p.7 #2 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
The issue I brought up a couple pages ago wasn't so much about Uncle Bob and his candid photography.. it was aimed at the posed shots. Here was the situation I was involved in:
As part of the package the photog I worked for provided, his studio rents a REALLY nice old Rolls that in between the ceremony and the reception the bride, groom and family are taken away from all the guests to another area of grounds and he does a series of posed shots with the car. This is completely posed and choreographed and he has a series of about 12-20 shots he goes through. This is when Uncle Bob tagged along and started taking pictures behind/beside the photog. The day was overcast to the fact that Uncle Bob didn't have a bit of fill flash wasn't a huge deal and even on full auto he is going to get really nice pics. He was asked politely to leave but the Bride just said "Oh don't worry, he's just going to take a few snaps"... don't want to piss off the clients or they may not order as many prints... or just order one of each and make copies etc. But it's the photographers poses.. the photographers dime paying for the car... 10 years ago Uncle Bob with his point and shoot or disposable really would have only gotten snapshots out of this.. but with even just a Rebel XT and a 70-200 F4L which seems to be the Uncle Bob special now adays he's going to get really nice pics... THATS the threat I was talking about. Candids have been happenning since the instamatic and will continue happenning. I know I'll still get better candids with my 85L and a little fill than Uncle Bob and his 18-55 and full face blasting flash
p.7 #4 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
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.
I said, "Proportionately."
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.
"Being carried" is not the same thing as "being used." Heck, I'm a photographer, I've had a cell phone camera for five years (I've got two in my pocket right now--because nobody markets a cell phone that handles two liens), and I've yet to take a picture with one.
p.7 #6 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
He was asked politely to leave but the Bride just said "Oh don't worry, he's just going to take a few snaps"... don't want to piss off the clients or they may not order as many prints... or just order one of each and make copies etc. But it's the photographers poses.. the photographers dime paying for the car...
That's a business model problem. The photographer should have a contract that specifies what products he will deliver and the price he will be paid. That should be enough to provide sufficient profit. And his final payment should occur before the ceremony.
p.7 #7 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Many many cheap DSLRs ... and people confident enough to say they're good photographers. Makes it tough for the pros. I'm not a pro, and I was recently at a relative's wedding and my camera and lenses were better than the photographer's lenses - mine are much below pro-level, so you can imagine the "pro's" camera and lenses - a Rebel, a Tamron 17-35mm, a 70-200mm f/4 or something. I respected her situation and kept my camera in my bag whenever she was around, and only took photos when she was covering things happening elsewhere.
p.7 #8 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
It's a fairly wide niche, though, between a $1-4000 photograph and a $6-20,000 painting...and I expect to sell a client more than one photograph. No different than the niche Lexus occupies between Accord and Mercedes Merbach.
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.
That's fine and expected. I'm interested in what's on their walls at home.
p.7 #10 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
saaketham wrote:
Many many cheap DSLRs ... and people confident enough to say they're good photographers. Makes it tough for the pros. I'm not a pro, and I was recently at a relative's wedding and my camera and lenses were better than the photographer's lenses - mine are much below pro-level, so you can imagine the "pro's" camera and lenses - a Rebel, a Tamron 17-35mm, a 70-200mm f/4 or something. I respected her situation and kept my camera in my bag whenever she was around, and only took photos when she was covering things happening elsewhere.
i think it depends on how much she was paid.
if she charged it for $200, how can you expect she use 1Ds3x2 + L lens unless she's a friend or relative of bride or groom.
personally, i wouldnt pay $1000+ to a wedding photographer who's using a xxd/xxxd camera.
p.7 #11 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
sskoutas wrote:
I own some pretty nice wood shop tools. Anybody want me to build their house? I also own a couple of brand new X-acto knives so if anyone needs an appendectomy in southern New England, I'm your man. Much better prices than any local surgeons too.
I think you get my point... giving someone a 135L and a Mark III doesn't make them a pro. And as others have said, anyone with the money to do so can go buy the best equipment there is to buy. There's no license and ability test to get great stuff.
You are missing the point of the whole thing. The public's perception is that a doctor is so highly trained that a normal person can't replace him. That is not the common perception of a photographer. This perception is not an accident. Doctors over the course of hundreds of years have worked very hard to make sure people understand the skill and training it takes to perform the tasks they do. Professional organizations such as the American Medical Association exist for that very purpose.
Photography is a very young field by comparison and it practitioners are nowhere near as organized. Organizations such as the Professional Photographers of America represent a very small percentage of all photographers.
p.7 #12 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
I expect most sports photographers to be out of biz in probably 5 years or so. Being a parent with a DSLR (5 years ago with a 10D) I was the ONLY one with a "high" end camera. Now at the rink, pool, or baseball diamond I am now one of many, my lowly 5DmkI being out classed by 1dmkIII's, D700's, etc... I won't even bring up the high end telephoto's. Don't know what the photo's look like but they are probably of lesser quality than mine, but they certainly are better than a P/S, which is what matters to the customer.
p.7 #13 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
nathanlake wrote:
"You are missing the point of the whole thing. The public's perception is that a doctor is so highly trained that a normal person can't replace him. That is not the common perception of a photographer. This perception is not an accident. Doctors over the course of hundreds of years have worked very hard to make sure people understand the skill and training it takes to perform the tasks they do. Professional organizations such as the American Medical Association exist for that very purpose."
I realize you didn't initiate this analogy & I understand your point but nevertheless I think the comparison very stretched. Medicine is literally a life & death issue. Photography not so much (unless perhaps you happen to get in the way of a pro at a wedding ).
Frankly, many professional photographers aren't so highly trained that skilled amateur can't replace them (isn't that the central gripe of this thread?). I don't believe this is true for doctors - I certainly would feel far more comfortable going into surgery with a thoroughly trained & board certified professional than a guy who's just bought himself some expensive equipment & has a flair for cutting flesh.
p.7 #15 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
Then you have to call yourself an "artist" and call what you sell "art" :-)
NAP. I painted portraits before I started photographing them. My method of marketing, working, pricing, and selling is more similar to the methods of portrait artists than to photographers.
p.7 #16 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
The public's perception is that a doctor is so highly trained that a normal person can't replace him. That is not the common perception of a photographer.
That is a matter of the photographer's portfolio. The successful photographer in the future must have a body of previous work that is clearly beyond the capabilities of the "normal person" or of a specific style that he successfully markets as valuable in its own right.
That's true of any artists of any genre, whether writer, painter, actor, dancer, musician, or photographer. The task for the artist is not to sell her "professionalism," but to sell herself.
p.7 #17 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
It seems from a historical perspective that photography goes back and forth. At some times amateurs and pros use very similar equipment and then as innovation creates something new, and very expensive, the pros use one thing and the amateurs another.
I am 38 and when I was a kid the guy next to me had a little studio in his garage. He was not a pro, just liked to take family pics and had a huge extended family. His equipment, seemed to me to be, very pro like. From my memory during much of the 80s canon amateurs shot very similar slr cameras (albeit lower end models) with similar lenses then their pro counterparts.
In response to the op's second point. Pros do not need to impress with gear they need to impress with their portfolio and the results they can generate.
p.7 #18 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
globalkiwi wrote:
I realize you didn't initiate this analogy & I understand your point but nevertheless I think the comparison very stretched. Medicine is literally a life & death issue. Photography not so much (unless perhaps you happen to get in the way of a pro at a wedding ).
Frankly, many professional photographers aren't so highly trained that skilled amateur can't replace them (isn't that the central gripe of this thread?). I don't believe this is true for doctors - I certainly would feel far more comfortable going into surgery with a thoroughly trained & board certified professional than a guy who's just bought himself some expensive equipment & has a flair for cutting flesh....Show more →
I disagree with you, the analogy is perfectly reasonable.
Your mindset is exactly the mindset that NathanLake was referring to, how the medical profession has ingrained into society a mindset that only members of the profession are qualified and capable of handling certain tasks. You say that medicine is a life and death situation and as such should only be handled by professionals. What about Farming? If all the farmers stopped producing food we'd all die. That's a life and death situation too. Should farming be restricted to professionals? Yes it should using your argument
Only a very minor percentage of Doctors do surgery. For the more mundane tasks that a Doctor does, a skilled amateur could more than easily handle those tasks.
Let's take an example of getting a wart cyrogenically treated with Liquid Nitrogen. You have to go to a Doctor to do it because you can't just buy and store a vat of liquid nitrogen very easily. But if you did have assess to these chemicals, you could easily just dab yourself, and you'd probably do a better job at it too in the comfort of your own home
Or if you want to get a vaccination, you have to go to your Doctor. You can't just buy the vaccination yourself, but if you could, let's face it, it's not very difficult to give oneself an injection...drug addicts do it all the time.
What restricts people from giving themselves vaccine injections is then unavailability of vaccination tools and drugs from the general public.
The same is not true for Photography - anyone can go and pick up a 1DsMark III if they want
Where the analogy is different is that the difference is not in the skill level required, but the availability of Equipment.
If one has the technical proficiency to set up remote off camera lighting to capture hummingbirds in flight, I don't think pressing a button on an XRay machine would be much more difficult. The difference is that you can go buy some flashes, but you can't just buy a medical imaging machine.
p.7 #19 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
So when is a pro a pro? I have been doing weddings for some time now, I am NOT a pro even though I'm making money out of photography. I always inform the couple of this and they still want me to do the weddings in my almost journalistic style. I always have a backup photographer and a spare camera as well. I take reasonable shots, never had a complaint and don't charge a high end price. If they are looking for boring standard shots I send them to the pros in town, There is only one pro in my town I would consider great, he is a master photographer.
Somehow word of mouth has got me more work, had a recent call from another state to do some freelance work, I did not even have to edit the shots, got $220.00 for an hours work. So someone doing freelance work these days does not have to have post processing skills. I get sick of hearing the whinging of people claiming you have to have had some form of photographic education to be pro. Sadly I see more so called pro work that is bland and boring than I do from self taught artistic people. So if the pros want to make money they have to offer something better than the armatures and many don't. I think that the DSLR has made it a more level playing field for those people who have talent and skills that they could never afford to apply when we were restricted to expensive film slrs
p.7 #20 · is popularity of dslr a bad things to pros?
You're right, DSLR has definitely made the playing field more even. Add to that the easy and free access to knowledge that is the Internet and the skillful amateur can overtake the mediocre "pro" whom usually are the first ones to whinge.
