tobicus wrote:
I completely agree with him. A lot of pro photographers talk themselves into buying tons of gear, but that doesn't make it mandatory. You can easily by a pair of full frame cameras, several primes, flashes, batteries, and cards for well under 5 grand if you shoot Nikon, and half of that if you shoot Canon. Heck, if you're not picky about going full frame, it's even cheaper than that.
In my view there is a big difference between overhead and a capital investment. Once purchased, a camera or a lens doesn't require a monthly fee. Studio space is a monthly drain on the bottom line, and that to me is the overhead Matt is talking about.
ACRe wrote:
In my view there is a big difference between overhead and a capital investment. Once purchased, a camera or a lens doesn't require a monthly fee. Studio space is a monthly drain on the bottom line, and that to me is the overhead Matt is talking about.
Andrew
I agree with that too. Personally, I'd ditch the studio in a heartbeat unless it were bringing in at least 3x as much as it cost.
There are two components to taking gorgeous pictures. One is the technical knowledge, and there's a scale where we all fit on with that knowledge. Through training, experience, and practice, we can move all the way up that scale.
Then there's the creative factor, the "it" factor. Unfortunately, I gotta agree with the side that you're born with a certain amount of "it". Some of us have "it" and we don't even know it, we don't utilize it. We don't have the confidence to go with some inner voice telling us to crawl under a table to get a really cool angle, like what Inku was talking about. But we all have "it" somewhere on that scale, from 0 to 100 or whatever -- but we still have to have to confidence to exploit it.
But if you're loaded with the "it" factor, you can be held back by a lack of technical knowledge. Or the lack of confidence.
On the other hand, you can compensate for lacking a higher level of "it" by developing your technical knowledge and copying what you see that are really cool, epic shots. How many of us have copied Hoffer's backlit raining shot? I know I have.
So there's no one right or wrong answer. It's up to us to make our success. Anyone can do it, to some level.
From reading this thread, I wonder if the "It" people are referring to (the innate ability to create "epic" / interesting / ingenious images) matters less to potential clients and vastly more to photographers.
How many times have we (collective we) taken a shot thought "OMG WoW this is awesome!" only to have a client disregard it in favour of a "boring" shot.
Maybe the "It" exists and maybe it doesn't. But either way does it matter to clients?
TRReichman wrote:
This is a positive thread. I am going to say something negative in order to hopefully make a positive point. This is potentially a fool's errand...
I hate the "some people have IT" argument because it artificially creates a hierarchy that doesn't exist. I understand that people who have figured out how to be good at something like to think they are special. For some reason it pleases the human psyche to believe we were born awesome instead of working to get there - I don't know why but them's the breaks. So people who have figured out how to be good like to hear things like "IT" because it reinforces the sense that they are special. This denigrates the work and system building in favor of believing in destiny and fairy tales. Believe in the work.
The flip side of that coin is that the folks that are still working it out think they were born deficient. They assume that since they don't have it figured out they genetically CAN'T figure it out. This creates unnecessary glass ceilings and keeps people from achieving what they can. This also denigrates the work and adds more fuel to the destiny/fairy tale BS argument.
My point is that there is cause and effect in any business and if you study it and leverage it you can build a successful business. Period. I don't think I suck, I just know that getting to where I've gotten (which I don't think is any great place BTW) isn't a function of me being special, it is a function of figuring out what was working, figuring out why it was working, and leveraging that. No magic, no genetic advantage, just plain old mundane-assed work.
Some good points but dismissive of the idea of talent. Hard work and deconstructing systems can only take you so far IMO.
Skill can be learned, and almost anyone can become a reasonably proficient photographer, engineer, basketball player, shopkeeper, chef, airplane pilot or whatever with enough getting up early and working hard and playing by the rules. That said there will be a few people in every class or group who have a special knack or talent or secret sauce, those who "think different" and can go that extra yard because of how they think or see or understand the big picture. I think we all have a knack for something, but maybe an average photographer could have been a much more successful engineer, but didn't know it and never explored that skill.
The father of a friend of mine was an actual rocket scientist, worked on the SST and the moon rocket...
He mastered the numbers and formulas and usual engineering skill but had the talent to see though the problems that stumped a dozen normal rocket scientists.
Micky Bill wrote:
Some good points but dismissive of the idea of talent. Hard work and deconstructing systems can only take you so far IMO.
Skill can be learned, and almost anyone can become a reasonably proficient photographer, engineer, basketball player, shopkeeper, chef, airplane pilot or whatever with enough getting up early and working hard and playing by the rules. That said there will be a few people in every class or group who have a special knack or talent or secret sauce, those who "think different" and can go that extra yard because of how they think or see or understand the big picture. I think we all have a knack for something, but maybe an average photographer could have been a much more successful engineer, but didn't know it and never explored that skill.
The father of a friend of mine was an actual rocket scientist, worked on the SST and the moon rocket...
He mastered the numbers and formulas and usual engineering skill but had the talent to see though the problems that stumped a dozen normal rocket scientists.
But truthfully, this isn't about being in the NBA. I don't think any of us are that good here that they will be considered the Ansel Adams of wedding photographers. With work and learning and listening, it is totally possible to become a very proficient photographer -- one that is good enough to serve couples that are willing to spend the big bucks.
As an educator and a practitioner it is absolutely no benefit to me to believe in "IT."
And yes, I am utterly dismissive of the idea of talent, which is irrelevant without work. Work without talent will get you pretty far. So talent seems to be a waste of attention.
Micky Bill wrote:
Some good points but dismissive of the idea of talent. Hard work and deconstructing systems can only take you so far IMO.
Skill can be learned, and almost anyone can become a reasonably proficient photographer, engineer, basketball player, shopkeeper, chef, airplane pilot or whatever with enough getting up early and working hard and playing by the rules. That said there will be a few people in every class or group who have a special knack or talent or secret sauce, those who "think different" and can go that extra yard because of how they think or see or understand the big picture. I think we all have a knack for something, but maybe an average photographer could have been a much more successful engineer, but didn't know it and never explored that skill.
The father of a friend of mine was an actual rocket scientist, worked on the SST and the moon rocket...
He mastered the numbers and formulas and usual engineering skill but had the talent to see though the problems that stumped a dozen normal rocket scientists.
I do not disagree. BUT does not having that innate ability limit success in professional wedding photography?
I would suspect that in a few very rare cases there are individuals who are successful in this field just because they are vastly skilled in both the creative AND business (I will not concede it only takes innate creative skill to succeed), BUT I think they are the exception rather than the rule.
The vast majority of successful photographers have gotten there through hard work, not relying on some special "it".
To believe anything else, IMO, is a disservice to those "higher end shooters"
canerino wrote:
What happens when someone has 'it' AND works harder than anyone else?
I think its a misconception that those who have 'it' dont work at keeping 'it'.
Well than I would bet that that person would be successful. BUT I do not think that they will be measurably MORE successful then if they were just the one who worked the hardest.
I asked earlier.... Does the product the "IT" produces actually important to clients, or is it something that is more important to other photographers.
I think people have "it." Usain Bolt has "it." As Chuck alluded to NFL QB's, Tom Brady has "it." Michael Jordan had "it." Tiger Woods used to have "it" but lost it. There are a lot of photographers that I think have "it."
When I was working in IT, I felt that I understood technology pretty well... I even felt that it came easy to me. Did I have "it?" Maybe, but I would still have to work at it, read, learn, apply.
The thing is that even though people have "it" they still have to work their asses off. You can't just sit back and rest on laurels because you have "it" - whatever "it" may be.
Some people might have better examples of people that didn't have "it" but became wildly successful because of hard work and dedication. I do believe you have a better chance at attaining "it" if you get out there and try and not sitting back, lamenting the fact that you don't have "it."
Inku Yo wrote:
Some people might have better examples of people that didn't have "it" but became wildly successful because of hard work and dedication.
Inku Yo wrote:
When I was working in IT, I felt that I understood technology pretty well... I even felt that it came easy to me. Did I have "it?" Maybe, but I would still have to work at it, read, learn, apply.."
Wait, now you're saying you had it when you worked in IT? Head spinning!
I was an illustration major in an art school. One of my classmates was Mike Mignola, who went on to create the Hellboy comics, which went on to become fairly successful movies. We were all capable artists and could all draw, but it was obvious that Mike was at a completely different level. I guess you could say he had it. But I believe his talent was completely tied to his drive to excel and succeed as a comic book artist - the two were inseparable.
It would be foolish to say that anyone can achieve the same level of success as those elite athletes buy "trying lots"
HOWEVER...
As opposed to the NFL, NBA etc, I do not think that success as a wedding photographer is causally linked with innate talent (It).
Does it make it easier to be successful.... maybe....but not having "it" does not stop people from being successful.
There is natural talent. Some people have chemicals in their brain that makes them pick up and pencil when they're a kid and start creating things than inspire awe with others. But talent is mostly the passion to work your arse off in order to create better and better work. Every human can create amazing work. Not everyone possesses the personality traits or patience to actually do it.
There has always been a difference amongst photographers as to what they expect of themselves and what they give to others. Costs of doing business is can also vary regionally and doesn't just equate to camera gear. I will say there are much cheaper ways to have an online presence now than when I got into the industry. What cost thousands then now costs much less.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
Really?? Photography is one of the cheapest businesses imaginable. There are almost no other businesses that can operate with the overhead than many of us do. That's why there's so many of us.
Inku Yo wrote:
I think people have "it." Usain Bolt has "it." As Chuck alluded to NFL QB's, Tom Brady has "it." Michael Jordan had "it." Tiger Woods used to have "it" but lost it. There are a lot of photographers that I think have "it."
When I was working in IT, I felt that I understood technology pretty well... I even felt that it came easy to me. Did I have "it?" Maybe, but I would still have to work at it, read, learn, apply.
The thing is that even though people have "it" they still have to work their asses off. You can't just sit back and rest on laurels because you have "it" - whatever "it" may be.
Some people might have better examples of people that didn't have "it" but became wildly successful because of hard work and dedication. I do believe you have a better chance at attaining "it" if you get out there and try and not sitting back, lamenting the fact that you don't have "it."...Show more →
I'm with you guys. Great examples too. I've played bball my whole life, but I was lazy. Had I been a hard worker, I would have been really good because I had natural talent. There are lots of people who reached the same level as me just through hard work. Then there's people who are more talented or work harder. Then there's people who are the most talented AND the hardest workers (Jordan, Woods)...
Someone can be successful simply because they're talented and also because they're a hard worker. If they're both, that's even better. Personally I consider myself more of the hard worker than the talented when it comes to photography. That's why I've always admired those at the very top of this field. Not only have they worked their butts off, but they have the innate talent too... and it's hard to desire both if the talent comes naturally.
TRReichman wrote:
As an educator and a practitioner it is absolutely no benefit to me to believe in "IT."
And yes, I am utterly dismissive of the idea of talent, which is irrelevant without work. Work without talent will get you pretty far. So talent seems to be a waste of attention.
- trr
how could you make money off of AMTF if you said that some people can't do it? it's not befitting to a workshop model to say that they simply can't. but i've met these people, people who are fitting a square peg into a round hole. so no, its of no financial benefit to tell somebody that they do or don't have it.
your logic is not rooted in reality, it's in selling assistance to the amateur. i know you can't handle this, but nobody can do what you do todd. sorry. you can't teach me how to run AMTF, your business, or make your wife happy.
