Question for pros

[Antithesis]

In the right hands, bottom of the line gear can do some pretty cool stuff. Given, there are situations where you absolutely need a random piece of gear to get a shot or effect, but with a little creativity and a lot of expertise, that goes out the window. I don't really do any photography professionally, but I shot a wedding as a backup using an 18-55 kit lens for a lot of shots, and my shots were crisper and better looking than the shots coming from another person with a gold-ring 17-55 f2.8 that costs well over 10 times as much. Only becuase I was doing it for the experience and actually really enjoying myself.

If people try to get in your way when your doing something your both good at and have a passion for, just side-step them. It's really unfortunate that there are people that knock the little guys in the photography industry, but whatever. F*** that guy.

 

[CanonSnob]

whatever. F*** that guy.

haha... like he said

 

[epp_b]

Don't let it leave an impression. Someone's just peeved that your getting the business that they aren't. It's a scare tactic. Ignore it and move on.

There is no "certification" or "accreditation" process to become a "professional" photographer. As far as clients are concerned, it doesn't matter how many photography classes you attended, associations you are member of or letters behind your "photographer" title, the only thing that separates him and you are experience. It seems you've done your clients the service of informing them as such.

Sounds like you have more professionalism in the form of acting like a decent human being than he does anyway.

 

[photogoddess]

It's not the tool - it's the end result that matters. If I'm not mistaken, a Pulitzer prize winning photo was taken by an amateur with a Brownie camera.

If your clients are happy then you're doing just fine. Sour grapes are just that... sour.

 

[ksmattfish]

I've had moderate success in finding clients (probably 2 a month in the winter, more in the summer), and done very well on every job I have taken.

...in fact am pretty forward about my limitations as a photographer

It was from a professional photographer basically stating that I was doing my clients a disservice because I am not educated highly enough in photography and do not own the nicest equipment.

Worry about what your clients think. That's much more important than what your competition thinks. I'd take the complaint as a compliment. If you are enough of a threat to warrant a bitchy email then you must be doing something right. It really burns a guy who spent $10,000 on camera gear when someone else comes along and makes much more exciting photos with much cheaper gear. They want to pretend it's all about the gear and technical aspects, but those are only important to photo geeks. The rest of the world is perfectly capable of looking at a portfolio and making up their own mind if they like the work or not. Most of these folks will not ask how much the camera cost.

EDIT: Some photographers insist that it's important to use high dollar gear because it shows the clients you are serious. Here's my story as to why that's a waste of time worrying about. Once upon a time, back in the days before digital, I was shooting some wedding formals, and the videographer walked up to me as I was breaking down after the session, and asked "Is that a Canon?". "Nope", I replied, "it's a Hasselblad." "Hmmmph! I thought all professionals used Canon!", he said, and walked away disgusted that I was using some no-name, Swedish camera. How can you impress people that really don't really understand the gear anyway?

 

[laurentharari]

let them talk... A good gear never made a good photographer... Robert DOISNEAU one of my photographic hero, did its best shots with a rolleiflex !!! Old very old camera nothing as fancy as yours... Back in the 80's, I shot with a canon AE1 one of the picture I have most sold ( 20.000 ex.) I felt a little like you, but god when the check was coming in it felt so good !!! Keep the good work. What is your website by the way ?
Laurent

http://www.buyphotoarts.com

 

[Christie Photo]

There is no "certification" or "accreditation" process to become a "professional" photographer.

Well.... there IS this:

http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=14

 

[epp_b]

Indeed, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything to a potential customer. It's still not like saying "I went to Harvard for blah blah blah"

 

[Christie Photo]

Indeed, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything to a potential customer. It's still not like saying "I went to Harvard for blah blah blah"

And why not? Really.... it says I've met certain criteria to assure you I am competent.

Are you familiar with the certification process of the PPA?

-Pete

 

[Big Mike]

Photography is an art...and as such, a photographer doesn't need a 'permit to practice' the way a doctor, lawyer or engineer needs to have.

That being said, there are organizations that do offer accreditation, such as the PPA. One benefit of that is that you can tell or show your potential clients that you accepted as competent by your piers.

Of course, it is not a necessity...and a good portfolio and good results will trump all.

 

[Christie Photo]

...and a good portfolio and good results will trump all.

Absolutely!

I just want to make a point that there's something to be said about being certified. So often here, it seems that being a pro means nothing. I suspect it's because so many people who work as photographers are not qualified. But the vast majority of full-time photographers with established studios (more than 3 years) will do an adequate job most every time.

Certification is an assurance that the maker's portfolio IS adequate. I can't remember if it's 20 or 25 prints required, but each applicant must submit a collection of 8x10 prints from thier customer files that is representative of the of the type of photography done. So, in my case, I would have to submit one or two wedding candids, three or four portraits, and the rest from my commercial clients. These prints are then judged by a panel of working photographers (not clients) to prove creative ability and to meet a high standard. Remember... the judges have a solid background in lighting, posing, etc. Each print is not judged individually. The entire collection is judged "in or out." And once again, the images are from customer files... not shot just for the portfolio.

All this in addition to passing an in-depth written exam to show technical knowledge. I've seen the test. Most of us would have to study to score well.

And, for the record, I chose not to certify. The program (introduced in 1977) was just getting some footing in my state 25 years ago while I was a member of the PPofA. They promised a very visible print and TV promotional program to educate the public about Certified Professional Photographers (CPPs). I thought I'd wait and see if they'd follow through because their Qualified Program for commercial and industrial photographers seemed to have lost it's steam. I recall one CPP print ad in a national bridal magazine. I don't know if they did anything more. It was a bit of investment to certify. Then it was $100 to take the exam, in addition to the annual PPofA dues... not to mention the cost of print production. So, I'm still waiting.

But, yes Mike.... you're absolutely on the money (as usual). It's consistently getting good results that matters. Certification simply says that you do.

-Pete

 

[Village Idiot]

It's not the tool - it's the end result that matters. If I'm not mistaken, a Pulitzer prize winning photo was taken by an amateur with a Brownie camera.

If your clients are happy then you're doing just fine. Sour grapes are just that... sour.

It's funny you should say this. The guy's a tool and the only way it'll matter is if the OP lets him get to them in the end.

 

[PhilGarber]

Everyone starts somewhere. As long as you are up-front and don't claim to be what you are not, I think you will be fine. As you grow your experience base, you will be more accepted and your equipment will improve if that's what you want. I started shooting in-house baby portraits and weddings in my teens. That was in the late 1960's. As I said, we all start somewhere. BTW, a few evening classes at the community college is well within your abilities. Any education you can pick up is a plus.

Yeah, man, if your up-front about your skill level, that dude was probably just a jerk.

 

[ksmattfish]

let them talk... A good gear never made a good photographer... Robert DOISNEAU one of my photographic hero, did its best shots with a rolleiflex !!! Old very old camera nothing as fancy as yours...

I agree with your point about the gear not making the photographer, but a Rolleiflex TLR would have been considered one of the top hand held camera choices for pros in Doisneau's day, and it still is for some. A new Rollei TLR costs $4500; almost as much as a Nikon D3. I was using a Rolleiflex TLR for professional work as recently as three years ago. While it doesn't have all the features and gizmos we've gotten used to with modern cameras, it's got everything I really need, and it's image quality is as good as it gets. My Rolleiflex is one of the few film cameras I own that is still increasing in value, and it's probably one of the few film cameras I'll ever use again. If you are using a Rolleiflex, you are using one of the best cameras ever made.

 

[photographyaddict]

I don't think you should let one negative email get you down, man. It's not worth it to be stressing about it. He's probably threatened and trying to get you to quit while you're at it. If you're already getting so much work and you're just in high school as you say, then, I really think you're the real deal and you shouldn't let self-doubt get in the way. It's a dog eat dog business, really. You just have to have faith in your own talent. And the equipment really isn't as important as the talent.