Everyone is taking photos... But then what's wrong with that?

[Damaso]

I have a right because someone pays me and they don't pay a hobbyist. In a capitalist society that is how value is determined. I don't like it much but there you have it. Also I have taken the time to learn my craft and maintain professional standards and am part of professional organizations. You may not like it but fact is my press card gives me the right to cross police and fire lines and gets me into places you might not be able to.

Hobbyists don't shoot in Rwanda, they don't report on wars and as for your caviler statement I think a whole lot of people think of Chris Hondros, recently killed in Libya, is a hero.

At the end of the day my work speaks for itself and is all the right I need...

I think you're backtracking on your initial cavalier statement a bit... But even then when you say you have 'priority' to cover the news, that priority comes based on what criterion?

You're not shooting for free, you're paid by a privet organization that gets paid by advertisement and other stuff to sell those images... And how is that the basis that you have a 'priority' while another guy with a camera does not?

Lets get with the time, the days of super hero PJ with a camera who had the "right" to cover "news" is over.

 

[Damaso]

As I have said before if you are getting in thew way of someone doing their job, no matter what that job is, it is rude. Might you have the right to do so, sure. But as a professional I would ask for the courtesy of being able to do my job without a hobbyist getting in the way. Will that stop me? Of course not, but I do feel as though I have more of a right if you want to put it that way because I am working not simply doing what I do for fun, though it is also fun, please don't tell anyone, it's a secret.

Just because you have a camera doesn't mean you are a photographer anymore than owning a guitar makes you a musician. There are a lot of M owners out there who believe the camera makes them special. My camera doesn't make me special, nor does my press card (though it does give me privileges). I think my work makes me special though I am sure there are lots of people here and elsewhere who don't care for my images. Fact is they've been published widely and won awards? Does that make them "better?" Eh, time will tell.

But for those of you who don't believe we live in a hierarchical system well I'd love to live in your world...

As for this thread I think I've said my piece! Have fun; I have a shoot to go to! :angel:

As long as that individual with the cell phone and / or M9 is not in an area where he/she isn't supposed to be (a designated area for professionals), I can't see how you have more priority just because you make money from it. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I can see it would be highly annoying if I were in your shoes, but part of your job is dealing with getting the photo while dealing with the crowd around you I would think or getting the photo from a different viewpoint than the cell phone snapper.

As far as public getting in the way at my job, they would be trespassing since they would have to get through security and two doors that only open with badges. The same cannot be said of photography. Photojournalists have always had to deal with the public getting in the way when they are documenting the public (and not the private).

 

[Pherdinand]

One thing that the exponential advance of amateur photographers improved in my life is, holiday-pickin.
Seriously.
Some time ago, one could only see real well-payed talented pro photographers' images of interesting places on Earth. Like a natgeo book or such. It was a very tricky thing. A really good photographer can make a craphole look great and interesting. Then you get excited, you go there for two weeks and you figure out that it sucks...after two days.
Now? now i go on google earth check the place from a satellite view, click the inserted panoramio images and see that all the 'soccer moms' can make great looking images of a place...it must be really great. I don't consider the best looking images. I inspect more the crappy images. Those are the real indicators of a place's beauty, interestingness (?) and of the question whether it is worthy of visiting, or not.

And the Globe is FULL of crooked, miscomposed amateur shots, from Antarctica to the Atacama.
Mine are up there, too.

As to the subject of this discussion: I agree with some of the comments that say, maybe the dude was just stating the facts. He was hired to do a job and fourty people blocked him to do it right. It's not that difficult.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Just because you have a camera doesn't mean you are a photographer anymore than owning a guitar makes you a musician.

I think people are confusing two things here: the right to do something and the ethics involved in doing them. Hobbyists and amateurs don't care much about professional ethics in general because they, well, aren't professionals. And nobody likes being told you can't do X.

Common Sense goes out the door when people take an extreme point of view.

For example, anybody can blog. Anybody. There are professional writers and then there are some really nonprofessional writers. They both have the right to write. But it's really silly that the nonprofessional writers complain if they don't get the credentials to, say, a White House Press briefing. I mean, come on! Anybody can record and write that stuff, right?! And I mean anybody.

In chaos different people have different priorities: professionals have a priority to get their done job right otherwise they get penalized professionally. Hobbyists and amateurs don't have this burden. When those two worlds collide, feathers are going to get ruffled.

And the extreme feathers will get ruffled the most.

Debate will not convince anybody any differently when they will stick to their guns, no matter how hot and self-shooting they are.

 

[rover]

As I have said before if you are getting in thew way of someone doing their job, no matter what that job is, it is rude. Might you have the right to do so, sure. But as a professional I would ask for the courtesy of being able to do my job without a hobbyist getting in the way. Will that stop me? Of course not, but I do feel as though I have more of a right if you want to put it that way because I am working not simply doing what I do for fun, though it is also fun, please don't tell anyone, it's a secret.

Personally, I think you are very confused. Just because you get paid to photograph something does not mean at all that you have more rights to a position to do so. What you have is more of a NEED to it. There is a HUGE difference between a right and a need. The fact that someone expects something from you means absolutely nothing at all to me.

But if you ask nice and are respectful....

 

[jsrockit]

There are a lot of M owners out there who believe the camera makes them special. My camera doesn't make me special, nor does my press card (though it does give me privileges).

I'm not sure of that. I think they just feel its a special camera that they like using. I've never seen anyone say "get out of the way, big shot with Leica M coming through... I deserve to make the photo over you because of my camera."

I think it is fashionable to diss the amateur who has an expensive camera ... like that person has to prove they are worthy of using the camera. Cameras are tools sure, but they are also consumer goods. Anyone can own and use one as long as they have the means to get one.

Special = Privilege to me.

I think my work makes me special though I am sure there are lots of people here and elsewhere who don't care for my images. Fact is they've been published widely and won awards? Does that make them "better?" Eh, time will tell.

Yes, in photography, work makes one special. Buying something expensive doesn't take talent. However, again... it is fashionable for the pro to diss the amateur's photos because they aren't "putting in the time." Oh well, a good photo is a good photo regardless of where it was taken or the credentials of the photographer. History has shown us that.

 

[Pherdinand]

let's look at this from another angle.
I guess you like soccer. everybody does (except me).
Your favorite team is ploayin but you can't be there.
You watch it in front of the TV therefore.
All you can see is soccer moms big broad backsides and fat upper arms holding canikons with big zooms, because due to the new democratic regulations everybody's allowed to go to wherever possible to take their shots. So the tv camera fixed in the background is pushed around and blocked up, especeially in the hottest moments.

Are you fine with that?

 

[Roger Hicks]

'Professionals' can be unpleasant and inconsiderate too, and I put 'professionals' in inverted commas because there are hierarchies and other considerations. If I'm shooting HH Dalai Lama at a religious ceremony, working for the Tibetan Government in Exile, I have some ideas of what's proper and what isn't. "What isn't" includes another 'professional' creeping round HH with a video camera on his shoulder, so that anything but a half-length shot has the cameraman in it. He gets his shot of HH's face at sunrise on Losar, and **** the rest of you. Being a professional; being professional; being respectful; they're alll different. The video-camera-wallah hadn't arranged it beforehand; it was just that no decent person thought he'd do it. Cultural differences, again.

To return to hierarchies, who has priority? The photographer working for an NGO for expenses, because he believes in the cause; the photographer from a Micky Mouse newsletter; the photographer from a major newspaper; the amateur? Why, and how? Part of getting the shot is, well, puttng yourself somewhere that you can get the shot. Including, on occasion, having a word with security, organizers, etc., beforehand. That, to me, is more what professional photojournalism is about, rather than merely getting a correctly exposed 'I was there' shot. Good photojournalists can handle composition and 'the decisive moment' too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[igi]

let's look at this from another angle.
I guess you like soccer. everybody does (except me).
Your favorite team is ploayin but you can't be there.
You watch it in front of the TV therefore.
All you can see is soccer moms big broad backsides and fat upper arms holding canikons with big zooms, because due to the new democratic regulations everybody's allowed to go to wherever possible to take their shots. So the tv camera fixed in the background is pushed around and blocked up, especeially in the hottest moments.

Are you fine with that?

No.

I want my professionals to act like one, including thinking new and creative ways to do their job.

That semi-famous photographer should do the same. If he/she did, we'd praise him anyway to the levels of HCB, Winogrand who thought of new ways to shoot.

 

[user237428934]

But even then when you say you have 'priority' to cover the news, that priority comes based on what criterion?

In Germany we think that capturing news is important for the public so PJs are provided with a PJs pass that gives them special rights. That's your criteria.

 

[jwc57]

When I'm not being paid to shoot and someone else is...I stay out of their way. Even if it means me not getting the shot I'd like. If I am getting paid, I will get to where I need to be even if it does tick off someone.

I can tell you why it is important to stay out of someone's way that is getting paid. I was hired to shoot a church directory, including candids during the services. I was given the freedom to shoot whatever I wanted, but one shot they wanted was of the altar boys walking down the aisle with those brass-candle-lighting thingys. (I know I need to go to church more). I emerged from a side room ready to go to work and was met by five church members....all carrying cameras and standing right where I needed to be. Canons and white lenses everywhere. They wouldn't move, asked or not.

At an pageant I was shooting, I was trying to capture a ballet routine of one girl, and knowing the finale, got ready to capture that. When I shifted one foot to my left, I ran smack into some young guy taking photos with a cell phone camera. He got ticked that I ruined his shot. I asked him to move over, "quickly please", but he refused...saying it was his sister and he was taking photos for her. Ironically, she was paying me for a photo package. Her photo package was missing her finale shots. I hope the cell phone work of her brother was sufficient.

The point is, you don't just ruin a shot for a man/woman being paid, you are ruining the shot for other people as well. For you, it is a great shot that will be residing on Flickr. For those who hired the photographer, and you wouldn't give your ground, it is a ripple that affects many people.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

'Professionals' can be unpleasant and inconsiderate too, and I put 'professionals' in inverted commas because there are hierarchies and other considerations. If I'm shooting HH Dalai Lama at a religious ceremony, working for the Tibetan Government in Exile, I have some ideas of what's proper and what isn't. "What isn't" includes another 'professional' creeping round HH with a video camera on his shoulder, so that anything but a half-length shot has the cameraman in it. He gets his shot of HH's face at sunrise on Losar, and **** the rest of you. Being a professional; being professional; being respectful; they're alll different. The video-camera-wallah hadn't arranged it beforehand; it was just that no decent person thought he'd do it. Cultural differences, again.

To return to hierarchies, who has priority? The photographer working for an NGO for expenses, because he believes in the cause; the photographer from a Micky Mouse newsletter; the photographer from a major newspaper; the amateur? Why, and how? Part of getting the shot is, well, puttng yourself somewhere that you can get the shot. Including, on occasion, having a word with security, organizers, etc., beforehand. That, to me, is more what professional photojournalism is about, rather than merely getting a correctly exposed 'I was there' shot. Good photojournalists can handle composition and 'the decisive moment' too.

Cheers,

R.

Well-put. But then again, it's all about what people believe, and not what they ought to know: if everybody knew better, we wouldn't be p!ss!ng each other off just for the "right" to be the center of the world and not minding those around you. There's a couple of billion of us. We can't be (well, shouldn't --can, yes we be) selfish when around each other.

 

[tomtofa]

Some random thoughts around the subject:

When I was a PJ, I got access from authorities by way of my ID. It also worked to make my way through crowds - held it up, said "Excuse me, I'm working, need to get through." That, and my innate charm, got me where I needed to be in most cases. Exceptions were in going up against the broadcast media. Talk about arrogant...

Generally, as more people get involved in a craft/art, the level of mediocrity of that craft/art rises. This puts pressure on the professionals in that field. They have to stay above that level if they want to sell their work. This can make them cranky. Blogs, especially news/political ones, again are a good example. Although many of them are pretty lame, the general level and abundance of them is beginning to make print and TV journalism seem a little shoddy and irrelevant. Too many biases become obvious, too many reported 'facts' get exposed as untrue.
Would HCB make it these days? Those who got to see the body of his work in the recent traveling exhibit can make their best guess.

This isn't a new debate. In the 1890s the New York Tribune observed that

"[a]mateur photography has the reputation of possessing in its various forms all those seductive charms in the enjoyment of which the weary, earthbound mortal is released from durance vile and translated, for the time being, into some seventh heaven of bliss. Opium, hasheesh, even the fascinations of Monte Carlo are supposed to pall before its many attractions."

"Kodakers Lying in Wait": Amateur Photography and the Right of Privacy in New York, 1885-1915Author(s): Robert E. MenselSource: American Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 24-45

There were trials, protests, laws, arguments, etc. trying to determine the proper place of amateurs in the photographic world, and the rights they should have in comparison with the working press. Still are, it seems.

 

[psarta]

Generally, as more people get involved in a craft/art, the level of mediocrity of that craft/art rises. This puts pressure on the professionals in that field. They have to stay above that level if they want to sell their work. This can make them cranky.

if these "pro" cant handle the competition from a mediocre "non pro", then how can they be called "pro" in the first place?

as you said, as the more ppl takes photos, the level of mediocrity will rise, and then we'll really see who's the top of the cream and who's not (aka self acclaimed "pro" as described above)

this is happening accross everything in life; music, sport, being a plumber, carpenter, accountant, etc, etc

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I see this point being the persistent pointy one: "professionals" can't handle "amateurs".

Whereas the problem is, also: "amateurs" have no idea what it is that "professionals" have to go through.

Arrogance on both sides will lead nowhere except to more arrogance on both sides. Everybody thinks they're entitled, because they can. They confuse "Democracy" with this. For "Democracy" to work, rules have to be followed. Without rules (be it by law, by behaviour, by culture, by brotherhood, if you will) it's just simple Anarchy.

Anybody who loves Anarchy will preach by it, until it affects them personally.

Have people really forgotten the meaning of Civility? (vs. Self Entitlement?)

 

[user237428934]

I think one problem is that photography is seen by many as tool-centric and not content-centric. Everyone with a camera just has to press the shutter and a nice photo comes out. What you need a pro for, right?

Every person has a PC and many have seen Powerpoint/Word but 99.999% would never have the idea they could do my job although they have the tools.

 

[j j]

let's look at this from another angle.
I guess you like soccer. everybody does (except me).
Your favorite team is ploayin but you can't be there.
You watch it in front of the TV therefore.
All you can see is soccer moms big broad backsides and fat upper arms holding canikons with big zooms, because due to the new democratic regulations everybody's allowed to go to wherever possible to take their shots. So the tv camera fixed in the background is pushed around and blocked up, especeially in the hottest moments.

Are you fine with that?

Your scenario does not exist. Professional footballers do not take their mum to the game and have her stand at the side of the pitch taking photos and shouting encouragement. It would be amusing if they did. But they don't.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some random thoughts around the subject:

When I was a PJ, I got access from authorities by way of my ID. It also worked to make my way through crowds - held it up, said "Excuse me, I'm working, need to get through." That, and my innate charm, got me where I needed to be in most cases. Exceptions were in going up against the broadcast media. Talk about arrogant...

. . .

Generally, as more people get involved in a craft/art, the level of mediocrity of that craft/art rises. . .

Highlight: VERY true!

Not sure about the level of mediocrity rising, though. Is photography today more 'mediocre' than in (say) the 1950s? I strongly suspect not. I just suspect that we see a lot more truly rotten photography than we used to, because flickr, etc. didn't exist in the 50s.

An evening at an amateur's slide-show in those days was a by-word for tedium: you used to have to bite your finger, in the hope the pain would keep you awake, and flickr is pretty much a televised slide-show, only with fewer pictures upside down.

Cheers,

R.

 

[btgc]

Let's just think about professionals on road. Buses and taxes have right to use bus lanes, while ordinary drivers can't use them. Fine, there's reason. Medical cars, firefighters and police can turn on flashlights and siren to faster get to lunch, oops, I mean on destination. We ordinary drivers must pass them, that's fine.

But otherwise professional drivers are just like us, and bus or police car don't have privilege in crossing just because it's bus or police car, if signs or other conditions don't apply. If they drive in front of me and make crash, they will be fined and I'll get compensation.

Now think about people who have paid for a ticket to see a concert and what they do feel when professional puts a tripod and then puts his back in front of their face. People don't care if professional captures event for TV or future generations - they have paid for a ticket and just want to see concert not worn jeans of man with a camera.

 

[Pherdinand]

Now think about people who have paid for a ticket to see a concert and what they do feel when professional puts a tripod and then puts his back in front of their face. People don't care if professional captures event for TV or future generations - they have paid for a ticket and just want to see concert not worn jeans of man with a camera.

i absolutely agree with you. except, the situation described by the original post in two lines is not like this. Or at least, it is not specifically described as this one.