Rookies are killing the business!

[Steve5D]

What for?

Um, because I'd be interested in seeing what they come up with, that's "what for?"...

What matters is the final image.

Exactly the point.

So many people are pissing and moaning and lamenting about how "rookies" are destroying the business. Well, here 'tis, ladies: A lot of them are putting out a genuinely good product, and they're able to do it because of the software that's available today. I'm not saying that's good or bad...

This coming from someone who is a Photoshop zero, and also kind of old school.) I can understand the frustration of (and can relate to) those who had to do it the hard way; the reality is that the world has changed, and it will keep changing. Challenging the new generation to do it the old way would prove absolutely nothing.

Sure it would. It would demonstrate an actual understanding of photographic principles which, let's be honest, ain't exactly as important today as they were 35 years ago. While I do think that many of the "new generation" (even "rookies") are putting out fine product, I think someone who learned photography before the "spray and pray" concept of shooting came along will produce consistently better images, simply because they have a better understanding of not only what they're doing, but why they're doing it...

 

[Steve5D]

I would have no desire to learn how to develop film in a darkroom, BUT learning how to edit properly in PS and LR is quite a skill in itself. I am not saying that it is harder by any means, but learning how to really master editing is no easy hill to climb.

I don't think it's harder at all today. Photography today is far easier than it was when I first picked up a camera back in the mid-70's. Back then, if you wasted a frame, it cost you. Back then, your quiver of editing tools in a darkroom consisted of manipulating contrast, brightness, dodging and burning. You couldn't open up a program and put someone's head from one picture onto someone else's body in another picture.

Because photography is so easy, a lot more people are doing it. When I got my first "real" camera, a Canon FTb, I knew exactly two other kids my age who had anything even remotely similar. Nowadays, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who's got a DSLR around their neck. That's great, and I'm all for it, but I actually hesitate to call a lot of what I see "photography". In my view of what photography is, and was, what we have today is something where the camera is reduced to one very small aspect of the photographic equation. "Back in the day", nothing was more important than when that mirror flipped...

 

[Steve5D]

I'd like to see what some of "today's pros" (for lack of a better phrase) could without software to edit with, or with only the most basic of adjustments permitted...

What for? What matters is the final image. (This coming from someone who is a Photoshop zero, and also kind of old school.) I can understand the frustration of (and can relate to) those who had to do it the hard way; the reality is that the world has changed, and it will keep changing. Challenging the new generation to do it the old way would prove absolutely nothing.

it might have been harder to do, with a bigger learning curve, but sometimes i think its just comes off a bit condescending and pompous when film people rag on digital people for using editing software as if changing the way a photo looks after the shutter was pressed is somehow a concept newly invented in the digital age.

I'm not ragging on anyone, nor do I think it's necessarily condescending.

What's changed is the degree to which a photo can be manipulated. Years ago, if you took a crappy photo, all you could ever hope to have was a crappy photo. Nowadays, if you have a crappy photo, you can actually make it look pretty good. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies less and less as technology marches forward. That's all well and good, but we shouldn't harbor the illusion that the proficiency of photographers could easily suffer as less actual photographic skill is required...

 

[pixmedic]

What for? What matters is the final image. (This coming from someone who is a Photoshop zero, and also kind of old school.) I can understand the frustration of (and can relate to) those who had to do it the hard way; the reality is that the world has changed, and it will keep changing. Challenging the new generation to do it the old way would prove absolutely nothing.

it might have been harder to do, with a bigger learning curve, but sometimes i think its just comes off a bit condescending and pompous when film people rag on digital people for using editing software as if changing the way a photo looks after the shutter was pressed is somehow a concept newly invented in the digital age.

I'm not ragging on anyone, nor do I think it's necessarily condescending.

What's changed is the degree to which a photo can be manipulated. Years ago, if you took a crappy photo, all you could ever hope to have was a crappy photo. Nowadays, if you have a crappy photo, you can actually make it look pretty good. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies less and less as technology marches forward. That's all well and good, but we shouldn't harbor the illusion that the proficiency of photographers could easily suffer as less actual photographic skill is required...

Sure, you can do a lot more with a photo now. But OOF is still OOF. Plus, even with photoshop, it still takes a bit of working knowledge to spin straw into gold. On top of that, i doubt many people that dont bother to take the time to learn their camera are spending the money on photoshop or lightroom and actually learning how to use them properly. I would guess that for them, garbage in garbage out still applies.

 

[The_Traveler]

With film photography there were real obstacles; only people who had both enough interest and access to darkroom equipment could actually get to learn.
(in the 'olden' days, only a small percent of high school students went to college and, almost by default, college educations, college students and colleges were better, on the average, then they are now.)
So, when you 'did' photography or were a photographer, you had the interest, the opportunity and the drive to know things.

Now, you can pickup a camera and all the knowledge of the past 50 years is embedded in the technology and all you have to do is make a few decisions and the image is there.

And, in regards 'decisions', many of the decisions you had to make in film days are actually still open to change. The iso, the exposure, the contrast, B/w or color, etc all can be managed in post-processing.
It's not that you were smarter before, it's that the decisions were out of your hands when you pressed the shutter button.

 

[rexbobcat]

I don't think it's harder at all today. Photography today is far easier than it was when I first picked up a camera back in the mid-70's. Back then, if you wasted a frame, it cost you. Back then, your quiver of editing tools in a darkroom consisted of manipulating contrast, brightness, dodging and burning. You couldn't open up a program and put someone's head from one picture onto someone else's body in another picture.

Because photography is so easy, a lot more people are doing it. When I got my first "real" camera, a Canon FTb, I knew exactly two other kids my age who had anything even remotely similar. Nowadays, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who's got a DSLR around their neck. That's great, and I'm all for it, but I actually hesitate to call a lot of what I see "photography". In my view of what photography is, and was, what we have today is something where the camera is reduced to one very small aspect of the photographic equation. "Back in the day", nothing was more important than when that mirror flipped...

I think it also has to do with lowered standards. 30-40 years ago being a photographer meant something beyond being able to shoot in auto and using PS actions (not like people could have used PS actions back then anyways.)

The photography industry in my city is rather pathetic. Most are weekend warriors turned full time professionals, even though their quality is not as "professional" as I would assume someone who shoots full time to be.

But unfortunately the consumers have no choice but to go to these kinds of photographers because that's all there is. It's a vicious and moronic cycle.

 

[imagemaker46]

Everyone is going on about how it was 20-40 years ago, it's closer to 10-12 years ago that digital and the software started to change, I was shooting and processing film in 2001(the last year for me) Decisions on film when shooting, lots of times we could walk into a situation where we had 1600asa film in the camera, had shot 10 frames and the next job was outside, you would re-roll the film back into the cassette and hope to not roll the leader back in, mark the roll, put in a roll of 400asa, shoot that. When you needed the 1600asa again, cover the lens and fire off 12-15 frames so you didn't double expose anything. It was always a challenge, and did require a different skill set.

You wanted to add someone to a group photo, shoot the person in the same light, cut them out, paste them on the print and make a copy neg, it was genius in the eyes of most people. I hear the word photoshop every day now. If someone is taking pictures they have some kind of editing software, some don't take the time to play with it, but most have something installed on their computers. The average camera owner can learn enough on how to fix mistakes in a couple of hours.

 

[12sndsgood]

I don't think it's any 1 thing, it's multiple things all together.

 

[pixmedic]

All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much. Old school or new school, film background or purely digital, we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago, that will define our business and work.

 

[kathyt]

Everyone is going on about how it was 20-40 years ago, it's closer to 10-12 years ago that digital and the software started to change, I was shooting and processing film in 2001(the last year for me) Decisions on film when shooting, lots of times we could walk into a situation where we had 1600asa film in the camera, had shot 10 frames and the next job was outside, you would re-roll the film back into the cassette and hope to not roll the leader back in, mark the roll, put in a roll of 400asa, shoot that. When you needed the 1600asa again, cover the lens and fire off 12-15 frames so you didn't double expose anything. It was always a challenge, and did require a different skill set.

You wanted to add someone to a group photo, shoot the person in the same light, cut them out, paste them on the print and make a copy neg, it was genius in the eyes of most people. I hear the word photoshop every day now. If someone is taking pictures they have some kind of editing software, some don't take the time to play with it, but most have something installed on their computers. The average camera owner can learn enough on how to fix mistakes in a couple of hours.

I think those "photographers" that are learning to fix their images in a couple of hours are the ones that bring me my daily laughs as I see their new businesses pop up on FB. No matter how much Lysol you put on ****, it is still going to smell like **** unless you clean it up the right way first.

 

[spacefuzz]

Gee whiz if I listen to the talk here all I have to do is close my eyes and click with my dslr, BAM award winning photo destined for the cover of national geographic.

Lets be serious, the film days I remember were a pain in the frickin butt. Carrying around all that film, worrying about running out, the slow learning curve as you wait to get the results back, egad what if you lose a roll!. I mean I give people like Galen Rowell mad props for carrying 50 rolls of film up the face of half dome, but give me my DSLR and 64 gig memory card on a hard climb any day over film.

 

[GoldenBokeh]

wow, it's a very complicated subject. I can totally relate to the fact that going around with a simple camera and bad retouching/editing skills and taking pictures of people in their wedding is a no way to go about it. But that's usually the way people start.

I choose I different path just because of what was written here- I can't charge anyone right now unless it’s something that I know that I can do really well, better than others. But that's because I have a job and photography for me was a hobby that became professional (sold some pictures, opened a website, people start to offer me money for pictures)

I think that some things would never change – people that don’t understand quality will always buy cheap and pay dearly for getting bad products and people that just want to make money will continue to sell with no guarantee without regards to the impact on others.

But that's the thing-this will never change. So you just have to see how you rise above all this and show the world how extremely good you are and why you are worth it. No need to get angry with things you have no ability to change. I would focus that energy in reading one more photography technique

 

[Rafterman]

If you're a lousy photog, charge a low price and cater to the cheapskates, because they're the only ones who will hire you anyways. If you're good and produce quality work, charge a premium price and cater to the people who know good photography (or at least can afford good quality, whether they know it or not.) If I remember correctly, the photographer for our wedding just over 6-years ago cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000 for the day (about 4 to 11pm), plus another $500 for all the proofs (about 650 images) on a DVD and a $300 extra tip my in-laws gave him because he was simply stellar. This is certainly not cheap, but the images he took were unreal. UN-REAL. Today, if a friend or coworker on a budget asked me about hiring someone to shoot their wedding, I'd tell them to have the cheapest ceremony possible and dump their cash into a good photographer. The most gorgeous ceremony or location won't look its best if a newbie is behind the lens. Why would you want to look back on crappy pictures for the next 50-years of your life?

One of my neighbors does weddings on occasion. Photography is not his primary job and he shoots with a Canon Rebel T2i. I was far less than impressed by the galleries on his website, and wonder why anyone would hire him to shoot their wedding? Then again, he only charges about $800 to 1,000 for an entire 6 to 8-hour day. Not sure what he charges for proofs or prints, but I wouldn't hire him myself personally or recommend him to anyone I know. He's a fantastic neighbor and friend otherwise, but just doesn't cut it as a pro to me.

In photography, like many other professions, people will either pay for quality or they won't. DSLRs certainly have created many more weekend warriors, but results are results, no matter how you get them. When my car gets dirty, I vacuum, Armor All, and wash it myself at home. I don't pay a detailing service $40 to do it. It's just not worth it to me to pay for that service. The same goes for photos. If you don't care much about quality, get cousin Eddie to shoot your senior photos for $50, don't pay $500. Just remember that you get what you pay for!

To conclude, remember that no amount of equipment will produce truly memorable images if you don't have an eye for photography. The camera is a tool and nothing more. Buying a $5,000 rifle does not make me a sharpshooter. Buying a set of Wüsthof knives does not make me a chef. Buying a Ferrari does not make me a race car driver. The HUMAN makes the images. You guys and girls out there who have that natural instinct and are truly skilled will be just fine, because the riff-raff will (in most cases) not make it, and you'll be left standing.

 

[Steve5D]

All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much. Old school or new school, film background or purely digital, we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago, that will define our business and work.

But it does matter when looking at an historical perspective.

I remember when I bought my first Canon. It was an investment. Each frame you shot had a dollar amount attached to it because you were shooting film. Darkroom chemicals were a recurring expense. Paper was a recurring expense. The expense of getting seriously into photography back then far exceeds what's required today, and that kept the number of available, viable photographers at a relative minimum.

These days, though, anyone with a $600.00 DSLR has the potential to shoot some really nice photographs. A person can shoot 50 frames for the same cost as shooting 5, or 500. The relative low cost of an initial outlay has allowed the hobby to become a cottage industry for people who don't necessarily have the desire to be full-blown "pros".

It's not the people who've adversely affected the industry but, rather, the industry itself through technological advancements...

 

[imagemaker46]

All this nostalgia is great and all... But in the end, it really doesnt matter much. Old school or new school, film background or purely digital, we all have to deal with how things are NOW, and its how we deal with things now, and not years ago, that will define our business and work.

But it does matter when looking at an historical perspective.

I remember when I bought my first Canon. It was an investment. Each frame you shot had a dollar amount attached to it because you were shooting film. Darkroom chemicals were a recurring expense. Paper was a recurring expense. The expense of getting seriously into photography back then far exceeds what's required today, and that kept the number of available, viable photographers at a relative minimum.

These days, though, anyone with a $600.00 DSLR has the potential to shoot some really nice photographs. A person can shoot 50 frames for the same cost as shooting 5, or 500. The relative low cost of an initial outlay has allowed the hobby to become a cottage industry for people who don't necessarily have the desire to be full-blown "pros".

It's not the people who've adversely affected the industry but, rather, the industry itself through technological advancements...

Very well said.