BootsnAll Travel Community

I've enjoyed taking pictures since I got my first camera in the 6th grade, and I really love the ability to share my photos online now. The husband even made a lovely 2007 calendar out of photos I took during our last trip to Europe. I never expect to make a living with my camera, but it's certainly fun to have a wider audience than just my family... But am I contributing to the demise of the professional photographer? According to the link in this post by Chris Gray, at least one guy thinks so.

Personally, it seems that if someone who (according to the fellow who wrote the article) takes horrible pictures is able to sell a few of them now and again, it's not that terrible photographer's "fault." If the market is able to support him/her, more power to 'em. I mean, aren't there just as many people with horrible taste as there are with horrible photography skills?

So what do you think? Do you make money from the photographs you take, and do you consider yourself an amateur or a pro? Does the guy in the article have a point, or is he just being whiny?

Well yeah, I see the point that it would be much harder these days to make a living solely off of photography - but tis the reality. It's why I'll never aspire to be a full-time artistic anything -- I personally don't think it's feasible. There are too many others who are chasing the same dream..so to speak.

I do agree with the general point of the whiner that the digital age has made it much easier to manipulate images, and turn what might have been a crappy image into a much better one. But again, that's the reality. I think digital combined with editing (photoshop) can make a lot MORE people have higher-quality net results, but obviously the equipment itself can't assist with the actual composition (erm...unless someone is cropping a bunch of stuff on photoshop!!). So I think composition is still something that not everyone has.

I'm definitely a photo snob when it comes to what I personally believe. I've never edited anything, and I'm still using film, and in a sense I don't think it's 'fair' that editing exists -- so in that sense, I agree with the article. I also think it's kind of sad that all of this photoshopping happens, as these days I'd assume most images you see in books, magazines, or for sale, have been manipulated in one way or another. It takes away more from raw talent, and the reality of what was really seen/photographed. But that's another discussion.

Hmm...I've never sold anything...maybe I should!! I'm just a bit too lazy to make the effort.

Technology forces change yet again. The same argument can be made for a wide array of vocations. The capitalist in me agrees with this. Classic case: The invention of the automobile put buggy whip makers out of business. (and buggy makers, for that matter)

It's silly to try and "protect" an industry simply out of resistance to change. There are endless examples of that tactic failing -- the airlines come to mind. And IBM was almost put out of business by failing to adapt to the emergence of Personal Computers.

Rather than whining, pro photographers need to seek out those opportunities that only they can do. They are out there. But people like their comfy niches and hate change - it's human nature. An interesting paradox.

I close with a favorite quote: "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less." - General Shinseki, US Army.

quote:

I don't think it's 'fair' that editing exists

What? You've never "pushed"? If messing with prints in the darkroom was good enough for Stieglitz, it's good enough for me.

This argument is exactly the same as professional journalists being upset about the upsurge in bloggers. Or old people being upset that youngsters can do their jobs as well, if not better. Ad infinitum...

I am the son of a professional photographer, and let me tell you: Mama's, don't let you babies grow up to be photographers.

Let the punks buy all the snazzy DSLRs that they want to. But I can still shoot circles round them with an old Kodak box camera. There is one thing that Canon and Nikon don't supply: an artist's eye.

quote:

There is one thing that Canon and Nikon don't supply: an artist's eye.

exactly. and that's what the pros need to focus on.

quote:

Originally posted by static:
What? You've never "pushed"? If messing with prints in the darkroom was good enough for Stieglitz, it's good enough for me.

Tee hee! Oh, I knew I'd bug some people w/ what I wrote!
:-) Well look, I'm about as amateur as you get (so it could be argued that my opinion is baseless since I don't have the tech knowledge to begin with ;-), because I've never done the dark room thing, so I have zero technical knowledge. So no, I've never 'pushed.' In fact I don't really know what you mean by that. But if, by me taking all of my photos to a 1-hr photo place, their machines 'push' (and they very well may), then yes, I guess I have.

Despite how my posts might sound, I do agree w/ others that times change, and the photographers are kinda being silly saying their 'lives are being ruined.' They just have to deal w/ the changing times, if that's the livelihood they want to pursue. That's reality.

But anyway -- at least I freely admit I'm a snob when it comes to certain things, and yes, I can be a geezer too - I often resist the tech changes. ;-)

I have PhotoShop Elements on my computer and have essentially no idea how to use it. I finally migrated to a DSLR last summer, and am having a grand time with it - even without doing any editing.

Overall, I agree with Joe - that elusive "eye" for framing a picture and waiting for the right moment to hit the shutter, those are things which can be taught, but are more often just understood somehow... There might be lots of "good" photographers out there, but there are very few "great" ones.

I'm not a professional photographer. I guess I would be called a very enthusiastic amateur. I have a darkroom at home and still use film. However, I also have a DSLR and use gimp to edit photos as I would edit them in the darkroom (manipulating contrast, saturation, cropping-yes, you can crop in the DR). Having the darkroom knowledge has helped a great deal in understanding editing software. I resisted digital for a very long time, but I finally gave in because I do like the convenience of digital (but I will also never give up film).

But again, as others have said, if you don't have a good eye and patience or the intuition, your photos are still going to be crap.

That professional photographer/writer is just being whiney. It's analogous to a professional chef complaining that Williams-Sonoma democratizing professional cookware and enabling amateur chefs to run the pros out of business. If you're good at what you do you don't have to be afraid.

I'm a computer network guy and I don't complain that cheap Linksys/Netgear routers are making networking easy and ruining my life.

New here, but I want to chime in. Agree with Pete's Williams Sonoma analogy. It's still about the picture, not the camera.

This is a perennial subject among pro photographers; as a wedding photographer I hear other colleagues constantly whining about Uncle Joe with his Canon Rebel or some whippersnapper with a 20d who's ruining his business by shooting a wedding for 300 bucks. My response is, if you can't do a better job than Uncle Joe, then maybe you're in the wrong line of work. There have always been amateur photographers out there, and there always will be, and sure, many of them take great pictures. A pro, however, has to be able to take great pictures on demand, deliver consistent quality, and never fail. Undeveloped film, a corrupted card, a dead battery--these are things that a pro must always have contingency plans for. That's what they get paid for.

The medium format guys did the same kind of boo-hooing when the 35mm camera came out. Digital photography presents ALL of us with greater opportunity to take better pictures, which means even the pros should be taking better pictures than they used to. Rather than gripe about how the new technology is creating more competition, they should be excited by all of the incredible new opportunities that every subsequent generation of new technology brings to the world of imaging. And as far as costs go, once you get to the pro level and are spending $3K+ on camera bodies, 5k on a computer every couple of years, $1500+ on lenses, plus hard drives for storage, software, etc, it becomes very evident that digital is no cheaper than film...

The business model has changed, but there is still plenty of money to be made in the world of photography, and that will never change as long as we live in a media-driven world. There will always be amateurs who make a little bit of money on their pictures (or none at all but get the satisfaction of being published). Some of them will realize that they've found their calling and will turn pro. Others will go back to work on Monday having enjoyed every second of their time behind the lens. Who can fault them that joy? That's why they're called "amateurs": because they do it for the sheer love of it.

Great quote, Captain Steve.

I agree with premise that resistance to change is futile.

All "professional" photographers should be rejoicing in the digital age!

Within hours, they could have low res pics (with high res on CD to follow) uploaded on the web for all to see.

For instance, I was one of those guys that the pros "hate".
I shot a wedding for a friend, went to a 'net cafe and uploaded pics to web for bro of groom who could not make wedding due to duty as officer in US Army in IQ. Said bro' loved the ability to "live vicariously" his bro's wedding.
P.S. on this shot...pro photog wanted a copy of my pics on CD so that he could "fill in the corners" on his web site which triumphed several weddings that he had done. I was happy to give him the CD with the request that phototog be labeled as Photo by Wedding Guest.

One final note, I concur with what someone else said. It is not all the camera though that does help. More important is to have the "eye" and the freshness of spirit to "see" the possiblities as they unfold before your eyes.

I think the only real 'damage' to the photography industry is in a few niche markets. Amateur and psuedo-pros do not have the knowledge of lighting and access to necessary equipment to breach the studio photography scene and that's where the real money has generally always been made. Product and publicity shots are still going to allow pros to charge their $300-500 day rates and things like press passes will keep the journos safe for a while yet.

An example people like to throw out there is how little National Geographic pays for features these days but I see that as more of a reader market shift than anything else. The simple fact is that people are moving more to digital media (web) and away from hard copy. Rather than simply publishing one magazine NG has to spread it's energies (and finances) across NG Adventure mag, NG Traveler, NG Kids, TV shows, web content, films, etc. This simply leaves less opportunity to pay a photog to run around for months on end trying to get that perfect shot.

The big problem that I see is not that there are more amateur photographers flooding the market but that there is just not enough appreciation for talent in the paying public. Your average person on the street who buys the magazines or hires a wedding photographer can't filter through the crap and this is why there have always been professional photographers who should have had their cameras taken away years ago.

Professional simply means that you don't have a day job.

Pro's are not in any danger of losing their jobs to the massive amateur market. As Markus said, a couple niche markets are changing, stock being the main one (damn royalty free! ), but the major areas are fine and blossoming.

The largest (and most profitable) area to make it as a professional photographer is in the advertising market. And in advertising, a great amature with an unbelievable eye will never - Never - be chosen over an established pro. Besides the on set experience, the lighting setups and techniques are not something that a "good eye" will give you... that's without mentioning the cost of the needed equipment. For a magazine shoot last week, we had nearly $50k worth of equipment we owned and then another $3k we spent on rental gear for a day shoot. Having said that, pay is only increasing. Granted the market is very crowded and tough, but the promise of $15,000 day rates (and that's not even high) keeps many struggling for it.

Even if you step away from advertising and editorial work, and look at portrait and wedding, the difference between you shooting your cousin's wedding and a professional, experienced, wedding photographer shooting it is huge. There's much more to it than knowing the rule of thirds and being able to explain the zone system.

In the end, the real issue that the massive dSLR market created isn't the professionals losing their market to amatures, it's the amateurs thinking they are professionals.

Good post surfing Dan.


And:

quote:

This argument is exactly the same as professional journalists being upset about the upsurge in bloggers.

I totally agree with this.
The complainer photographer is a short-sighted non-visionary (if I can be so redundant)person.

We have all benefited from people like JS with her camera and the internet.

I'm sorry but you guys are missing part of the point.

The reason pros are lamenting the loss of their industry is not the crappy photos amateurs are putting out. It's the lack of business knowledge to charge what is appropriate.

Too many well-intentioned "semi-pro-amateurs" are letting their decent images be published for next to nothing, or free, which drives down the market for the pros. People get so excited about having their images published they let them go for a song. It's the lack of business knowledge that is killing the industry.

Take a look at the photo contests in this web site. If you look at the fine print, they get all rights forever to print your image, for free. That's the only reason they do these contests. Not only that, sometimes they even charge you to enter, and all submissions become theirs!!

So by all means, submit your best photos to these places and give away your work, forever, for free. When you decide to make a living off it, you can wonder where the market went.

I encourage you all to read the fine print, and make an informed decision whether you want this or not. yes, it's "neat" to have your stuff out there, but when the glow wears off, they are making money off you, for the rest of eternity.

think about it.

I was a professional photographer for several years, still not sure how or why i got out of it but i think it had something to do with the fact that i could barely afford to develop my own film. That being said, there is NO replacement for the artists eye!

Sometimes i do find it irritating when other people try to call themselves photographers just because they run around w/ a digital camera and have the ability to take pictures that with film would be dismal. In the end though it doesn't really matter. Correct exposure is only one aspect, it's really the composition and feeling behind the photo that makes it powerful. And that is what other people relate to and thus, want to buy.

If you have an eye and are a good photographer people will still notice your work and your photos will still stand out. In fact, more amateurs can actually help your cause because moving, feeling photos will stand out leaps and bounds ahead of the others that just have good lighting or exposure. However competing with these photos in terms of income is a very bad idea because for everyone that wants to pay for a quality photo there are 10 others who would rather get 10 lower quality pics for the same price.

I agree w/ Klaus too but i also believe you have to find a niche and that goes for everything if you want to make what you are worth. If you put an ameteur behind a 4x4 and ask them to produce a quality photo w/ a light meter, you aren't going to get anything worthy, if anything at all. They won't even know how to load the film. Photographers need to find the markets that cater to them and not the run of the mill pictures. In other words, make sure your work is appreciated and in front of the right people and above all have confidence that your work is fantastic!

This is not easy but it is possible. Also, if you supplement your income w/ lame pictures of babies and children you will always have food on the table but does that mean you have sold your artistic soul???

hmm....

Ahhhh... now we can welcome ourselves into the capitalist global economy. Yes, journalist and photographer (among other things) are becomming less and less professional careers and more and more someone's hobby on display to the world. That may suck. A lot. What are you doing about it though?

As with everything in this system (and arguably human nature), the majority of all events and decisions are based actually based on supply and demand. If people don't know the difference they aren't going to demand the quailty... and well we all know the cycles that starts.

The beauty of it all is that we can theoretically change that. We can choose to change the way other people in our society think and act. The difficulty is simply that its hard to turn around a train moving in the wrong direction. I really belive that most people can be convinced of anything, as long as you belive in it and take the time to explain why. Look at Hitler--seriously he was able to exploit people to think what he belived in was right. If enough people out there expended enough enegry to be active and change their community, even if it was just for their personal benifit I think we would end up much better off than we are in our half-assed democracies.

I think cameras are unfair to artists. We should do away with all cameras and only have stuff by those who can draw really well. : )

quote:

Originally posted by ItchySoles:
I think cameras are unfair to artists. We should do away with all cameras and only have stuff by those who can draw really well. : )

Awesome response. My thoughts exactly, except, erm, not so clever.

Bad amateur photographers are taking the place of bad professional photographers. Great photographers remain a unique and rare commodity.

The same can be said for film, music, and prose for that matter. (Poetry was lost to amateur poets long ago.)