What Constitutes Professional Level Photography??? (Page 26): Being simplistic, yes. And the affordances of each situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance...

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

BFS wrote:

So this post brings up a question that's been coming to mind for me with this thread.

Does a High/Pro level quality photo differ with the type of photographic style you are shooting?

Being simplistic, yes. And the affordances of each situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance

shelty Loc: Medford, OR

Are you people still at it? bury it!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

shelty wrote:

Are you people still at it? bury it!

Don't fret about it. We'll probably have to bury you before the thread dies!

At least we can then enjoy a good wake, with good music and whisky!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

shelty wrote:

Are you people still at it? bury it!

Click unwatch at upper left of the page and you'll be released from your pain ...

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Whats the page record an a hog post....let's go for it !!

starik

"To teach is an honor, to learn is a blessing and to work at my craft is my passion." Yes indeed!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

starik wrote:

"To teach is an honor, to learn is a blessing and to work at my craft is my passion." Yes indeed!

Starik, problem is, you can lead some to water and try to make them learn, but they'd rather sing like a locust than learn anything!!! LoL
SS

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I appreciate how much you give to this forum. BUT!!!!

I am dump as a dumbbell and not English speaking and the question SS asked was clear as a New Mexico sky. I still can’t believe how many misread what was written.

Sorry, but there is no excuse for that.

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

As a working professional photographer, I think the OP's question has been adequately and comprehensively addressed and answered. The answers lie in a composite of opinions and views. The OP and others can sort through the various opinions and points of view and come to their own conclusions.

This is a photographic forum, not a literary or writer's forum holding some kind of essay contest. Some folks can interpret questions differently than others and some people may have the talent and/or reading and writing skills to express themselves more concisely and succinctly than others. Since this is a FORUM, and I like to think of it as a real round table environment, I sincerely feel that the opinions and approaches of all participants should be respected and factored in as long as they are somewhat on topic, sincere and present an honest attempt at expressing their thoughts.

Constantly attacking people and taking them to task for grammatical errors or perhaps their not fully understanding of any particular question will only discourage them and perhaps new members from participating. They will either leave the forum or become inactive lurkers. Rather than criticizing someone's level or reading comprehension or implying that persons (or the majority of the posters) suffer from a deficient intelligence quotient, why not just express you own interpretations or opinions, point out misunderstandings or inaccuracies in a kind, business-like and gentle manner and help and teach folks rather than scare them off.

Oftentimes, when reading into the forum, I find many inaccurate or incorrect technical answers in numerous posts. Rather than go ballistic on the poster, I simply post the best information I have to offer thereby allowing others, who are reading on, to make up their own minds. I believe that most of the folks around here have enough, common sense, savvy and knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff. When good and fluid conversations take place, the truth and the right data rises to the top! Give it a chance!

As a working professional photographer, I think th... (show quote)

shelty Loc: Medford, OR

tdekany wrote:

I appreciate how much you give to this forum. BUT!!!!

I am dump as a dumbbell and not English speaking and the question SS asked was clear as a New Mexico sky. I still can’t believe how many misread what was written.

Sorry, but there is no excuse for that.

Don't worry, they've got nothing better to do.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

shelty wrote:

Don't worry, they've got nothing better to do.

bluechris Loc: Grapeview, WA

When a thread comes to really no conclusion and this thread can go on for many a year, I tell the Hog to go to my flickr page and make your own conclusion as to whether I take pro photographs or not . I am an eclectic photographer and I take my photos that fit my style and if it is considered worthy of the printed page, hooray! Other than that, I do not have infinite patience after the 15th page. I saw many points of view and many valid and insightful and great reading. But, photography is a point of view and how we look at that point of view is as diverse as we are. This can go on to infinity. Let us at this stage that we agree to disagree.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

bluechris wrote:

When a thread comes to really no conclusion and th... (show quote)

Blue, first, let me welcome you to the Hog, since you never made an introduction post.
I did go to your Flickr page but there's no need to comment on that, as you asked no question.
But I will comment on MY question and your answer to it.
I was NOT trying to establish the validity or the quality of the work of anybody here!
What I was trying to establish was what common threat do we see in work(images) that by whatever standards represents high end work, of what I would personally hold as professional quality work.
Maybe we should work this in reverse, since forward was obviously WAY to complex for the average photographer to understand.
Let's say that professional quality work is that which is printed in magazines that have professional editors whose job it is to source images worthy of being in print, such as Nat Geo, or Arizona Highways, or sunset magazine or......, you get the idea. Work on places like Flickr does NOT have any sort of vetting process. It could be anything from a first time snapshot to a season Nat Geo pro.
Work that goes into Stock also has no std other than the few criteria that the Sock Agency has assigned such as low noise and low aberrations etc. The purpose of Stock is not to show pretty pictures. It is to sell to anyone that needs an image for any use for which the buyer doesn't want to contract a photographer or take the image themselves. For example, you might snap a snapshot of your BIG TOE, hardly a worthwhile image, but a podiatrist might use it on their brochure. And not because it's any good, it just represents a swollen poorly cared for toe to make his point!
And I'm surprised at how nany immediately proclaim ANY image that's been paid for to be of professional quality.
What we did miss here was an opportunity for those that are capable of assigning the attributes of what are high quality images to do so and those that are not aware of what constitutes high level work to be able to learn what those attributes might be so as to be able to aspire to those.
Show me a guy that says one only has to please oneself, and I'll show you someone who doesn't know a good image from a crappy image.
Blue, thanks for taking the time to contribute, feel free to give it another go around!!!
SS

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

ditto, ditto you stated that quite well and correctly !!!!

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

As a working professional photographer, I think the OP's question has been adequately and comprehensively addressed and answered. The answers lie in a composite of opinions and views. The OP and others can sort through the various opinions and points of view and come to their own conclusions.

This is a photographic forum, not a literary or writer's forum holding some kind of essay contest. Some folks can interpret questions differently than others and some people may have the talent and/or reading and writing skills to express themselves more concisely and succinctly than others. Since this is a FORUM, and I like to think of it as a real round table environment, I sincerely feel that the opinions and approaches of all participants should be respected and factored in as long as they are somewhat on topic, sincere and present an honest attempt at expressing their thoughts.

Constantly attacking people and taking them to task for grammatical errors or perhaps their not fully understanding of any particular question will only discourage them and perhaps new members from participating. They will either leave the forum or become inactive lurkers. Rather than criticizing someone's level or reading comprehension or implying that persons (or the majority of the posters) suffer from a deficient intelligence quotient, why not just express you own interpretations or opinions, point out misunderstandings or inaccuracies in a kind, business-like and gentle manner and help and teach folks rather than scare them off.

Oftentimes, when reading into the forum, I find many inaccurate or incorrect technical answers in numerous posts. Rather than go ballistic on the poster, I simply post the best information I have to offer thereby allowing others, who are reading on, to make up their own minds. I believe that most of the folks around here have enough, common sense, savvy and knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff. When good and fluid conversations take place, the truth and the right data rises to the top! Give it a chance!

As a working professional photographer, I think th... (show quote)

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Hey SS, I offered 4 different links to what I thought were pro quality photos. Some others posted their own work. Yet, many pages later, there are still replies that are off topic.

Is it really possible that all these people simply just read the OP while disregarding 20+ pages of replies?

How about this? Why don’t you post several examples of what YOU think are pro quality photos? Either links or actual photos?

That way you can lead all these stray horses to the water and make them drink?

SharpShooter wrote:

Blue, first, let me welcome you to the Hog, since you never made an introduction post.
I did go to your Flickr page but there's no need to comment on that, as you asked no question.
But I will comment on MY question and your answer to it.
I was NOT trying to establish the validity or the quality of the work of anybody here!
What I was trying to establish was what common threat do we see in work(images) that by whatever standards represents high end work, of what I would personally hold as professional quality work.
Maybe we should work this in reverse, since forward was obviously WAY to complex for the average photographer to understand.
Let's say that professional quality work is that which is printed in magazines that have professional editors whose job it is to source images worthy of being in print, such as Nat Geo, or Arizona Highways, or sunset magazine or......, you get the idea. Work on places like Flickr does NOT have any sort of vetting process. It could be anything from a first time snapshot to a season Nat Geo pro.
Work that goes into Stock also has no std other than the few criteria that the Sock Agency has assigned such as low noise and low aberrations etc. The purpose of Stock is not to show pretty pictures. It is to sell to anyone that needs an image for any use for which the buyer doesn't want to contract a photographer or take the image themselves. For example, you might snap a snapshot of your BIG TOE, hardly a worthwhile image, but a podiatrist might use it on their brochure. And not because it's any good, it just represents a swollen poorly cared for toe to make his point!
And I'm surprised at how nany immediately proclaim ANY image that's been paid for to be of professional quality.
What we did miss here was an opportunity for those that are capable of assigning the attributes of what are high quality images to do so and those that are not aware of what constitutes high level work to be able to learn what those attributes might be so as to be able to aspire to those.
Show me a guy that says one only has to please oneself, and I'll show you someone who doesn't know a good image from a crappy image.
Blue, thanks for taking the time to contribute, feel free to give it another go around!!!
SS

Blue, first, let me welcome you to the Hog, since ... (show quote)

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

Okay, I finally read all 26 pages of this thread. What constitutes a "pro quality photo" can be described in so many ways, but there's no absolute definition. Sometimes it can't be described with words but with a reaction or emotion. For me, it's something that grabs me, tells me a story or captures the essence or feeling of the event or scene. That's just part of it. The technical aspects of focus, composition, color, contrast, lighting, PP, etc. count too. But mainly it's the "wow factor" that grabs me and entices me to look at the photo for awhile to enjoy.