not until that day their job is out sourced to the lowest bidder.

I understand what your saying, and I tend to agree with you on alot of it. Most new photographers really don't know what they are doing with a camera. I know a lady that shoots portraits on full auto, and doesn't even know what the exposure triangle is.

As for me, sure I've only been serious about photography for around 2 years, and I'm only 18. However I've shadowed pros at weddings, taken classes, read books, attended workshops, and I practice every chance I get. I don't claim to be a pro, and I do still have alot to learn. But I am able to make professional looking images in many cases, so I have no problem charging clients for my work in those cases. I still won't go near weddings because I don't have the gear to do it yet, however I shoot portrait sessions and sports to make money to cover equipment costs.

If I wasn't selling some photos, I wouldn't be able to pay for gear, classes, or anything. I'm trying to work my way up and I teach myself something new about photography EVERY day of my life. Usually from blogs I follow, sometimes from magazines, sometimes from just going out and shooting.

There are those just starting, and those who think that having a dslr makes them a professional. The latter are the problem.

 

[ghache]

ghache,
I think you would find, were you to look, a small group of us here on TPF that have, in fact, been making it full time for at least a decade or two. And over that time, seeing a decline in quality and expectations is what we're talking about. Never mind explaining to a client about licensing fees, creative costs, etc. There's a sense of entitlement by new photographers I've never seen before, as if they don't have to work their way up anymore. (maybe because they think they can buy their way to being a professional)

I spent nearly a year loading film holders and doing general grip work before I even got close to a camera. And even today, my "creativity" is surpassed by the art director's "vision" and my job is to help him portray that vision. Sometimes you can advise and they will accept that advice, other times, it's not even an option. That is what commercial photography at the level I work at is, and I suspect a few of the others here as well.

I totally understand what your saying. Anyone should work thier way up but sometime people use different way. I totally agree with you when you say that your type of photography requires alot more since the clients you deal with are probably high profiles and required images that fit a specific application and they will deffinetly not hired some douche around the corner with a d40 and a kit lens with no expertise and talent. I didnt hear any one on here creating a thread " hey i only have a entry level DSLR with a kit lens and i have been asked to shoot a major fashion shoot with fashion mag, Should i call a make up artist and use a speedlight?" I really doubt that alot of newbies are taking that much business from you since the clients you deal with wants the high quality images your able to provide them.

I think the part where the newbies are getting more business from the full time photographers is with familly pictures, pets and all that stuff that someone with a decend camera and some lights can manage to learn on and makes some side money with.
I am sorry but to all the professionals full time who gets pissed about people like me who has the luxury of working another job, rent a studio on the side , buy gears in between bills is willing to get little money to do something they really like to do well, i feel sorry for you to be insecure enough to cry about it.

Dont you also think that if clients and peoples dont see the difference anymore between the professionals full time and the part time shooter end products, this might be a sign that these part time shooters are getting better and working thier way up producing quality images. Dont you think that the 20 year shooters that get business taken from them should bring thier photography to a higher level and create something different that will stands out?!

If the level of photography you offer to you clients is no better than the one the part time shooter offers at 1/2 the price well sorry pal but you might be failing, or the new photographer in town is becoming your concurence.

Its true that alot of wanna be photographers out there are really bad but i see and know alot of non professional shooter who does a GREAT job.
I also see alot professional who charges a alot of money for pictures that are also doing a mediocre work.
Last weekend i fixed some "full time professional" mistakes on a friend photos.
One of my friend got maried last summer, gave 2500$ to a full time pro and received not so good pictures that do not reflect the work advertised at all and wanted me to fix her shots.

Again this is just my non professional part time shooter opinion but hey, some pro here think we will never undersand but are insecure enough about thier work to come on here and **** talk and cry about thier situations.

 

[imagemaker46]

Ghache, you are the perfect example of not understanding, so I won't try and explain it to you again. I think there may be a bit of a language issue, so I'll give you that. As far as the small percentage, if you read back though everything i've said, maybe you will have noticed it was in one of my posts. I've been working as a full time photographer since 1975, you do the math on that one. I started shooting in 1969, and between 1970-1975 I was shooting everything, and I wasn't shooting for money, I wasn't taking jobs and doing anything for free, I was working in a darkroom learning that side of photography, I was learning how to use light. So for five years I just learned how to become a photographer. When I left high school I started shooting for a newspaper, I had more than just the basics, I was confident enough that I could do the work asked of me, and I did it very well, I built my client base, and I built my business. There were no forums to ask questions, if I needed answers, I looked in magazines, I learned from my father, who started as a photographer in the mid 1950's and is still a photographer, and he freelanced all his life. I think I can say that I'm not in the small percentage that won't make it as a photographer.

Picking up a camera doesn't make anyone a photographer, it just makes them a camera owner.

 

[imagemaker46]

The part time shooters aren't getting better, the cameras and computer software are. Can you honestly tell me that if you were handed a camera that had no auto features, no autofocus, that you would be as good as you think you are? I realize that that film was then and this is a different generation, however the solid basics of photography are still the same, light is light, that hasn't changed, the only difference is that cameras have made it easier to shoot, it tells you when the exposure is off, it tells you when it is in or out of focus, it tells you when you may want to use the flash, it does everything but tell you how to compose a good image. If the photo isn't quite right use photoshop to fix it. You know photoshop the quicker fixer, I will admit that photoshop has saved a lot of images for both pros and amateurs, but it shouldn't be used to re-create a bad image, you shoot a wedding, eveyone looks great, except one person has their eyes closed, no problem, just cut and paste from another image, it is no longer a photo, it is a photo illustration. This is part of the problem, everyone expects every photo to be perfect, that's not the way photography works, if you have to use photoshop as a crutch, then you really aren't much of a photographer.

 

[SrBiscuit]

this is why the true pros in ANY industry have to constantly push, and learn, and bust ass to stay above the amatures.

im a graphic/web designer...im 33. does it concern me that a high school junior might be able to code circles around me for half my rate? sure. but rather than getting all worked up about it and arguing about it to a room of HS juniors, im doing my best to stay on top of industry trends, new techniques, languages, softwares...etc.

idk man. being a pro anything is tough, especially in this current market. at least the good ol' U.S of A.

 

[ghache]

Ghache, you are the perfect example of not understanding, so I won't try and explain it to you again. I think there may be a bit of a language issue, so I'll give you that. As far as the small percentage, if you read back though everything i've said, maybe you will have noticed it was in one of my posts. I've been working as a full time photographer since 1975, you do the math on that one. I started shooting in 1969, and between 1970-1975 I was shooting everything, and I wasn't shooting for money, I wasn't taking jobs and doing anything for free, I was working in a darkroom learning that side of photography, I was learning how to use light. So for five years I just learned how to become a photographer. When I left high school I started shooting for a newspaper, I had more than just the basics, I was confident enough that I could do the work asked of me, and I did it very well, I built my client base, and I built my business. There were no forums to ask questions, if I needed answers, I looked in magazines, I learned from my father, who started as a photographer in the mid 1950's and is still a photographer, and he freelanced all his life. I think I can say that I'm not in the small percentage that won't make it as a photographer.

Picking up a camera doesn't make anyone a photographer, it just makes them a camera owner.

I probably understand what you say more than you think, i am not retarded.

The only thing i say is you took the path you decided to take to get to the point you are right now, Like you said before, the easy access of dslrs brings alot more people in and even if photography and light stays the same, the photography business have changed and this is were i can see that you have problem with. We are not in the 70's anymore and most darkrooms are now converted in stock rooms.

 

[imagemaker46]

I've been shooting with digital gear for 10 years, so I think i'm over the not shooting film stage of photography. I would not have ever said that I thought you were retarded, I find the term insulting. I did forget to add. You are doing a wonderful job taking wonderful photos ( not that I've seen any) but am sure you are. I was told to be kinder on this forum, seems that I hurt some feelings.

 

[Destin]

The part time shooters aren't getting better, the cameras and computer software are. Can you honestly tell me that if you were handed a camera that had no auto features, no autofocus, that you would be as good as you think you are? I realize that that film was then and this is a different generation, however the solid basics of photography are still the same, light is light, that hasn't changed, the only difference is that cameras have made it easier to shoot, it tells you when the exposure is off, it tells you when it is in or out of focus, it tells you when you may want to use the flash, it does everything but tell you how to compose a good image. If the photo isn't quite right use photoshop to fix it. You know photoshop the quicker fixer, I will admit that photoshop has saved a lot of images for both pros and amateurs, but it shouldn't be used to re-create a bad image, you shoot a wedding, eveyone looks great, except one person has their eyes closed, no problem, just cut and paste from another image, it is no longer a photo, it is a photo illustration. This is part of the problem, everyone expects every photo to be perfect, that's not the way photography works, if you have to use photoshop as a crutch, then you really aren't much of a photographer.

I don't know, can I shoot without any auto features, a rear lcd, or photoshop? Sit down old timer, this might shock you. I'm 18, and I enjoy shooting and developing film as much, if not more than shooting digital.

I shoot almost all my landscape stuff on film still using my old minolta x-700 because I simply enjoy the feel of the camera and I appreciate the look of good black and white film photos. Oh, and I develop my own film too.

Does that camera have an auto mode? yes. Do I use it? Never. I use the meter, and I have to keep in mind that it overexposes by about 1/2 a stop in certain conditions.

When I'm shooting digital I'm either in Aperture Priority or Manual mode. A for sports because I'm aware that shooting full manual all the time doesn't make you a good photographer, knowing how to get the most out of your gear does. I shoot manual for portraits because I'm using OCF and the ambient light doesn't change much, if at all..

If it was cost effective I'd shoot film for portraits too, but the fact is I can just make alot more money doing it on digital, and I can be 100% sure that I got the photo. With film, you could NEVER be 100% sure that you had a good photo no matter how good you were. There was always a chance their eyes were closed or something.

Do I use photoshop as a crutch? Nope. I just use it to retouch portraits (remove stray hairs and skin blemishes) and to make color corrections when needed. Big deal, before photoshop you edited your photos in the darkroom .THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, post production has ALWAYS been used to enhance/correct photos.