Rookies are killing the business!

[invisible]

Usagani Photography | Our own wedding photography nightmare

That was an interesting read. And how cool was it to have Mark Zuckerberg as one of your guests before the explosion of Facebook?

 

[.SimO.]

From an amateur standpoint, reading comments from veterans and professionals at times on here deter me from ever wanting to be anything else but a hobbyist. I received my first DSLR the beginning of last year and haven't put it down since. I study, read principles and concepts but more importantly, I go out and shoot. It is honestly harder for me to even ask questions on here sometimes because of the mindset some have categorizing all new photographers as "wanna be pro's". Just wanted to reference my current standing and how much it takes to post my "opinion" on here.

I personally think if you are threatened by someones terrible work and they are getting business, then do something about it. If this is truly your profession, then you will do more than just complain to put food on the table. Start hosting local events, courses. Do something as a professional would. Just because you are a professional photographer, this doesn't make you a business professional.

 

[texkam]

Yawn. This has, is, and will continue to go on, ...and not just in the photography world. Get over it.

+1 on Mark Zuckerberg at Robin's wedding. I think Mark used Robin's photographer at his wedding too.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kashmirhill/files/2012/05/Mark-Zuckerberg-wedding.jpg

 

[spacefuzz]

Rookies arnt killing photography, they are elevating it.

With the DSLR photography has become more prevelant, and therefore the volume of the work output has increase. This increase leads some people to spend more time than others and increase the quality of their work. This elevates the top end of the field and provides incentive for people to push further. If you look at the best pro work today its loads better than what I have seen from the 80's. Some of that is tech, but I believe most of it is due to the higher level of competition. An analogy would be football (american) in the 1930's represents no where near the level of play in the current seasons. It just keeps building on itself. I think a large part of the dissapointment comes from with increased competition you cant hang out in mediocrity and hope to succeed, you have to work for it.

/flame away.

 

[12sndsgood]

From an amateur standpoint, reading comments from veterans and professionals at times on here deter me from ever wanting to be anything else but a hobbyist. I received my first DSLR the beginning of last year and haven't put it down since. I study, read principles and concepts but more importantly, I go out and shoot. It is honestly harder for me to even ask questions on here sometimes because of the mindset some have categorizing all new photographers as "wanna be pro's". Just wanted to reference my current standing and how much it takes to post my "opinion" on here.

I personally think if you are threatened by someones terrible work and they are getting business, then do something about it. If this is truly your profession, then you will do more than just complain to put food on the table. Start hosting local events, courses. Do something as a professional would. Just because you are a professional photographer, this doesn't make you a business professional.

Yes it's true members will attack some people who want to become pro. But in general it's all in how they are going about it. I had asked several questions before I opened shop and don't think I was ever once attacked because I did my homework before hand, the ones that usually get attacked are the ones that have allreayd opened their doors and then come in asking questions they should have allready known before hand. It really comes down to how you go about things as to how you are responded too.

 

[imagemaker46]

Rookies arnt killing photography, they are elevating it.

With the DSLR photography has become more prevelant, and therefore the volume of the work output has increase. This increase leads some people to spend more time than others and increase the quality of their work. This elevates the top end of the field and provides incentive for people to push further. If you look at the best pro work today its loads better than what I have seen from the 80's. Some of that is tech, but I believe most of it is due to the higher level of competition. An analogy would be football (american) in the 1930's represents no where near the level of play in the current seasons. It just keeps building on itself. I think a large part of the dissapointment comes from with increased competition you cant hang out in mediocrity and hope to succeed, you have to work for it.

/flame away.

The consistency and quality of my photography in the 1980's was just as good as my photography is now, it wasn't changed by the digital age or the change in the number of people shooting now. If anything I was more selective of how I shot and what I shot back then, shooting and processing film was more costly than buying one card these days. Now I shoot more at events and the gear has helped with working in low light, mostly in conditions that could not have been shot on film with avaliable light. My competition back then was the same as my competition now, professionals working in the same field as me. The ones professionals can't compete against are the ones that shoot for free or very little, because they can.

People will take free photos every time even if they are crap. It's free, and any professional that says this doesn't affect them in some way, is lying.

 

[pixmedic]

The consistency and quality of my photography in the 1980's was just as good as my photography is now, it wasn't changed by the digital age or the change in the number of people shooting now. If anything I was more selective of how I shot and what I shot back then, shooting and processing film was more costly than buying one card these days. Now I shoot more at events and the gear has helped with working in low light, mostly in conditions that could not have been shot on film with avaliable light. My competition back then was the same as my competition now, professionals working in the same field as me. The ones professionals can't compete against are the ones that shoot for free or very little, because they can.

People will take free photos every time even if they are crap. It's free, and any professional that says this doesn't affect them in some way, is lying.

There might be some minor impact... Hell, even if it was a big impact it still doesnt change the fact that someone's ability to succeed with a business depends on them, and how they manage their business. You can either work hard and succeed despite the cheap competition, or you try and fail. We refuse to let other peoples business practices (or lack thereof) be an excuse as to why we arent making six figures a year taking pictures. We will succeed or fail on our own merits or shortcomings. Some people will indeed take cheap/free every time. Some will do their due diligence and take a quality product. We work with the business we can get, do the best we can with it, and keep trying to find new ways to bring in new clients. Noone is going to do it for us. And noone is going to catch us if we fall.
But we take responsibility for our situation, when things are good as well as when things are bad.

 

[Steve5D]

If "rookies" are getting in the way of your ability to conduct business, that's a much bigger commentary on your lack of ability than theirs.

I think it's also misguided to assume that someone who shoots with "less than pro" gear can't turn out professional results that clients are happy with. The reality is that many can...

100% correct about the gear, it's been said on this forum and pretty much everywhere, it's the person holding the gear, not the gear. Entry level digital body and good glass can produce great quality images in the right hands.

Completely agree, don't forget as well that taking the photograph in some instances is only the beginning. Post production work in Photoshop will only help to enhance the image even further. If you can master some of those skills as well you can create some nice artwork.

There's a whole generation of professional photographers who've never developed a roll of film, or were subject to the restrictions of a darkroom. I'm not saying that's bad, at all, but becoming a pro today doesn't require a great deal of the knowledge that was required 20 years ago. I cut my teeth in a darkroom 35 years ago, when each press of the shutter mattered.

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...

 

[invisible]

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.

 

[pixmedic]

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.

 

[imagemaker46]

100% correct about the gear, it's been said on this forum and pretty much everywhere, it's the person holding the gear, not the gear. Entry level digital body and good glass can produce great quality images in the right hands.

Completely agree, don't forget as well that taking the photograph in some instances is only the beginning. Post production work in Photoshop will only help to enhance the image even further. If you can master some of those skills as well you can create some nice artwork.

There's a whole generation of professional photographers who've never developed a roll of film, or were subject to the restrictions of a darkroom. I'm not saying that's bad, at all, but becoming a pro today doesn't require a great deal of the knowledge that was required 20 years ago. I cut my teeth in a darkroom 35 years ago, when each press of the shutter mattered.

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...

As much as I agree with this and have said in the past that the majority of today's photographers both amateur and professional wouldn't know how to do any of this. Even if you just took away autofocus. It is the new reality, that what used to be a skillful part of being a photographer is now simply done by a piece of electronic equipment. The satisfaction of putting everything together manually, having to follow focus on a moving subject is something that the new generation doesn't understand. Many people have said to me, "I have a lot of respect for the photographers that had to shoot sports with manual focus" I appreciate hearing that, not just because I was one of those guys, but for all the photographers that did it that way. Autofocus is a great thing, it just doesn't require any skill.

 

[kathyt]

100% correct about the gear, it's been said on this forum and pretty much everywhere, it's the person holding the gear, not the gear. Entry level digital body and good glass can produce great quality images in the right hands.

Completely agree, don't forget as well that taking the photograph in some instances is only the beginning. Post production work in Photoshop will only help to enhance the image even further. If you can master some of those skills as well you can create some nice artwork.

There's a whole generation of professional photographers who've never developed a roll of film, or were subject to the restrictions of a darkroom. I'm not saying that's bad, at all, but becoming a pro today doesn't require a great deal of the knowledge that was required 20 years ago. I cut my teeth in a darkroom 35 years ago, when each press of the shutter mattered.

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...

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.

 

[imagemaker46]

Completely agree, don't forget as well that taking the photograph in some instances is only the beginning. Post production work in Photoshop will only help to enhance the image even further. If you can master some of those skills as well you can create some nice artwork.

There's a whole generation of professional photographers who've never developed a roll of film, or were subject to the restrictions of a darkroom. I'm not saying that's bad, at all, but becoming a pro today doesn't require a great deal of the knowledge that was required 20 years ago. I cut my teeth in a darkroom 35 years ago, when each press of the shutter mattered.

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...

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.

Processing film is a piece of cake, you could learn how to do it in 15 minutes. I've been using PS since 1992 and am still working on it.

 

[tirediron]

Processing film is a piece of cake, you could learn how to do it in 15 minutes. I've been using PS since 1992 and am still working on it.

Film is a piece of .... printing on the other hand is a real skill, and IMO, one equal in complexity and skill to modern digital editing.

 

[LouR]

Completely agree, don't forget as well that taking the photograph in some instances is only the beginning. Post production work in Photoshop will only help to enhance the image even further. If you can master some of those skills as well you can create some nice artwork.

There's a whole generation of professional photographers who've never developed a roll of film, or were subject to the restrictions of a darkroom. I'm not saying that's bad, at all, but becoming a pro today doesn't require a great deal of the knowledge that was required 20 years ago. I cut my teeth in a darkroom 35 years ago, when each press of the shutter mattered.

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...

As much as I agree with this and have said in the past that the majority of today's photographers both amateur and professional wouldn't know how to do any of this. Even if you just took away autofocus. It is the new reality, that what used to be a skillful part of being a photographer is now simply done by a piece of electronic equipment. The satisfaction of putting everything together manually, having to follow focus on a moving subject is something that the new generation doesn't understand. Many people have said to me, "I have a lot of respect for the photographers that had to shoot sports with manual focus" I appreciate hearing that, not just because I was one of those guys, but for all the photographers that did it that way. Autofocus is a great thing, it just doesn't require any skill.

Don't equate Autofocus with things like Photoshop. I've been shooting at one level or another since I was 11 or 12 and I'm 58. Never set foot in a darkroom and I don't think I should have to to know what to do before I press the shutter as well as after. My "style" includes a lot of editing and/or manipulation and it's not very simple most times.
As far as the OP, I don't think it's the amateurs or the MWCs as much as it is the consumer. In the last year or so that I worked at a high end portrait studio, clients expected CDs of their sittings, retouching included most times, for the cost of the sitting. They would try to order just 1 8x10, declaring they would "just scan it for other copies" in total ignorance and sense of entitlement because they paid money. They see the digital cameras come out and think things will be perfect and are in total awe when I would have to show them head swaps to come up with a decent image of their darlings among the 100 or so taken. In short, consumers are clueless and they "hurt" the business as much as any rookie with a dslr. As long as the consumers' expectations aren't very high, those who don't have a lot of talent and knowledge will continue to make money. In turn, they won't see the real need to improve and bring their level of expertise up.