rivercityrocker
Well-known
I find that most people that claim to "pro" photographers (at least in my particular field) don't bother to learn the process or master the tool.
I can't talk photography to about 90% of the photographers I find in the photo pit with me because they don't even learn the terminology. Someone tried to correct me the other day when I said to someone "you might want to try opening up and using a wider f/stop". She snickered at me and said, "I think you mean aperture". :bang:
There are a lot of cameras out there, but there aren't a lot of photographers. The number of button pushers is staggering.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I recall reading a magazine article, many years ago, in which the quote came up. It was stated in that article that Shaw made the comment in relation to miniature photography. Shaw had started with 10x8 wet plates and, according to the story given, was still dismissive of 35mm or, indeed, roll film at the time he made the statement to a reporter. Of course, he then went on to use a Leica and, being GBS, conveniently forgot his earlier views on the subject.
I believe that version comes from Helmut Gernsheim's "Concise History of Photography" and it isn't quite the same as I recall from the article. Unfortunately, the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations doesn't include that particular item, nor can I find anything else in my library, so it will remain one of the many things I "hae me doots aboot" but can neither prove nor otherwise.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Bill Clark
Veteran
I thought that when I set the camera to "P" that meant I'm now in professional mode!
Just kidding.
Do you think the digital cameras have allowed that to happen?
I still use my digital stuff in manual mode. Heavens to Betsy! How'd he do 'dat?
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Boy, it sure is around here. I was just looking at Craigslist at photo gear. Craigslist is full of folks who are advertising themselves as "pro" and trying to find paying clients for work, but whose portfolio is composed primarily of snapshots that are poorly composed, poorly lit, poorly timed, poorly posed, and look like they were done with early cell phones.
That's absolutely true, Bill. That "P" mode is why you can "shoot like a pro" with a Canon Rebel.
Well, yes. That and the proliferation of computers that allow folks to store and post-process their own images. In the film days in order to distribute your images, there was an investment; not only in film, but in processing and printing costs plus the time involved. If you made poor images, you spent a lot of time, effort, and money just trying to bring your poor images to market. If they didn't sell, you couldn't afford to keep it up for very long. You either improved your ability to make images or you got out.
Today, there's no investment past buying the camera. They already have a computer, Gimp is free, and you can store a huge number of images for free online. The investment in the images, and subsequently the necessity of improving the skill level has disappeared. The "I have a digital camera, so I can do that too" factor is very high. The skill level of really talented and experienced photographers is discounted. The public is now seeing so much poor-quality imaging that all images are devalued.
So, while digital has truly democratized imaging, it's also brought imaging down to the lowest common denominator. The sheer volume of images is now so large that none of them are valuable and good images are buried under an avalanche of mediocre and worse.
It's a sad state of affairs.
Bill Clark
Veteran
To overcome as new folks are trying to enter into the paying photography field is by educating clients and potential clients what I offer.
It's been that way for a long time, new folks entering and many of the seasoned ones crying the blues.
Nothing new except technology has made photography more available to everyone. But isn't that what George Eastman was building as his business model years ago? As I recall one of his mottos was, "You take the picture and we do the rest!"
It's been that way for a long time, new folks entering and many of the seasoned ones crying the blues.
Nothing new except technology has made photography more available to everyone. But isn't that what George Eastman was building as his business model years ago? As I recall one of his mottos was, "You take the picture and we do the rest!"
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
I get what you're sayin' but remember, a lot of those folks were sold those cameras because those cameras 'take perfect pictures, just like a pro'. Because it's Craigslist I'd bet a lot of those people are desperately scrambling for rent.
But, yes, images are being devalued. The reasons are many, and mostly beyond the scope of this forum.
Dan
Let's Sway
Perfectly stated and oh, so true!
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Highlight one. Having moaned and groaned with other photographers in recent years about the influx of "new Pros" coming in to the trade off the back of being able to learn 'on the job' with digital and their ability to offer extremely cheap rates I've noticed a turnaround in the conversation. Many of my colleagues have started relaying stories of new clients and old (returning) clients being so much more appreciative of their work than ever before.
I've done an awful lot of PR work over the years and seen a massive hit to that due to iPads, Twitter* and a global recession, only the bigger jobs being kept for the professional. However as a result of that clients appreciate not only the finished product when you deliver it to them but also the professional manner, the ability to problem solve on the hoof etc; all because they now have some understanding of low picture quality or dealing with a terrible backdrop whilst one of those needing to be photographed has a hissy fit or equipment failure or any of the myriad issues that work throws in your way.
So in my experience I think there is an argument to suggest that the proliferation of poor imagery, inexperienced 'pros' and outright charlatans actually helps to highlight the good quality work, especially if one expands that statement to include the work of the photographer as a whole (e.g. professionalism, ability to communicate concisely, quickly and politely and so on.)
Highlight two. This is where the problem really is in my opinion. Being able to push the good work through the morass of low quality imagery. With all social media being populated with imagery of just about every sort, with a Flickr account being used as a "professional" online folio by some and with the proliferation of people giving themselves the title of "___fill in blank___ photographer" before they've even gone out and done it its no wonder that its so hard to differentiate at first. However, cream does rise. You may have to help it along and the milk bottle may be growing exponentially whilst the amount of cream remains fairly low, but it is still there. Possibly even a touch more valuable now, or at least once (or even, if) its been found.
*Meaning that many PR bods are sent out with an iPad to snap an event and load it straight onto Twitter, FB et al because it costs nothing and is immediate.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I don't normally like to be confrontational but I strongly disagree with the elitist views being expressed here.
Technology has made it possible for far more people to make the images that they want. In my opinion, this is a very good thing. I sympathise with those who feel their status is being eroded because people with fewer or different skills are now able to make those images. However, that is the nature of life in a world in which technology is advancing at a rapid pace. Before decrying this, we should consider whether there is any previous period in which anyone posting here would have the opportunity to be materially or spiritually wealthier.
Some people have said that the images being produced are of poor quality. As someone who believes that "quality" does not exist in art, I fail to see this. What I do see are more images that I like. As "like" or "dislike" is my sole criterion for art, I am in consequence much better off.
Perhaps we should all consider our reasons for criticising others. I believe that, if it is to aid them or to prevent harm, that is good. If it is simply misplaced arrogance or fear, then it may be more to our own benefit to reconsider our opinions.
I shall now air out the bomb shelter in anticipation.
Technology has made it possible for far more people to make the images that they want. In my opinion, this is a very good thing. I sympathise with those who feel their status is being eroded because people with fewer or different skills are now able to make those images. However, that is the nature of life in a world in which technology is advancing at a rapid pace. Before decrying this, we should consider whether there is any previous period in which anyone posting here would have the opportunity to be materially or spiritually wealthier.
Some people have said that the images being produced are of poor quality. As someone who believes that "quality" does not exist in art, I fail to see this. What I do see are more images that I like. As "like" or "dislike" is my sole criterion for art, I am in consequence much better off.
Perhaps we should all consider our reasons for criticising others. I believe that, if it is to aid them or to prevent harm, that is good. If it is simply misplaced arrogance or fear, then it may be more to our own benefit to reconsider our opinions.
I shall now air out the bomb shelter in anticipation.
I'm sorry to hear this. You may need a break.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I don't normally like to be confrontational but I strongly disagree with the elitist views being expressed here.
Technology has made it possible for far more people to make the images that they want. In my opinion, this is a very good thing. I sympathise with those who feel their status is being eroded because people with fewer or different skills are now able to make those images. However, that is the nature of life in a world in which technology is advancing at a rapid pace. Before decrying this, we should consider whether there is any previous period in which anyone posting here would have the opportunity to be materially or spiritually wealthier.
Some people have said that the images being produced are of poor quality. As someone who believes that "quality" does not exist in art, I fail to see this. What I do see are more images that I like. As "like" or "dislike" is my sole criterion for art, I am in consequence much better off.
Perhaps we should all consider our reasons for criticising others. I believe that, if it is to aid them or to prevent harm, that is good. If it is simply misplaced arrogance or fear, then it may be more to our own benefit to reconsider our opinions.
I shall now air out the bomb shelter in anticipation.
No bomb shelter necessary, and I am a far cry from elitist, nor am I "crying the blues." I'm also with you that "quality" and "art" don't necessarily belong in the same sentence, although they're not necessarily mutually exclusive either.
What I AM decrying though are the number of folks who believe that they can deliver quality work to paying clients without (apparently, and I take this impression from their "porfolios" online) any formal training, apprenticeship, or actual commercial photography experience.
I don't particularly find them a threat to MY business, nor I suspect do many established pros, but I have to wonder what drives a person to consider doing something that they're woefully unprepared to do simply because they have a camera and a computer and have a little knowledge of post-processing. And I wonder about the impact those folks have on "pro" photography in general.
If people were allowed to just declare one day that they are a physician, or a lawyer because they bought some equipment or read a law book, what would that do for medicine and law? And yet, in our craft that's exactly what we're allowed to do.
I don't know that there is an "answer" to this. It's just interesting to contemplate.
Ignorance. They haven't realized what they do not know yet. They assume it is easy because they are not seeing.
Margu
Established
I don't normally like to be confrontational but I strongly disagree with the elitist views being expressed here.
elitist means an assumption of an elite group. in photography there are no elites, in fact magnum members are living on the same "new pros" money by doing workshops, there is nothing else for them.
instead of elite, a better term would be, out of touch, or obsolete, or past its prime, or no longer relevant, or get a real job...
Margu
Established
you're right. maybe i should spend more time in the rumor sites, checking ebay, classifieds, dxo sensor rating chart etc. etc.
Is this an assumption of what you think I do? All I was offering to you is that maybe you need a break until you can enjoy it again. It happens to everyone. I took ten years off from photography a few years back. Best thing I ever did.