Photograph as a permanent record of significant event

[BrianShaw]

There are a lot of wannabes in photography.

There are alos a lot of very proficient amateur photographers. I'm sure you would agree with that. Maybe part of the problem is that POLITENESS seems to have become a bit lost and selfishness seems to prevail amongst too many people.

 

[blansky]

I'd bet that most studio portrait professional photographers got their start shooting weddings. I'd bet 25 years ago maybe 95%. Now with the proliferation of "moms with cameras" who started shooting kids, that the number has dropped to maybe 60-70%.

So back then if you wanted to be a professional photographer you started as an amateur shooting weddings. Hard work and a lot of cash flow. Taught you how to think and work fast and immersed you into photography in a real way.

Then hopefully you started taking some classes/seminars/workshops to learn your craft. Most did.

Some didn't.

Remember I'm talking about my world. Not people who went to school and came out as a commercial photographers/product photographers or those who started at newspapers or started as fine art or pictorial photographers.

At wedding photographer international WPPI last convention there were 16,000 attendees.

 

[pbromaghin]

I can't imagine trying to make a living with a camera. That would just take all the fun out of it. Good on you who can.

 

[dpurdy]

I'd bet that most studio portrait professional photographers got their start shooting weddings. I'd bet 25 years ago maybe 95%. Now with the proliferation of "moms with cameras" who started shooting kids, that the number has dropped to maybe 60-70%.

So back then if you wanted to be a professional photographer you started as an amateur shooting weddings. Hard work and a lot of cash flow. Taught you how to think and work fast and immersed you into photography in a real way.

Then hopefully you started taking some classes/seminars/workshops to learn your craft. Most did.

Some didn't.


I agree that most commercial product photographers went to school but I really doubt that very many of them started as wedding photographers. I think probably most of them did, as I did, made it a career decision not long out of high school. Talking it over with the parents trying to decide what college to go to and what to go for. I don't believe there are or were a significant number of school age kids doing wedding photography... maybe photographing for the school year book. If you poll a lot of commercial photographers most of them will tell you that they wouldn't do a wedding at gun point. The idea is that it is too much stress and too much craziness and not near enough money. Not to mention the post photography work. A commercial photographer likes to shoot and deliver the end result and move on. Then get irate if the image is reused without permission. What you see more is the wedding portrait photographer wishing he could land a commercial job or two.

 

[blansky]

I'd bet that most studio portrait professional photographers got their start shooting weddings. I'd bet 25 years ago maybe 95%. Now with the proliferation of "moms with cameras" who started shooting kids, that the number has dropped to maybe 60-70%.

So back then if you wanted to be a professional photographer you started as an amateur shooting weddings. Hard work and a lot of cash flow. Taught you how to think and work fast and immersed you into photography in a real way.

Then hopefully you started taking some classes/seminars/workshops to learn your craft. Most did.

Some didn't.


I agree that most commercial product photographers went to school but I really doubt that very many of them started as wedding photographers. I think probably most of them did, as I did, made it a career decision not long out of high school. Talking it over with the parents trying to decide what college to go to and what to go for. I don't believe there are or were a significant number of school age kids doing wedding photography... maybe photographing for the school year book. If you poll a lot of commercial photographers most of them will tell you that they wouldn't do a wedding at gun point. The idea is that it is too much stress and too much craziness and not near enough money. Not to mention the post photography work. A commercial photographer likes to shoot and deliver the end result and move on. Then get irate if the image is reused without permission. What you see more is the wedding portrait photographer wishing he could land a commercial job or two.

I think you misread what I said. Or I said it wrong.

My type, studio portrait types started in weddings. The type that went to photography schools like Brooks and came out as a commercial photographer DIDN"T do weddings and often got jobs working for commercial photographers.

 

[tkamiya]

I can't imagine trying to make a living with a camera. That would just take all the fun out of it. Good on you who can.

My thoughts exactly. I don't want money involved in my hobby. As someone who turned every one of my past hobbies into professions (and ended up losing hobbies), I am not going to do that with photography.

 

[PKM-25]

I can't imagine trying to make a living with a camera. That would just take all the fun out of it. Good on you who can.

And I would not enjoy it *nearly* as much if I could not do it as a living and had to do something else to pay the bills. In doing it this way, I have a lot more time than most to engage in it in the first place.

 

[tkamiya]

Each to his own I suppose.... To me, enjoyment of hobby centers around being able to do something to my hearts content just because I want to do it. I don't need to satisfy anyone else, such as clients or an employer. What I do doesn't have to make sense financially or meet someone else's deadline, either.

I enjoy what I do for living but in a whole different context from a hobby. I'm glad you found your happy place though.

 

[dpurdy]

Each to his own I suppose.... To me, enjoyment of hobby centers around being able to do something to my hearts content just because I want to do it. I don't need to satisfy anyone else, such as clients or an employer. What I do doesn't have to make sense financially or meet someone else's deadline, either.

I enjoy what I do for living but in a whole different context from a hobby. I'm glad you found your happy place though.

Exactly. And hobby photographers should not be pretending to be pros.
\

 

[tkamiya]

I was just browsing Amazon.... (the online store)

Looking at lenses and reading some of user reviews, I noticed people throw around being a wedding photographer like it's some kind of a badge or a status. I don't believe some of them are being truthful because what they were saying didn't make much sense. (yeah, I did 95 weddings so far this year... REALLY?) I guess there are lots of wannabes and pretenders in this field....

 

[tkamiya]

Exactly. And hobby photographers should not be pretending to be pros.
\

Don't worry, I don't. I am proud to be an amateur hobbyist doing things the way I like to do it.

 

[michaelbsc]

Exactly. And hobby photographers should not be pretending to be pros.
\

The difference between a professional and an amateur isn't the quality of work. A skilled amateur can produce work just as fine as a skilled professional when he wants to.

The professional must produce that work when he doesn't want to.

 

[blansky]

The difference between a professional and an amateur isn't the quality of work. A skilled amateur can produce work just as fine as a skilled professional when he wants to.

The professional must produce that work when he doesn't want to.

While this may be true of some photography, portrait photography actually requires some level of training and talent as probably does other disciplines of photography. And not that there aren't portrait photographers that suck, and just take snapshots but "posing" and lighting are learned skills that are part of a craft.

But I agree that a professional does have to produce consistently and on demand.

 

[PKM-25]

While this may be true of some photography, portrait photography actually requires some level of training and talent as probably does other disciplines of photography. And not that there aren't portrait photographers that suck, and just take snapshots but "posing" and lighting are learned skills that are part of a craft.

But I agree that a professional does have to produce consistently and on demand.

Thanks for posting what I would not have in a restrained manner when I read the two replies above last night...

Ever notice how it seems to be a habit for amateurs to only focus on the low to middle end mainstream aspect of pro photography when it comes to comparing those photographer's lives to their own.....?...like, 99% of the time...?

That is kind of like being into playing guitar or piano and telling your self there are no rock stars and that everyone who plays those instruments for money lives paycheck to paycheck performing in dive bars or at weddings....

I call it living a lie to feel better....

 

[sharris]

You know..i've often wondered if that is how the artists commissioned and painting portraits for their patrons felt back in the day. In reflection, weren't they doing all their 'photoshopping' up front? Were they not interpreting the scene for what was important, composition, context, and conveyance. And then along came the photographer, 'instantly' able to record a plain 'ol image as it actually was. ...ugh...who would want THAT? Where is the art in that? Anyway, I've often thought of what that encounter must have seemed to the participants of the day...and here we are again I suppose. Anyway, just my 2 cents. Obviously, I consider photography to be very much indeed - art

 

[blansky]

You know..i've often wondered if that is how the artists commissioned and painting portraits for their patrons felt back in the day. In reflection, weren't they doing all their 'photoshopping' up front? Were they not interpreting the scene for what was important, composition, context, and conveyance. And then along came the photographer, 'instantly' able to record a plain 'ol image as it actually was. ...ugh...who would want THAT? Where is the art in that? Anyway, I've often thought of what that encounter must have seemed to the participants of the day...and here we are again I suppose. Anyway, just my 2 cents. Obviously, I consider photography to be very much indeed - art

Good point. Those damn untalented upstart photographers.

As I've stated lots of times there are different processes and different kinds of photographers. Analog vs Digital, same but different. 4x5 contact and 35mm sports/journalist, same but different. Wedding shooter and photojournalist, same but different. Alt process and photoshopper, same but different.

Some photographers look at their subject and see potential, other photographers look at a scene and see perfection. Contact printers try to nail what they see, and print it. Portrait photographers plan on enhancement from the get go. Ansel's negs were great but his vision needed far more than what he saw through the viewfinder.

So people that dis photoshop and enhancement are entirely missing the point. Some of us aren't aiming for reality.

The painter was the same way, and along came the upstart photographer and all he wanted was reality .......until he didn't.

People can argue this stuff until the cows come home but the field of photography art is just too vast and complicated to box people into "this is right and this is wrong".

 

[PKM-25]

In some ways you a preaching to a dead horse Blansky. If you consider PS to be no different than a wet darkroom, then you are saying what is right for you in particular. And if someone says in their personal and sometimes professional experience that they do not see them as being the same, then they are right too.

In the other thread, it was clearly pointed out that in terms of high dollar, high end photography purchased as art, darkroom is pulling away nicely compared to Lightroom works, with the caveat of the image having equal talent behind the lens, yet this seems to get beaten away, excuse after excuse given to flat out ignore that the customer in this genre often does care what he or she is spending his money on.

For me it is a simple equation of what do I want to spend my life doing, a clear marketing advantage and the fact that unlike a computer, I can not order clothes on my enlarger, watch a movie on my paint brush or clone out an ex-girlfriend with my Guild six string guitar.

But I understand where you are coming from, in terms of most of my art photography, I am not entirely trying to keep it real even though I use a strong photojournalistic ethic, I am just trying to avoid the factory of democratization that is clearly devaluing everything creative in its path...

The computer.

 

[blansky]

In some ways you a preaching to a dead horse Blansky. If you consider PS to be no different than a wet darkroom, then you are saying what is right for you in particular. And if someone says in their personal and sometimes professional experience that they do not see them as being the same, then they are right too.

In the other thread, it was clearly pointed out that in terms of high dollar, high end photography purchased as art, darkroom is pulling away nicely compared to Lightroom works, with the caveat of the image having equal talent behind the lens, yet this seems to get beaten away, excuse after excuse given to flat out ignore that the customer in this genre often does care what he or she is spending his money on.

For me it is a simple equation of what do I want to spend my life doing, a clear marketing advantage and the fact that unlike a computer, I can not order clothes on my enlarger, watch a movie on my paint brush or clone out an ex-girlfriend with my Guild six string guitar.

But I understand where you are coming from, in terms of most of my art photography, I am not entirely trying to keep it real even though I use a strong photojournalistic ethic, I am just trying to avoid the factory of democratization that is clearly devaluing everything creative in its path...

The computer.

True but you're coming at it from a commercial aspect as in "what is selling" or not.

I'm talking about it from a photographer/artistic viewpoint. What the photographer likes and wants to do, and the choices he makes doing it.

I did black and white portraits and color portraits and darkroom work for a long time. Then I switched to digital and actually prefer everything about it. Some people don't. That's fine. But the bottom line is we both enjoy the process and the results. Everything else is marketing. As I said 100 pages back, from the photographers point of view the processes are just different and at the same time, very much the same.

I used to take pictures, develop the neg, retouch the neg, print the picture, tone the picture, retouch the print, mount and frame the print and sell it.

Now I do the same thing just in a different way and in a different order.

The only thing that changed is that I used to be a more creative writer, due to the darkroom fumes.

 

[mgb74]

Wedding photographers hate people like you.

Imagine any other profession, and somebody showed up and was doing what the pro was hired to do, and undercutting their work.

Imagine going to a doctor and while the doctor was consulting you, the friend that came along was offering advice and was diagnosing you.

Photographers are the only profession where amateurs are able to be present and inject themselves in some way.

Quite right. Imagine the gall of a high school baseball team scheduling their game at the same time, and in the same city, as a pro game. Imagine the gall of going to a doctor and then getting a 2nd opinion. Imagine the gall of taking photos at an event covered by pro news photographers. Imagine the gall of the warm up band outperforming the headliner.

Other than the duty not to interfere with the professional photographers work, or copy it (by following him/her and taking the exact same photos), or violate the rules of the venue (i.e. flash in a church) it seems to me that others are entitled to take photographs. If the recipient values them more than, as opposed to in addition to, the pro's photographs then it's a reflection of the pro photographer.

It's unfortunate that consumers don't value the kind of quality a pro can deliver. And it's unfortunate that many so-called pros can't deliver the quality they should. But a pros work is only undercut if a) they are interfered with or b) the pro results aren't materially better in the eyes of the client.

Further, pros don't always deliver what shots are meaningful to everyone. Case in point - my nephew's wedding where the pro got lots of shots of the bride's family (who hired the photographer) but very few of the groom's family. (Somewhat in defense of the professional, the groom and his family were all from out of town, limiting the opportunity to communicate.)

 

[tkamiya]

People can argue this stuff until the cows come home

Moooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[tkamiya]

I think this pro and amateur argument exists on every field in pretty much the same fashion.

Professional construction contractor vs handy-man vs DIYer
Seasoned IT professional vs college/high school kid who are into computers
Wedding photographer vs weekend wonders vs friend with a camera
Medical doctors vs patient who read up on internet postings/sites

I used to tell junior people at my work (IT) the difference between pro and amateur is that pros know what NOT to do - that knows the limitation of his/her own skills where as inexperienced goes boldly into unknown territory (and often do so unknowingly) and hurt themselves or client.

Now a days, everybody is claiming titles in unregulated fields. Expectation seems to be lower too. Kind of scary me thinks...

 

[blansky]

I think this pro and amateur argument exists on every field in pretty much the same fashion.

Professional construction contractor vs handy-man vs DIYer
Seasoned IT professional vs college/high school kid who are into computers
Wedding photographer vs weekend wonders vs friend with a camera
Medical doctors vs patient who read up on internet postings/sites

I used to tell junior people at my work (IT) the difference between pro and amateur is that pros know what NOT to do - that knows the limitation of his/her own skills where as inexperienced goes boldly into unknown territory (and often do so unknowingly) and hurt themselves or client.

Now a days, everybody is claiming titles in unregulated fields. Expectation seems to be lower too. Kind of scary me thinks...

You and the last poster keep missing the point. It's not the competition, it's the interference while working.

And the myth of the amateur happening to get a great shot, while the pro screwed up is funny.

If whomever hired the photographer in the first place didn't hire someone good then they have themselves to blame if the wedding pictures suck.

And a pro wedding photographer needs to be checked out to see if he really is a pro and not a weekender.

 

[tkamiya]

No, I didn't miss it.

I have the same experience in my field where client in this case keeps telling me how to do my job (then why did he hire ME?) I also don't use the word competition in the same you think I did. It's a competition to take the photograph, which is interference. (not the competition to get the business - which is what you are referring to)

Amateurs do get great shots sometimes. Pros do poorly sometimes. You have to recognize, the term "Pro" is defined very loosely often. (You addressed a while back yourself)

Sadly, paying public know very little about how to be selective. They want a CD full of images not two dozen great shots.

Another point I was raising is, this interference is not limited to photography. It's in every field in different but similar shape and form.

 

[Laostyle17]

I can't imagine trying to make a living with a camera. That would just take all the fun out of it. Good on you who can.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[michaelbsc]

...But I agree that a professional does have to produce consistently and on demand.

Which is why I refuse to ever have photography customers. As you've heard me state over the years, this is my hobby. I have enough grief in my professional work; why screw up my play time?

But that puts our experiences and outlooks in totally different modalities. I can make a mistake, and I only have one taskmaster, myself. And I can take risks of a failed project without fear of loss aside from time and material. I have no bottom line. Photography is a 100% sunk cost for me.