p.5 #1 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Actually, talent isn't the deciding factor, it's being able to sell yourself... sure, you need talent, but that isn't what gets you there, being aggressive and selling yourself is... but the sad fact is, if you are good enough to do it, you could probably make way more money selling something else.
dhphoto wrote:
In my previous post I moaned a bit about the impact digital has had on my business, but I also think it has made it much harder for any average photographer to make a living. The cream will always rise to the top and talent is talent in whatever medium.
To make it really big now and make proper money I think you have to be extra talented as there are just so many mediocre pro photographers now. In some ways digital has shaved the profession to a sharp point.
p.5 #3 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
mh2000 wrote:
Actually, talent isn't the deciding factor, it's being able to sell yourself... sure, you need talent, but that isn't what gets you there, being aggressive and selling yourself is... but the sad fact is, if you are good enough to do it, you could probably make way more money selling something else.
Sadly you might be right in the outside world, but to a photographer, it's *all* about talent.
Even now after 30-odd years in the business I reckon can still spot someone with 'the gift' and I've only seen perhaps half a dozen in my life - truly properly talented photographers. I don't count myself among them by the way
p.5 #4 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
This is not just another advance in photography. The combination of cell phone popularity, digital photography, and the cheap combination of the two has produced a change that is unlike any we have seen before.
I pointed out that some markets are disappearing because even DSLRs have made it too easy for even a casual snapshooter to get satisfactory results.
Spraying more roach killer on a dead roach doesn't kill him any more dead. A market doomed by Uncle Bob with his DRebel is not any more doomed by the Jones quintuplets with their five cell phones.
But the photographer who can offer a product beyond the skill and means of Uncle Bob is yet farther beyond the skill and means of all five of the Jones quints.
p.5 #5 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Actually, talent isn't the deciding factor, it's being able to sell yourself... sure, you need talent, but that isn't what gets you there, being aggressive and selling yourself is... but the sad fact is, if you are good enough to do it, you could probably make way more money selling something else.
I think "selling yourself" in this market is a matter of coming to grips with the fact that we are not selling beans and bacon, we're selling caviar and chocolate. A heck of a lot of photographers think they're selling a commodity...they need to retrain themselves to the fact that they're selling a luxury and that their primary target market must be people who are purchasing luxuries.
That means rethinking, "Who is my customer?" The person who must balance the purchase of a photograph against the purchase of can of beans cannot be a primary target market for a photographer any more than he is the primary target market of a Mercedes dealer.
Then the photographer must realize that with the proper primary target market, his competition is not Uncle Bob, but rather his competition is that Mercedes dealer. And the Rolex dealer. And the high-end landscaper. "Selling yourself" means convincing the prospective Rolex purchaser that large wal portrait photograph is a more satisfying purchase than a watch.
In some ways, this economy can make that easier. Most of even the best portrait photographers are cheaper than an Oyster...photography is "the affordable luxury" for those in the luxury market.
Now, I've been saying "primary target market," implying there is a "secondary target market." That would be people willing to splurge for a special event. I've been building up a secondary target market with quinceanera portrait sales. My target market is not made up of general luxury purchasers, but of people who greatly value high-end, traditional portrait photography for this particular purpose, and are willing to save for it.
I've found this to be a totally unserviced market in my area, and frankly, I'm having tremendous results with even minimal marketing simply because everyone else figures "those people don't have money to spend."
p.5 #6 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
NumberFive wrote:
Same here. There's a big difference between the abundance of cameras and the abundance of quality cameras. My cellphone camera is garbage. I take a picture with it, and it's only in focus 30% of the time. Then when I click "save", it saves what the lens was pointing at at that moment, not the original image. This is on a current generation cellphone, still sold today.
Apples and oranges.
I guess you could call me an "Uncle Bob" too. If my occasional happy accident shot is putting a professional's entire portfolio and business at risk, it's time to adapt.
You are both right...there is a huge difference, but you miss the point. The cell phone/camera is an entry point for many people into photography. You are both beyond the entry point as proven by your presence here on FM. For millions of people, the cell phone will be their first camera. For some of them, this will lead to buying a real camera and beginning as an amateur photographer. That is the huge change that has taken place.
p.5 #7 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
RDKirk wrote:
I pointed out that some markets are disappearing because even DSLRs have made it too easy for even a casual snapshooter to get satisfactory results.
Spraying more roach killer on a dead roach doesn't kill him any more dead. A market doomed by Uncle Bob with his DRebel is not any more doomed by the Jones quintuplets with their five cell phones.
But the photographer who can offer a product beyond the skill and means of Uncle Bob is yet farther beyond the skill and means of all five of the Jones quints.
I would argue that very little of what is produced by any professional photographer is beyond the means of Uncle Bob. Uncle Bob might have a hard time matching the pro on a consistent basis. And he might have to take 5 times as many shots to get one good one, but considering there are 50 times as many Uncle Bobs as there are pros, that makes up for it on a market level.
p.5 #8 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
I would argue that very little of what is produced by any professional photographer is beyond the means of Uncle Bob. Uncle Bob might have a hard time matching the pro on a consistent basis. And he might have to take 5 times as many shots to get one good one, but considering there are 50 times as many Uncle Bobs as there are pros, that makes up for it on a market level.
If what the professional produces can be done by Uncle Bob as a matter of sheer statistics and is acceptable to that market, then the professional is still laboring in the wrong market.
Read what I said about marketing as a luxury: If Uncle Bob does it, it's not a luxury, even if Uncle Bob does it as well.
Or to put it another way, if they are satisfied with Uncle Bob, that's the wrong market for the professional. It's just that simple.
It has always been said that the forces of this new market shred from the bottom--that was true a hundred years ago and it's still true. I suspect it was true for the portrait painter market in the latter 1800s when photographers shredded the lower end of their market. The low-to-mid market painters simply lost their market to photography, then and forever. High-end portrait painters survive because the market that buys high-end luxuries will still buy a $10,000 painted portrait.
That's true of horses. Low-end horse sales for transportation and utility by the average person tanked 75 years ago, But there are more people owning horses as luxuries today than ever owned horses in the history of the US.
p.5 #9 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
The cell phone/camera is an entry point for many people into photography. You are both beyond the entry point as proven by your presence here on FM. For millions of people, the cell phone will be their first camera. For some of them, this will lead to buying a real camera and beginning as an amateur photographer. That is the huge change that has taken place.
That was true of the Kodak Instamatic--millions of people bought Instamatics, and some of them went on to buy SLRs. Proportionately, this is not any greater change.
p.5 #10 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
around here... how many times to do you hear people saying you aren't a pro unless you make you living off your photography? That doesn't differentiate between hacks who shoot soccer photos etc. and true master photographers... it has nothing to do with talent at all.
Appreciation of photography is subjective, not absolute, so if you can hype yourself well enough you will influence people's perception of your work.
From my art school days, none of the most talented artists were the ones that made it, it was always the ones that knew how to sell themselves... life and the art world are not blind juried events. How you present yourself and make people think of you effects how they see and appreciate your work.
Years ago, when I was married, the in-laws hired a photographer to shoot it... everyone thought he was the best. I never said anything, but the photos suck... even if they were show with an expensive hassy.
I've spent most my life working freelance in the arts...
As to photography, I'm probably a better painter, but I feel I have "a gift" for photography, but not "The Gift."
dhphoto wrote:
Sadly you might be right in the outside world, but to a photographer, it's *all* about talent.
Even now after 30-odd years in the business I reckon can still spot someone with 'the gift' and I've only seen perhaps half a dozen in my life - truly properly talented photographers. I don't count myself among them by the way
p.5 #11 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
They still have elevator operators in much of Latin America (certainly Brazil) & I really like it. If nothing else it stimulates conversation & conviviality during the brief ride - & certainly humanizes the experience.
a) so does screwing in an elevator, and there's still no need for an operator,
b) i didn't know that riding in modern elevators was dehumanizing,
and more to the analogy,
c) what if the elevator operator wanted to charge you 2000 bucks to take you to the 5th floor, when there are stairs and automated elevators in the same building?
i must escape now before i'm forced to reach again into my bag of silly analogies. frieden auf der erde
p.5 #12 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
n0b0 wrote:
That's probably what he was thinking as well, which kinda makes you just as big of an a$$hole in my book.
Luckily the B&G invariably agree with this particular a$$hole. The last thing they want is some random GWC in all their wedding shots. If that means I need to keep myself between them and the GWC, so be it. Anyone at a wedding who is not being paid to shoot ought to just have a good time and stay the hell out of the way.
p.5 #13 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
RDKirk wrote:
That was true of the Kodak Instamatic--millions of people bought Instamatics, and some of them went on to buy SLRs. Proportionately, this is not any greater change.
Kodak reports that the top year for instimatic production was 1970. That year they make 50 million of them. That represents about 20% of the total number of cameras made that year. 1970 was a peak in camera sales that actually dropped off in later years. Compare that to 682 million cameras in 2008.
Furthermore, people did not carry around and use their instimatics like they do their camera phones. They took them to the ball park and on vacation, but often times they were sitting at home unused. Even so, they did have a huge impact on photography in general. Imagine the impact now that the camera is almost always being carried.
p.5 #14 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
RDKirk wrote:
Then the photographer must realize that with the proper primary target market, his competition is not Uncle Bob, but rather his competition is that Mercedes dealer. And the Rolex dealer. And the high-end landscaper. "Selling yourself" means convincing the prospective Rolex purchaser that large wal portrait photograph is a more satisfying purchase than a watch.
The problem is, you are in a squeezable niche between uncle Bob and an actual paints-brush-and-canvas painter.
As a luxury, an oil painting beats a photograph every day.
As an aside, I've been in offices of some very very rich people. They often have pictures of kids, etc. on their tables and shelves. Almost without exception these are amateur, often badly taken and badly printed photos, not even in the uncle Bob category -- just a snapshot from a birthday, or from playing in water, or something like that.
p.5 #15 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
h_rearden wrote:
Anyone at a wedding who is not being paid to shoot ought to just have a good time and stay the hell out of the way.
Why is that?
Let's say I'm a guest at a wedding. I bring my camera with the intention of making a few pictures and then gifting them to the newlyweds. Why in the world should I be concerned with the fact that your business model stinks and is no longer viable? You're a hired servant and your profit problems are not my problems.
I'm not going to push myself in front of your camera, but I expect the same in return. If you insist on elbowing your way to stand in front of my lens, I'll move you aside.
p.5 #16 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
h_rearden wrote:
Luckily the B&G invariably agree with this particular a$$hole. The last thing they want is some random GWC in all their wedding shots. If that means I need to keep myself between them and the GWC, so be it. Anyone at a wedding who is not being paid to shoot ought to just have a good time and stay the hell out of the way.
If you actually read my post, all I did was shoot candids, just like most of the other guests. The only difference was they shoot with a P&S and I shoot with a DSLR. If I tried to get in on your posed shots, I'd be the first to agree with you... but I didn't.
If you feel so threatened by some amateur with a DSLR doing candid then you probably only produce mediocre shots, maybe you should quit your job and sell your gears now mate. You're only delaying the inevitable.
p.5 #17 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
the best Kodak Instamatic was probably the 500 and even many of the experts around here would have problems taking good photos with one (even though it is a really good camera):
p.5 #18 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
n0b0 wrote:
If you actually read my post, all I did was shoot candids, just like most of the other guests, the only difference was they shoot with P&S and I have a DSLR. If I tried to get in on your posed shots, I'd be the first to agree with you... but I wasn't.
If you feel so threatened by some amateur with a DSLR doing candid then you probably only produce mediocre shots, maybe you should quit your job and sell your gears mate. You're only delaying the inevitable.
p.5 #19 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
abam wrote:
[a) so does screwing in an elevator, and there's still no need for an operator,
b) i didn't know that riding in modern elevators was dehumanizing,
and more to the analogy,
c) what if the elevator operator wanted to charge you 2000 bucks to take you to the 5th floor, when there are stairs and automated elevators in the same building?
i must escape now before i'm forced to reach again into my bag of silly analogies. frieden auf der erde
Too late - it seems you are already armpit deep in that bag!
p.5 #20 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
n0b0 wrote:
If you actually read my post, all I did was shoot candids, just like most of the other guests. The only difference was they shoot with a P&S and I shoot with a DSLR. If I tried to get in on your posed shots, I'd be the first to agree with you... but I didn't.
If you feel so threatened by some amateur with a DSLR doing candid then you probably only produce mediocre shots, maybe you should quit your job and sell your gears now mate. You're only delaying the inevitable.
I don't feel threatened at all. I couldn't care less what they shoot and I think if they end up with some nice candids or whatever then that's great for the B&G. I don't lose any money if there are free shooters there. That's not how my business model works.
The point is that a lot of shooters (regardless of dSLR or P&S) get overzealous and end up either a) in the shot or b) fracking-up the exposure of my shot with their stupid flash. Despite this all being discussed with the B&G before-hand, these situations often occur. Since I'm the one being paid, it is my job to do whatever it takes to get the shot. If it means walking in front of a GWC, then I have the right of way. Simple as that.
So, I'm not saying that there is no place for GWCs at a wedding. What I'm saying is that they should show some respect and always yield to the people being paid to shoot. The fact that they might grab some good shots is irrelevant if they have ruined many of the paid shooters shots. Ask any B&G and they will agree.
