Onquest Loc: Just Wandering

I just read this and the author has a point.

http://princeofprose.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/the-self-titled-photography-syndrome/

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

I just read the blog you linked to, Onquest, and I kind of wish I hadn't. There have been photographers preaching this sermon throughout my 48 years of active photographic endeavor. I find it very closed minded, and somewhat snobbish.
The fact there is a camera in virtually every pocket has really been a boon to modern journalism. Pictures do not have to be of professional quality to be of value. It certainly is better if they are, but sometimes anything is better than nothing.
When I was learning photography in the mid-'60's we "newbies" were scorned for using 35mm and 120 size cameras, not 4x5 or 8x10! When we started processing color transparencies and negatives in our darkrooms, we were outcast for "turning our backs" on the cherished B&W, and we were no longer practicing the "fine art" of photography.
I've never felt photography should only be practiced by a select group of "elite and talented" individuals who look down their collective noses at ANYONE. I certainly don't want to be one of those people!
I'm glad you posted this topic, Onquest, it's a very interesting thread! Thanks!

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Interesting rant, with a grain of truth, but to me still mostly a rant aimed at inflating his own importance by beating down others. He does little to offer a true differentiation between "photographers" and untalented hacks other than he is one of the former and anyone else who has recently moved into digital image making is the latter. To me the proof is, and always will be, in the final image. If it is good, it is good regardless of whether the person behind the camera has many years or only a few tripping the shutter. Ultimately, those over-eager enthusiasts who set up a website will have to face the fact that if their work is not very good, people will ignore it and not buy it. If on the other hand, their work garners interest and their work sells, they have every right to benefit from their efforts. If that frustrates our blogger friend, then I'd suggest he stop complaining and get to work producing better images that will send the business his way rather than to the "self proclaimed photographer" he so much disdains.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

Looked to me like a bunch of insecure crybabies that are afraid of competing.
For my part, none of the folks I shoot for would be using portrait pros for the work they need done, Performing shots of singers and musical groups.
I dont take any money out of anyones pocket because I serve a tiny but growing nich.

On one hand thye cry about "rich assholes with huge DSLR"
I guess I am to conclude that because someone can affort a nice outfit they must be devoid of talent.

Perhaps these professionals might find better use for their time by growing their businesses.

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

I like one of your conclusions, Jim. The final image must stand on its own, and either be of value, or not.
We've had a lot of discussion on this forum about post-processing images and how it may, or may not, detract from the validity of the image. An image is either a good one, or not, regardless who "pushed the button".
That being said, a professional can have merit as one who can consistently produce images of value under a variety of conditions. But that doesn't belittle the "once in a lifetime" image a beginner might capture.
Looking down my nose is not the way I like to spend my life.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

My reply comment: "Just like every blogger can call himself a commentator or a journalist?"

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

thrasher Loc: Norwalk, CT

I know what you mean Dan. I have a relative who is a pro, shooting weddings, births etc. Whenever any of her "photography" friends (also pros) post pics on Facebook she's quick to heap on the praise. But when one of us mere "civilians" do, she seems to avoid making ANY comments, positive or otherwise.
Makes me feel like she's either afraid to offend, or thinks us civilians couldn't handle the criticism.

wannabe Loc: Baton Rouge Louisiana

As you can tell I am not a photograher hence the name wannabe. All I will say to the link is if ya scared just say ya scared.

Starving Artist Loc: North Wisconsin Woods

Any person with a camera can "take" pictures, but a professional "makes" photographs. What is the difference? Technology has made it possible for a person to take their new DSLR out of the box, put it in auto mode and make crisp, properly exposed pictures right off the bat. Some may even have an "eye" for interesting compositions, from paying attention to the constant bombardment of imagery we are all subjected to.
Now take that person, whose handful of pretty pictures you have admired, and ask them to photograph your wedding. Risky, is it not?
Is it easy to be deserving of the label "pro"? That depends on which photographic discipline you pursue. Fine art is one thing, where post production is often used to polish a turd until it resembles a gem. Same can sometimes be said for landscape photography. Half of the challenge here is to be at a great location, when the light is magical. If you can drag your butt out of your bed or tent an hour before sunrise, you are half way there. Throw in a tripod, a 16gb card and a pretty good eye for compositions and you will create art.
Now if we are talking high pressure work, like making sports action shots, beautiful portraits or event photographs involving ever-changing conditions, who you gonna call?
A true professional is a person with a deep understanding of the mechanics as well as the art of photography. They need to be skilled in lighting, comfortable making shutter speed / f stop decisions, and so on.
In 1976, when I was all of 16 years old I did my first "professional" photo shoot. I photographed my uncle's wedding for a whopping $75. I was a PRO! Actually I did a fairly decent job, all things considered.
Indeed, with instant feedback from your camera's LCD, many people are able to pursue photography as a business, when they would have starved had they been working back in the film days.
I am not trying to be a snob as some pros no doubt are on the subject. All I am saying is if you are in need of a professional photographer, what criteria are you going to use to pick from the million shooters out there?

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

A good photograph is a good photograph. It doesn't matter what type of camera is used. If it's good it's good.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Ironic, was talking to a frequently published pro the other day who said basically the same thing as in the blog. He blamed the publishers as much as anyone for creating the current conditions that exist in the world of photography. Their editors and staff have the ability/software to make an average photograph look fantastic. So why pay the full time professional his/her normal fee when they can buy a picture for 1/3 or less of the cost and use it instead. He further stated that he knows that digital has completely changed the game and there is no going back. It's just one more example where the digital age has made some professions obsolete and created others in their place. As for these professionals being elitist snobs who are afraid of new competition, I disagree. What they are upset about is that because of the digital age many are now calling themselves "photographers" without even learning how to use their cameras. As far as the picture standing on its own merits, that doesn't need to apply anymore in the world of professional photography. Sad, but true. When rookies who had never played a down in the NFL were being paid more than seasoned veterans, just how do you think they felt. As my friend said it use to be that for every pro making a living as a photographer there were 100 who weren't. Because of the digital age today that number is 500.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

I gree there are a WHOLE lot of folks that have never gone through school, have a valid portfolio, or have the degree level training, or on the job training to hang out a shingle calling themselves "Photographers"
And I suppose that is their right.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
4 calling a tail a leg dont make it one.

These folks can hardly copmpete with pro shooters.

For my part, I refer to myself as what I am, an old fart with a camera.
I don't know who said this, but it rings true.
A Pro camera don't make you a pro shooter, it makes you an expensive camera owner.

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

:thumbup:

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You may be able to afford a Porsche or a Ferrari but that does not make you a race car driver.

On the other hand, Diane Arbus and many other great photographers were basically amateurs.

So the essence of a photographer is not whether they have a formal education, own expensive equipment or make money professionally.

To the vast majority of us it should be a source of enjoyment, not an arena for competition.