PHOTOGRAPHERS.. SHOULD BE LICENCED
Oct 31, 2011 05:59:18 #
rmbanas wrote:
For what purpose? Any photographer that gets hired for a job is already "certified" by the person doing the hiring.
I can't recall the number of times I've had bride's contact me asking if I could fix the photos their "Friend" had shot of their wedding or the number of wanna-be's pawing through my display albums at a Bridal Show for ideas they can copy.
I can understand the frustration of Pro Photographers, but I agree this is not the forum for venting about losing business to some hack.
I come here to offer assistance to those who truly want to learn, and who knows, maybe I can learn something myself. I Don't Know Everything!!
My wife gets frustrated with me when I show someone how to do something or how to do it better. She says I am just teaching my competition. I say Competition breeds excellence![/quote]
RM,
Sounds like your wife and mine went to the same school, I enjoy helping others get better, and believe it or not sometimes they have an approach I never thought of and we both learn. Could not agree with your more.
George
Oct 31, 2011 06:09:18 #
FOTOSTAN wrote:
Thank you for understanding... I am ONLY trying to upgrade our vocation, or what we make our living from... and as for that other person asked, to see some of my work...Hum, let me think.. OK pick your subject matter from the 50+ years of shooting.
Stan,
Give him a photo from 40 years ago, then sit back and laugh. I have photos from that era also, but then have to scan them not the same. First photo I ever sold was an underwater photo of a shark.
Oct 31, 2011 06:10:03 #
FOTOSTAN wrote:
Thank you for understanding... I am ONLY trying to upgrade our vocation, or what we make our living from... and as for that other person asked, to see some of my work...Hum, let me think.. OK pick your subject matter from the 50+ years of shooting.
You can start with a couple of landscape shots
Oct 31, 2011 06:28:37 #
Oct 31, 2011 06:33:28 #
Donaldaq wrote:
I am a "digital enhancement specialist".
Donald,
Put up a couple of before and after photos, then people can decide if you can help them. Also if you are good what is your fee for doing so. Hell I could use the help during fashion week.
George
Oct 31, 2011 06:35:56 #
George H wrote:
Donald,
Put up a couple of before and after photos, then people can decide if you can help them. Also if you are good what is your fee for doing so. Hell I could use the help during fashion week.
George
Donaldaq wrote:
I am a "digital enhancement specialist".
Donald,
Put up a couple of before and after photos, then people can decide if you can help them. Also if you are good what is your fee for doing so. Hell I could use the help during fashion week.
George
Would love to see some before and after shots.
Oct 31, 2011 07:50:26 #
Wow, this is a very telling topic. The frustration levels are thru the roof. Why not reply "look in your manual" or "if you do'nt have a manual the company will send you one" or there are many web sites that will explain that in detail, or ,JUST IGNOR the question, and look to next one that does'nt bother you. I'm sure most newbies do'nt want to make anyone mad, they are just trying to to get an easier to understand answer. By the way anyone out there know how to turn on a d300s? I've tried wine , choc, soft music, nothing seems to work.
Oct 31, 2011 07:57:57 #
Licensing indicates an authority somewhere deciding who's worthy and who isn't, which indicates some government entity. We have more than enough of those!!!!
Oct 31, 2011 08:01:58 #
it would be nice here in san diego a person is to have a doing business as ______ pay for a lic for each county one works in
but more and more the better the cameras become and there is p for PRO
people want cheap
i went to a wedding and the pro was dressed as if they where going to a sport event
i'm hearing more and more where the photographer didn't show my son was one of them ... yes i had my camera and saved the day the one who did show never gave a full pic of the bride in her dress
can we fix the tears of past photographers .. i hope so .. but we will never stop those out there from selling themselves
but more and more the better the cameras become and there is p for PRO
people want cheap
i went to a wedding and the pro was dressed as if they where going to a sport event
i'm hearing more and more where the photographer didn't show my son was one of them ... yes i had my camera and saved the day the one who did show never gave a full pic of the bride in her dress
can we fix the tears of past photographers .. i hope so .. but we will never stop those out there from selling themselves
Oct 31, 2011 08:28:31 #
Carl
Loc: Summer: VA Winter: FL
Your spelling doesn't bother me (you are not claiming to be an English teacher, a profession that also doesn't need to be licensed), and I understand your frustration with those that claim competence in something when they are not. They are all over the place, not just in photography. But please don't get serious about that thought of licensing because it is a slippery slope that will do (and is doing) much harm to our country. Licensing is often (in my experience--almost universally) used as an anti-competitive device where those in a trade or profession want to stifle competition from newcomers, or from those who have different (and sometimes better or less expensive) ways of doing things. So they either set up their own private "accreditation" system (e.g., Realtors) or get the government involved to tighten the screws on the newcomers and restrict entry to the trade or profession and/or limit entry only to those that accept the "old" ways (and high prices). And when the government gets involved, the situation gets even worse, as it always does, because the incompetence of the government bureaucrat is legendary.
Please--just let those who are incompetent demonstrate their incompetence as long as they are not injuring people, and when that happens, throw the book at them. Caveat emptor is still one of the best guidelines in history.
Please--just let those who are incompetent demonstrate their incompetence as long as they are not injuring people, and when that happens, throw the book at them. Caveat emptor is still one of the best guidelines in history.
Oct 31, 2011 08:32:26 #
FOTOSTAN wrote:
Back in the "good old days" when a perso... (show quote)
To though a fly in your ointment, many people will tell you that some of the worse photographers are Pros with all kinds of credentials academic and otherwise and some of the best are simply very passionate self-taught amateurs. Note the use of the qualifier "some". Are you going to License ditch diggers? Just because you can hold a shovel does not mean that you know how to dig a ditch... but to license every job type would bring the economy to a dead stop. Think people! Maybe we should require a license to allow breathing.
Oct 31, 2011 08:33:46 #
Uh, yeah, teachers do need to be licenced if they want to teach. Eg. math , history, etc.
Oct 31, 2011 08:43:13 #
Are you kidding me? Licensing "pro" photographers! If you go that far, you may want to consider drug and alcohol testing them as well. I'm curious what the fine is if a "pro" gets caught shooting without a license? Nothing like a good laugh with my morning coffee!
Oct 31, 2011 08:45:00 #
JohnnyRottenNJ
Loc: Northern New Jersey
Please, I hope you are only joking when you mention a "License" to be a photographer. I live in New Jersey, and have a Burglar and Fire Alarm installation business. We got hoodwinked into voting for licensing for our industry about 13 years ago, and it has been a nightmare. And they sold us on licensing by using some of the same terminology. People in the trade not knowing what they are doing, calling unlicensed installers "Trunk Slammers," etc. etc.
Well it started with having to get a separate license for burglar and fire installations. Then due to confusion caused by the state and two different agencies vying for control, you then had get a fire alarm license for residential work and a fire alarm permit to perform commercial installations. Then someone told all the fire marshals and fire sub-code officials that only fire permits were acceptable when in actuality, that is 100% false. Oh and wait it gets better (actually worse.)
Then about 3 years later, they decided that you need a business license too. When I inquired, I asked if they thought that we were just collecting licenses. With the advent of the business license, we had to establish two accounts with every supplier. One where you would pay sales tax "up front," and one where you wouldn't pay the sales tax, but then would collect it from your customers. The taxed account was for items like rolls of wire or boxes of screws. So unless an invoice elaborated "147' of wire and 39 #8X1" phillips head screws, you had to pay the sales tax up front on them. Trust me, no one gets that specific on an invoice. That was license #4. And it still gets worse.
In 1994, then president Slick Willy Clinton signed into law a bill called RRP (Renovation, Repair & Painting.) It was actually a lead abatement law designed to "Protect Children and Pregnant Women." If you open a hole in a wall that is greater than six square feet, you must mask off the room with plastic sheeting, wear a respirator mask and a Tyvec suit. This was all for any homes built prior to 1978, as they likely had lead paint on the walls. Then in his infinite wisdom, our jackass Senator Lautenberg made New Jersey adhere to a more strict standard used by HUD, and it limited the size of the hole to 2 square feet. There are a few problems here. First, any holes that I open in walls are measured in inches. I don't open 2 square feet of wall board in all my jobs combined in any given year. And the standard is if you open that size hole in a wall in just one room, not combined for the whole house. Secondly, as an alarm installer, I don't use sandpaper on the walls, and it isn't Plutonium that is spewing out of a wall when I do drill a hole in it. Third, and this really chaffs my ass, the bill was signed by Clinton, but didn't take effect until April 22, 2010 (Earth Day.) And in 16 years, the best that they can do for enforcement, is have contractors turn each other in for non-compliance. Is it any wonder that people say that the EPA is a runaway organization? I'm not sure if they mean it has run away with it's own power or if we should run away whenever you hear those three letters. This is the truth, if I go onto a job site and see someone opening large holes in the walls and they haven't taken any of the prescribed precautions, I am obliged to turn them in. Me being licensed, if I don't, I become the responsible party and can be fined $37,000.00 per day of operation. My company has never in 30+ years in the business made $37K in one day. If this doesn't smack of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, I don't know what does. I tried to remain reasonable about all this, but I can't. It should not apply to my trade. HVAC contractors, YES, Plumbers YES, Electricians possibly, Painters, YES, YES, YES. This stupid license cost me $300 for the training, $300 for the license and almost $1,000.00 for all the additional CRAP that I am now required to bring onto a job site. So now I have FIVE licenses.
This whole debacle is nothing but a power grab by government. They don't give a good rat's backside about safety, it's all about the money.
So, if we are smart, we will rail against licensing in any form. Otherwise you will likely need a special license for each lens, each camera body, each flash and tripod.
Oh, and by the way, if you live in New Jersey and have a photography business, you have to have a business license already. I wonder how long Walt Whitman would have stayed in that cabin after writing Leaves of Grass, (that book is still the standard on being self-reliant) if he had had a DSLR and didn't have to run out for film, chemicals and papers to print his photos??? <<<That's a joke. What I just found out and it's a little spooky, considering this is Halloween and we are talking about photography, is that Walt Whitman died in 1892, the same year that Eastman Kodak was founded. So go figure.
PHOTOGRAPHY YES, LICENSING NO.
Well it started with having to get a separate license for burglar and fire installations. Then due to confusion caused by the state and two different agencies vying for control, you then had get a fire alarm license for residential work and a fire alarm permit to perform commercial installations. Then someone told all the fire marshals and fire sub-code officials that only fire permits were acceptable when in actuality, that is 100% false. Oh and wait it gets better (actually worse.)
Then about 3 years later, they decided that you need a business license too. When I inquired, I asked if they thought that we were just collecting licenses. With the advent of the business license, we had to establish two accounts with every supplier. One where you would pay sales tax "up front," and one where you wouldn't pay the sales tax, but then would collect it from your customers. The taxed account was for items like rolls of wire or boxes of screws. So unless an invoice elaborated "147' of wire and 39 #8X1" phillips head screws, you had to pay the sales tax up front on them. Trust me, no one gets that specific on an invoice. That was license #4. And it still gets worse.
In 1994, then president Slick Willy Clinton signed into law a bill called RRP (Renovation, Repair & Painting.) It was actually a lead abatement law designed to "Protect Children and Pregnant Women." If you open a hole in a wall that is greater than six square feet, you must mask off the room with plastic sheeting, wear a respirator mask and a Tyvec suit. This was all for any homes built prior to 1978, as they likely had lead paint on the walls. Then in his infinite wisdom, our jackass Senator Lautenberg made New Jersey adhere to a more strict standard used by HUD, and it limited the size of the hole to 2 square feet. There are a few problems here. First, any holes that I open in walls are measured in inches. I don't open 2 square feet of wall board in all my jobs combined in any given year. And the standard is if you open that size hole in a wall in just one room, not combined for the whole house. Secondly, as an alarm installer, I don't use sandpaper on the walls, and it isn't Plutonium that is spewing out of a wall when I do drill a hole in it. Third, and this really chaffs my ass, the bill was signed by Clinton, but didn't take effect until April 22, 2010 (Earth Day.) And in 16 years, the best that they can do for enforcement, is have contractors turn each other in for non-compliance. Is it any wonder that people say that the EPA is a runaway organization? I'm not sure if they mean it has run away with it's own power or if we should run away whenever you hear those three letters. This is the truth, if I go onto a job site and see someone opening large holes in the walls and they haven't taken any of the prescribed precautions, I am obliged to turn them in. Me being licensed, if I don't, I become the responsible party and can be fined $37,000.00 per day of operation. My company has never in 30+ years in the business made $37K in one day. If this doesn't smack of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, I don't know what does. I tried to remain reasonable about all this, but I can't. It should not apply to my trade. HVAC contractors, YES, Plumbers YES, Electricians possibly, Painters, YES, YES, YES. This stupid license cost me $300 for the training, $300 for the license and almost $1,000.00 for all the additional CRAP that I am now required to bring onto a job site. So now I have FIVE licenses.
This whole debacle is nothing but a power grab by government. They don't give a good rat's backside about safety, it's all about the money.
So, if we are smart, we will rail against licensing in any form. Otherwise you will likely need a special license for each lens, each camera body, each flash and tripod.
Oh, and by the way, if you live in New Jersey and have a photography business, you have to have a business license already. I wonder how long Walt Whitman would have stayed in that cabin after writing Leaves of Grass, (that book is still the standard on being self-reliant) if he had had a DSLR and didn't have to run out for film, chemicals and papers to print his photos??? <<<That's a joke. What I just found out and it's a little spooky, considering this is Halloween and we are talking about photography, is that Walt Whitman died in 1892, the same year that Eastman Kodak was founded. So go figure.
PHOTOGRAPHY YES, LICENSING NO.
Oct 31, 2011 08:46:59 #
Carl
Loc: Summer: VA Winter: FL
Blueduck wrote:
Uh, yeah, teachers do need to be licenced if they want to teach. Eg. math , history, etc.
OK, I was imprecise. In every state I am aware of teachers who want to teach in a public school must be certificated (licensed). But, while I don't know about Maryland (which is not called the People's Republic for nothing), in Florida and other states no certificate is required to teach in a private school or in any non-public school institution. Some private schools do require certification, but that is their choice.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.