Rookies are killing the business!

[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.

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...

My point is.... Why does any of this have to be a negative impact at all? Times change, technology changes, public opinion changes. This is true for any field. We adapt. As producers and as consumers. As businesses and as clients. Those that can adapt flourish. I dont personally look at any of these technological changes as a negative impact, just something else i have to adapt to. Its the same reason i dont give a second thought to cheap photographers. We adapt, we survive.

 

[12sndsgood]

In any profession you go into things change, technologies change, you adapt or you get swallowed up.

 

[Steve5D]

INot 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.

And he doesn't have to, because you're not going to hire him.

Obviously, though, the product he produces has a target audience, and that audience is hiring him. If he, and others like him, weren't there, do you think the people that have hired him would've hired a $5,000.00 a day photographer instead?

Not a chance in Hell...

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!

You're assuming cousin Eddie, apparently simply because he's a cousin and not "Eddie's Photography", can't produce quality images. That's a myopic, and very often incorrect, assumption...

To conclude, remember that no amount of equipment will produce truly memorable images if you don't have an eye for photography.

And someone is going to have an eye for photography whether they're paid $1,000.00 or $10,000.00. My daughter shoots weddings for $500.00 a pop. I think she's good, but that may just be the proud Dad talking. She's working all the time, though, and she's shooting for people who wouldn't be hiring a $5,000.00 photographer. She's found a niche, and she exploits the Hell out of it, and she makes decent money doing it. The reality, though, is that her "eye" doesn't change with the amount someone writes on a check...

 

[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...

My point is.... Why does any of this have to be a negative impact at all? Times change, technology changes, public opinion changes. This is true for any field. We adapt. As producers and as consumers. As businesses and as clients. Those that can adapt flourish. I dont personally look at any of these technological changes as a negative impact, just something else i have to adapt to. Its the same reason i dont give a second thought to cheap photographers. We adapt, we survive.

I'm not saying it has a negative impact. I'm just saying it's different...

 

[Rafterman]

You're assuming cousin Eddie, apparently simply because he's a cousin and not "Eddie's Photography", can't produce quality images. That's a myopic, and very often incorrect, assumption...

That was actually a reference to the National Lampoon's "Vacation" series of movies. If you haven't seen any of them, Cousin Eddie is a bumbling idiot who possesses zero skill in anything he does.

The reality, though, is that her "eye" doesn't change with the amount someone writes on a check...

That's exactly what I meant though. She has the talent for it and could possibly charge more, but she has made the choice to fill a niche. Equipment is irrelevant in her case because she is producing, in your eyes, quality work. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Steve5D]

She has the talent for it and could possibly charge more, but she has made the choice to fill a niche. Equipment is irrelevant in her case because she is producing, in your eyes, quality work. There is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, not in my eyes. The way I see her talent is of no consequence. The people paying have the opinions that matter, and she's working all the time. Equipment is relatively irrelevant in many cases. She could go full-bore, full frame high-end stuff, but she does just fine with a 20D and a couple of lenses, and her clients are very, very happy...

 

[spacefuzz]

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...

Like in any industry, adapt or get left behind.

 

[Austin Greene]

Thankfully, I'm not a pro. I'd go broke if I was. My concern is for those who make their living behind the lens.

A couple of weeks ago, I <forget the name> posted that he was being undercut for album covers, etc for a musician he frequently photographed. Hence, the musician went with the cheaper source. Then, about 2 weeks ago, JaneJ posted in the Canon Lens forum she was looking to get a new lens. It came out in that thread that she's been doing wedding photography for 2 years and has done 77 weddings with nothing more than kit equipment and kit lenses! She had posted a link to her website and one person commented about the unusual coloring and other quite non-professional 'enhancements' to the photographs.

I hadn't seen any posts from her since, so we probably scared her off. I was curious, however, and did a search. Back in October 2011, she posted she had bought a T3i or something like that and was getting blurry pictures. She also indicated she had already done 32 weddings at that point with her kit equipment. THIRTY TWO! What utterly floored me was that she was shooting everything in "A"!!! She couldn't figure out why things were blurred shooting at 1/60th, and letting the camera make all the decisions, including where to focus! And now, 2 weeks ago, said she's done 77 weddings!

Apparently, ignorance is bliss for JaneJ as well as her customers.

Then you read, I think it was here, about a pro travelling 200 miles for a shoot in Denver and the customer hated their work, changed the one picture he liked and posted it on his website without crediting the photographer...then wanted her (I think it was a woman) to come back for another shoot!

There was a recent thread (here?, Photographyonthe.net?) suggesting photographers should be licensed or certified in some way to at least show they are competent and not some MWOC that just got a camera last week and goes out shooting weddings. The more I think about it, I think it should be implemented. Once upon a time, a pro had to do everything in manual (there was no other settings!) and be proficient in the darkroom as well. Nowadays, $500 for a kit camera and the free software that comes with it, an existing home computer and they call themselves "Pro"s.

I've long since learned that doing what you love is far more important in life than doing what pays the best. I used to have it both ways as a computer consultant. But these days, unless one has a wall full of certificates in this or that, and a piece of paper that says someone paid $100K or more to put you through school, there's no work to be had. And, of course, what comes from that is failed multi-million dollar projects, systems that don't work 100%, and on and on.

As for professional photographers, the problem seems to me, at least, of how to let 'the world' know you are out there and can do far, far better than some weekend warrier with a brand new T3i and no clue how to use it. Considering the trip-to-Denver photographer, those that can afford quality fail to recognize it and even berate those who 'do it right'.

Because I don't have all the 'paperwork', I've had to leave the computer world and find employment outside the field. In the world of photography, the day of the 'good enough and cheap enough' looks like it will spell the eventual doom of truly professional photography. Ain't technology great??? ... NOT!!

If a rookie with a newly purchased DSLR, whether its a T3i or 5dMKIII can steal a customer from a professional with years of experience, then its the professional who isn't doing something right. I'm not saying I support people going out doing things like the lady you described, but it is the professionals responsibility to market themselves appropriately. As a professional dive instructor I regularly charge 50-100% more than what the competition does, yet my classes are filled for months out. This is all because I bring a quality skill-set and know how to sell my product in a market that is extremely competitive and filled with instructors who want to under-cut competition.

This argument is no different than when people in local shops say "Amazon is putting me out of business!" Pawning off your own poor performance/lack of marketing abilities onto some third party is no excuse. Get your game face on and realize that being able to sell yourself is the best insurance against any form of competition, internet based, or noob-protog alike.

 

[katerolla]

I photograph wedding for a living and it&#8217;s no skin of my back, I charge $1000 plus for my packages, I&#8217;m sure JaneJ doesn&#8217;t charge half of that for her weddings and I wouldn&#8217;t be interested in charging half that to use my equipment, my travel time, meetings with the bride before and after the wedding and my editing time, besides I have noticed that brides paying a little more do their homework and by the time they come to see me they know a little more about good quality than the lower budget brides. Moral to this is that everyone has a place here, JaneJ may pick up the brides that I have no interest in working with and I&#8217;ll pick up the brides that prefer quality over budges

 

[bratkinson]

Wow...I never expected this kind of response to my original post! It's an extremely interesting read.

What I come away with is a number of things. Among them, Imagemaker likened to not having autofocus, where would the pseudo-pros be? Steve 5D mentioned the technological advancements moving the industry along.

Certainly, the ever moving technology cycle affects all industries. In computers, 30 years ago, I worked with an older man who had been in computers since the mid 50s, when they hadn't even been HEARD of by most people. By 1980, his skills were obsolete, as was his knowledge of state of the art computers. I vowed never to fall into that trap. While I kept my skills reasonably up to date, in the last 20 years, it's been the age barrier as well as 'paper' barrier in the computer industry. That's only a microcosm.

But all industry has gone the way of evolving technology...from automobile manufacturing to hi-production farming to fast food. Like many, as a teenager, I worked part time at Burger King in the early 60s. No calculators, no adding machines, nada. We knew the prices of all 15-20 items on the menu, added the totals, and took the money and made correct change. These days, give any clerk $2.83 for a $2.73 tab. Or $5.10 for $4.85 tab. They will stare at you in complete wonder. Technology changed it all.

To most, technology 'can do it all' these days. Hey, they can take a picture with their phone, and have it up on Facebook 30 seconds later! Some 'pro' guy with an expensive camera should be able to produce prints that quickly too, right? LourR hit the nail on the head when he said 2 screens above that consumers are largely clueless. They really DON'T have a clue what goes on AFTER the shutter clicks. Why can't 'we' (yeah, I shoot RAW and LR and PS the pix) turn the photos around in a few minutes. Or, why do pros charge for every print, or CD. Why can't they get every shot on a CD? These days, clueless consumers know that PhotoShop can do miracles, but they think it can be done in 3 or 4 clicks and it's "Done".

I guess what I was 'aiming' at in my original post is in regards to the clueless consumers. Yes, they get what they pay for. But they don't understand why a $300 quality pair of shoes from a 'real' shoe store is any different than the $25 pair they bought at Walmart the day before. They are willing to buy on the cheap not realizing they will lose in the end. Hey, I'll admit I bought a 'cheapo' screw on telephoto extender and screw on macro to go with it and, of course, got burned. I was clueless, too.

Certainly, there will be countless consumers that are satisfied with c**p pictures from their weekend-warrier $300 wedding 'pro' shooting in auto-everything mode. And there's obviously a market there. I suspect that more and more, the trend is towards 'save a buck' and they REALLY don't know any better.

And yes, there is an upscale market for albums, engagement shoots, formal shots, etc. But to my thinking, that market is ever shrinking. It's up to the professionals to show them WHY they need a REAL photographer, not just someone with a fancy looking camera.

Anybody want me to shoot their wedding for $300 with my fancy camera? I know how to turn it on and which way to point it...(travel expenses extra).

 

[rexbobcat]

If a rookie with a newly purchased DSLR, whether its a T3i or 5dMKIII can steal a customer from a professional with years of experience, then its the professional who isn't doing something right. I'm not saying I support people going out doing things like the lady you described, but it is the professionals responsibility to market themselves appropriately. As a professional dive instructor I regularly charge 50-100% more than what the competition does, yet my classes are filled for months out. This is all because I bring a quality skill-set and know how to sell my product in a market that is extremely competitive and filled with instructors who want to under-cut competition.

This argument is no different than when people in local shops say "Amazon is putting me out of business!" Pawning off your own poor performance/lack of marketing abilities onto some third party is no excuse. Get your game face on and realize that being able to sell yourself is the best insurance against any form of competition, internet based, or noob-protog alike.

I kind of disagree. If a group of expensive photographers have a kind of monopoly on the market in a certain area, maybe a small town or something, then consumers have little choice but to choose one of those photographers lest they want to go through the hassle of trying to find someone to travel, which would probably be more expensive.

So if a cheap, cheap photographer shows up and several consumers flock to them, I really can't blame the professional because the consumers were only going to them because of lack of cheap (fauxtographer) options.

It's kind of a specific situation but that's how it was back home in small town USA.

I also don't think the Amazon example is applicable. Nowadays in brick and mortar shops I am not paying for the product. I am paying for the expertise and convenience. However...many consumers buy online because you can find the exact same item for cheaper. Convenience isn't an issue for them. Back before the Internet, consumers had no choice but to go to those family owned stores because that's all they had. Now they have more options. In the case of retail, I don't think it's necessarily the marketing that should be amped up. I think the entire business model needs to be adapted to the current climate.

It's not applicable because you can go to three different photographers and find three entirely different products. Comparing the perceived quality of three photographers is harder than comparing a $200 iPod on Amazon against a $300 iPod at Mom and Pop's Electronics. The markets are too different.

 

[pixmedic]

If a rookie with a newly purchased DSLR, whether its a T3i or 5dMKIII can steal a customer from a professional with years of experience, then its the professional who isn't doing something right. I'm not saying I support people going out doing things like the lady you described, but it is the professionals responsibility to market themselves appropriately. As a professional dive instructor I regularly charge 50-100% more than what the competition does, yet my classes are filled for months out. This is all because I bring a quality skill-set and know how to sell my product in a market that is extremely competitive and filled with instructors who want to under-cut competition.

This argument is no different than when people in local shops say "Amazon is putting me out of business!" Pawning off your own poor performance/lack of marketing abilities onto some third party is no excuse. Get your game face on and realize that being able to sell yourself is the best insurance against any form of competition, internet based, or noob-protog alike.

I kind of disagree. If a group of expensive photographers have a kind of monopoly on the market in a certain area, maybe a small town or something, then consumers have little choice but to choose one of those photographers lest they want to go through the hassle of trying to find someone to travel, which would probably be more expensive.

So if a cheap, cheap photographer shows up and several consumers flock to them, I really can't blame the professional because the consumers were only going to them because of lack of cheap (fauxtographer) options.

It's kind of a specific situation but that's how it was back home in small town USA.

and on the other side of that...(and another kind of specific situation) but...
how many of those people that flocked to the cheap photographer previously got ZERO photos done because they could not afford the "pros" prices?
which begs the question...at what level of quality are "some photos" better than "no photos"? or at that point, is quality even a factor?

 

[rexbobcat]

and on the other side of that...(and another kind of specific situation) but...
how many of those people that flocked to the cheap photographer previously got ZERO photos done because they could not afford the "pros" prices?
which begs the question...at what level of quality are "some photos" better than "no photos"? or at that point, is quality even a factor?

It was like that too lol.

Now, in the city I live in, the professional is still kind of limited by the consumer because the cost of living here is sooooo low that even though there are 300,000 people, most who want photos have been "spoiled" by the $50 phoographers. Basically, a cheap photographer will get 10 clients a week while a $300 photographer will get one making the cheaper photog more lucrative.

The whole system in this area defies everything right in the world of photography.

 

[imagemaker46]

Thankfully, I'm not a pro. I'd go broke if I was. My concern is for those who make their living behind the lens.

A couple of weeks ago, I <forget the name> posted that he was being undercut for album covers, etc for a musician he frequently photographed. Hence, the musician went with the cheaper source. Then, about 2 weeks ago, JaneJ posted in the Canon Lens forum she was looking to get a new lens. It came out in that thread that she's been doing wedding photography for 2 years and has done 77 weddings with nothing more than kit equipment and kit lenses! She had posted a link to her website and one person commented about the unusual coloring and other quite non-professional 'enhancements' to the photographs.

I hadn't seen any posts from her since, so we probably scared her off. I was curious, however, and did a search. Back in October 2011, she posted she had bought a T3i or something like that and was getting blurry pictures. She also indicated she had already done 32 weddings at that point with her kit equipment. THIRTY TWO! What utterly floored me was that she was shooting everything in "A"!!! She couldn't figure out why things were blurred shooting at 1/60th, and letting the camera make all the decisions, including where to focus! And now, 2 weeks ago, said she's done 77 weddings!

Apparently, ignorance is bliss for JaneJ as well as her customers.

Then you read, I think it was here, about a pro travelling 200 miles for a shoot in Denver and the customer hated their work, changed the one picture he liked and posted it on his website without crediting the photographer...then wanted her (I think it was a woman) to come back for another shoot!

There was a recent thread (here?, Photographyonthe.net?) suggesting photographers should be licensed or certified in some way to at least show they are competent and not some MWOC that just got a camera last week and goes out shooting weddings. The more I think about it, I think it should be implemented. Once upon a time, a pro had to do everything in manual (there was no other settings!) and be proficient in the darkroom as well. Nowadays, $500 for a kit camera and the free software that comes with it, an existing home computer and they call themselves "Pro"s.

I've long since learned that doing what you love is far more important in life than doing what pays the best. I used to have it both ways as a computer consultant. But these days, unless one has a wall full of certificates in this or that, and a piece of paper that says someone paid $100K or more to put you through school, there's no work to be had. And, of course, what comes from that is failed multi-million dollar projects, systems that don't work 100%, and on and on.

As for professional photographers, the problem seems to me, at least, of how to let 'the world' know you are out there and can do far, far better than some weekend warrier with a brand new T3i and no clue how to use it. Considering the trip-to-Denver photographer, those that can afford quality fail to recognize it and even berate those who 'do it right'.

Because I don't have all the 'paperwork', I've had to leave the computer world and find employment outside the field. In the world of photography, the day of the 'good enough and cheap enough' looks like it will spell the eventual doom of truly professional photography. Ain't technology great??? ... NOT!!

If a rookie with a newly purchased DSLR, whether its a T3i or 5dMKIII can steal a customer from a professional with years of experience, then its the professional who isn't doing something right. I'm not saying I support people going out doing things like the lady you described, but it is the professionals responsibility to market themselves appropriately. As a professional dive instructor I regularly charge 50-100% more than what the competition does, yet my classes are filled for months out. This is all because I bring a quality skill-set and know how to sell my product in a market that is extremely competitive and filled with instructors who want to under-cut competition.

This argument is no different than when people in local shops say "Amazon is putting me out of business!" Pawning off your own poor performance/lack of marketing abilities onto some third party is no excuse. Get your game face on and realize that being able to sell yourself is the best insurance against any form of competition, internet based, or noob-protog alike.

Do many people just go out and buy dive equipment and within a few days open up "professional" dive operations, without knowing how to use the equipment?

 

[imagemaker46]

and on the other side of that...(and another kind of specific situation) but...
how many of those people that flocked to the cheap photographer previously got ZERO photos done because they could not afford the "pros" prices?
which begs the question...at what level of quality are "some photos" better than "no photos"? or at that point, is quality even a factor?

It was like that too lol.

Now, in the city I live in, the professional is still kind of limited by the consumer because the cost of living here is sooooo low that even though there are 300,000 people, most who want photos have been "spoiled" by the $50 phoographers. Basically, a cheap photographer will get 10 clients a week while a $300 photographer will get one making the cheaper photog more lucrative.

The whole system in this area defies everything right in the world of photography.

As a photographer I would rather have one quick shoot and make $300. On the other side if the person does 10 shoots a week at $50 per shoot, they are now dealing with more people, more people spins into them telling more people, and the 10 shoots a week turns into 20. Going lower on shoot fees can generate more money. I used to say I wouldn't take my camera out of the bag for less than $250. If someone offers me $50 for a 10 minute head shot, I'm not turning it down, I'd rather have that in my pocket than give it to someone else. Every shoot has the potential to spawn more shoots.