I'm a Pro, You're a Pro, Everybody's a Pro

[MDJAK]

Attended another Bar Mitavah today, this time in Staten Island, New York. It was a modest affair, thrown in a rather old, tired catering hall.

As always, I left my camera in my trunk, instead choosing to enjoy myself.

As always, I awaited the arrival of the photographer.

Well, arrive he did, about 20 minutes after the guests, and then had to take the Bar Mitzvah boy and his family into another room during the cocktail hour to take the individual shots.

He placed his camera bag, a rather small, modest affair, right next to me, behind me and on the stage where the also late D.J. was setting up.

I tried in vain to see what camera he was using, as two weeks ago at another affair I attended the phtoographer was using a 20D with kit lens, flash with a lightsphere pointed straight up and a Metz flash on a stand.

Well, when he came back into the room, I finally saw the dangling strap. It said: SONY. Yes, it was a point and shoot with a flash mounted to the hot shoe.

Now, I don't want in any way to come off snobish. I've seen stunning pictures taken with many a point and shoot.

But as the affair wore on, it became apparent that the camera's lack of response to the shutter button was just getting in the way. As the guests were coming up to light the 13 candles individually, he had to have them pose, wait until he looked at the lcd screen. I then saw the red LEDs shine in order to help the focus, and then what seemed an interminable delay while the preflash went off until the final flash. Then he did it again, this time tilting the flash up a bit.

I guess anyone these days with digital can pose as a pro and charge a fortune. In fact, the rather bad D.J. introduced the photog as the best there is.

Maybe the proof will be in the pudding, but somehow I doubt it.

Any thoughts?

[pcasciola]

There are many self proclaimed pros out there whose "work" is not even on par with the shots that many of the amateurs post here. They don't have a love for photography, they just want to make money. They could care less about the quality, as long as the customer is satisfied enough to pay the bill.

Last year, a friend of mine bought a 20D + 24-70L. His first digital SLR. He attended another friend's wedding where there were two hired "pro" photographers, each using a 20D + 24-70L as well. Weeks later, comparing my friends shots to the pro's, they were not even close. 90% of what the hired photographers came back with, I would consider throwaway, yet the shots my friend came back with were mostly very good.

There are multiple interpretations to the term "pro photographer". Many people say if you do it for a living, you are a pro. I hate that logic, because it conflicts with the statement, "Hire a pro if you want the job done right". Making money doing something in no way means you are doing it right.

I like to think of the pros the same way I think of pro baseball or football players. Making money because they are at the top of their game. I wouldn't call some average joe who buys a ball and glove and charges some poor kid $50 a day to teach him how to play a pro baseball player, would you?

BTW, small world. I grew up on Staten Island. :D

[MDJAK]

You echo my thoughts exactly. It's really a shame that most people, when they hire somebody and pay good money, have no idea what they are getting.

I have a "professional" camera, L lenses, and would never think of hiring myself out as a "pro." as I'm only an amateur hobbyist who would never take a chance. Moreover, I'd be mortified if i ever took on such an assignment and it didn't come out the way it should.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's just that the term "proffesional" is not logic driven..

It simply means by definition that you are paid to do it.

That's all it means.

The assumption with any trade is that if you are being paid to do it you must know what your doing.

This is true of carpentry, electrical work,. etc..

Unfortunately with Photography, (unlike the other trades mentioned) there are no laws, permits, liceneses or unions that force one to know a thing or two before they embark on the career. So in photography being a professional is in NO WAY a credential unto itself.

[Hellashot]

That sounds like someone who thinks he knows what he's doing because everything is easy now with digital cameras.

You should have gone and got your camera to make that photographer shake in his shoes, and maybe piss his pants. Somehow get to see the photos that were paid for from that guy, and show those parents some of your stuff.

[MDJAK]

CDS, you hit the nail on the proverbial head. It's really a shame, considering how much they probably were paying this gentleman.

And I'm not saying that the Sony P&S is a bad camera. In the right hands and in the right circumstances, I'm sure it is capable of great shots.

But seeing what I saw, with this guy peering at the LCD screen to take the shots, taking lots of time to do each one, with a direct flash that I know will not turn out very flattering, it just annoys me.

Hella, as far as me doing it, I suffer from a disease known as shyness. That's a major reason I'd be hardpressed to ever charge money.

One thing the "pro" was good at was instructing his subjects to look at him. I'm not at all good at that.

This past week I was taking shots of my daughters' swim meet. My wife is in charge of this year's banquet and needs pictures of all 30 girls.
The most dramatic shot, besides diving, in my humble opinion, is when someone is rising out of the water during the butterfly.

I wanted so badly to either ask/tell the girls during warmups to do that stroke toward me (which I'm sure they'd be only too happy to do for a free 8x10) but alas I just couldn't get the words out of my mouth.

[pcasciola]

This is true of carpentry, electrical work,. etc..Yep, CDS did hit the nail on the head.

I do a lot of my own work around the house, and if I had a nickel for every time some one told me "don't do that yourself, hire a pro", and the pro does a far worse job than I would have, I'd have enough nickels to buy myself another nice L lens by now.

So, for me anyway, pro has a completely different meaning when used in photography and contracting. It means, someone looking to get paid for doing the least amount of work possible.

[lostdoggy]

I'm allergic to work so I'll never be a Pro.

I agree w/ Phil, being a person in a trade (Jack of all Trade Master of None) I've seen so call pro electricians and such do work at my work and had to go behind them to correct their mistakes (that is my job).

I've seen a few pro Photogs that carry all the right equipment but at the wrong time. At my sister's wedding the photog was complaining to my sister that the guests' flash was triggering his slave flash. I would've walk up to him and give him a piece of my mind but decided not to ruin the only happy part of her marriage. The photog was an idiot or never did a wedding before or never heard of Radio slaves.

[OceanRider]

I wanted so badly to either ask/tell the girls during warmups to do that stroke toward me (which I'm sure they'd be only too happy to do for a free 8x10) but alas I just couldn't get the words out of my mouth.

I hear ya man, this ability in its self makes one a "pro" in one respect. Ahh but theres tomorrow....

Joel

[cosworth]

P&S cameras have become so pervasive that people will stand doe eyed for 30 seconds waiting for that camera to flash. It's sad really.

I wholeheartedly predict an SLR resurgence in the coming years akin to the autofocus early 80s we saw. People will demand better for their events.

[ssim]

That story reminds me of what I saw last summer. I was walking around a park looking for something to take shots of and I saw a wedding party entering the flower gardens, obviously to have their wedding pictures done. Being the nosey person that I am I hung back until I saw that they were getting lined up. I was apalled when I saw the "photographer" have a palm sized point and shoot atop a rather meagre tripod. He had them all posed so that they were facing right into the sun. Obviously some of them would be squinting.

This didn't look like the kind of wedding that would do things on the cheap. They pulled up in two hummer limos. Somehow I'm pretty sure they would somewhat disappointed with the outcome of their day.

I've done a few weddings this summer, mostly for friends and relatives. I've been fortuneate enough to get published a few times in different magazines and catalogs. Yet, I still don't consider myself a pro but a rather decent hobbyist who just enjoys pushing the shutter button.

[Jesper]

My opinion: It doesn't matter at all what camera you have, whether it's a small and simple point and shoot camera or a fancy DSLR, as long as you can get the results out of it that you want - pro or not...

Last week I was at a concert in a club, a friend of mine was playing a gig there (he's a guitarist). I was shooting and I had two "colleagues" at the stage. One of them was a former employee of the club, he was now the official house photographer there and was even paid for his photos by the club - but he was shooting with flash and his photos looked like simple snapshots, without the light and the atmosphere of the concert.

It's not only the quality of your work that counts - how smart you are in selling yourself is at least as important... :rolleyes:

(All three of us where shooting DSLRs - the "pro" had a D70, the other guy a 20D, I had my 10D).

[Mike Smith]

My wedding photographer seemed to have professional equipment, but that was about it. He was three hours late to the ceremony, and he had something screwy going on with the camera settings, which ruined a lot of shots. The weird thing is, he had a great portfolio. I honestly wonder if the shots in his portfolio are really his.

My sister-in-law, who is just starting out as a professional photographer, took some group shots while we were waiting for the real photographer. Hers turned out much better than his. But she was also the maid of honor, so she wasn't able to continue shooting once the ceremony started.

[Andy001z]

Isn't this a case of you pay for what you get, Personally now that I know alittle about Digital photography I would want to see a portfolio of the PRO's work and some info on his/hershooting style and equipment. This way I could make a measured judgement on his or her level of Pro'ness.

[MDJAK]

"[quote: jesper]My opinion: It doesn't matter at all what camera you have, whether it's a small and simple point and shoot camera or a fancy DSLR, as long as you can get the results out of it that you want - pro or not..."

I wholeheartedly agree.

The point of my post wasn't the quality of the shot taken by a p&s, but the extra time it takes for it to take the shot, i.e., the shutter lag, and the harsh lighting that will surely result in what was a rather dark room from use of a direct flash.

The time it takes to compose the shot through the LCD, the shutter lag, means virtually no spontaneous shots and a lot of missed ones, as the moment you want is gone while the camera is doing its thing.

[Big_B]

More generally, a pro must have the tools and skills to do the job. He didn't.

[PhotosGuy]

People bring this on themselves. While i'm sure that they did see pics of his "work" before they hired him, I wonder if they talked to some of his previous clients to see if their results matched the portfolio they saw? I suspect the answer is no & the photographer is the last thing they think of when they plan a wedding.
Being semi-retired, I'm a bit spoiled & I don't have to "sell" my car shots, my previous clients do. I just wait for someone to ask. (Rambling now...) ;)

[chtgrubbs]

Did this pro have gray hair? If he did, then he has probably been at this game since Hector was a pup, and the DJ may hav been right that he was the best around. He was probably a whiz with his Rolleiflex or Hassleblads. But now he feels pressured to "go digital" by his customers but doesn't want to make the financial or learning commitment to buy and master a state of the art digital system.

[theflyingkiwi]

Did this pro have gray hair? If he did, then he has probably been at this game since Hector was a pup, and the DJ may hav been right that he was the best around. He was probably a whiz with his Rolleiflex or Hassleblads. But now he feels pressured to "go digital" by his customers but doesn't want to make the financial or learning commitment to buy and master a state of the art digital system.

If that was the case, then I would recommend that this person should get out of the game.

If you are doing to get paid, and not willing to move with the times, then it's time to find a new way of making money.

It is a shame however that there are people out there like that. Without knowing it, someone like this can give the industry a bad name.

[MattyB]

well, it depends on WHO is defining the meaning of a "professional photographer"

i would agree in saying that whoever gets paid BECAUSE they are the top of there game - is a pro

but, according to the tax office, anyone who makes enough income off photography - is deemed a "professional photographer".

it depends on what you want to pick, really...

dictionary.com says:


Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.
A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
A skilled practitioner; an expert.


so, if you want to deem professional buy his/her income - you're right.
but if you want to deem a professional by his/her skill - you're also right.

[Guitartists]

My old boss at the photo shop always said that it was getting paid that made you a pro.... but I never did buy into that philosophy. I have done a few weddings, some little league, senior portraits and some reunion pics.... all of which I got paid for. But, I still have a long ways to go. Right now I do good work... but I hope someday to do the kind of work that really gets you noticed! The really artsy stuff that you could illustrate a book with ;) Want to break away from the traditional and do more creative shooting....... but, I am still learning, always learning :)

http://www.artwanted.com/images/large/13210_238233.jpg

A shot from the last wedding I did.

Oh how I do long for the day though when my fees cover a bit more than my expenses ;) LOL

[Longwatcher]

Unfortunately with Photography, (unlike the other trades mentioned) there are no laws, permits, liceneses or unions that force one to know a thing or two before they embark on the career. So in photography being a professional is in NO WAY a credential unto itself.

There are however, photography trade organizations that do have a minimum standard required for active membership. In my local area Virginia Professional Photographer's Association (www.vppa.org) is one such organization. You must pass a board of review in order to become an active member allowing you to display their logo. I would probably not hire a photographer myself who was not a member, unless I knew that's photographer's work well ahead of time. Not to say it is a gauruntee of good quality, but the odds are much higher to get a competent photographer out of the blue.

The only problem with such organizations is they do not work for every professional photographer such as what I am doing. The stuff I do (and I still don't know if it would meet their quality standards) does not fit in their basket to qualify as I shoot on a freelance basis rather then on a hired job basis. But if I was hiring someone, I would want one of them, preferably one I knew).

As to forcing professional photographers into a guild system, I am highly opposed to that as guilds/unions tend to reduce creativity at the expense of a bureacracy of standards. This would be the death of any artistic endeavor int he long term. And photography is definately artistic by nature.

[Claire]

Makes me think of a newspaper notice I read recently. The headline read: "11 year-old boy pro photographer" or similar. Apparently this boy had taken some photo (can't remember of what) and it ended up on the first pages of a few papers. He was paid for it. He was invited to spend a day with pro's from some newspaper and he had a great time, happily saying "I want to be a photojournalist when I grow up".

[Steve Parr]

They don't have a love for photography, they just want to make money. They could care less about the quality, as long as the customer is satisfied enough to pay the bill.

This begs the question: is that a problem with the photographer opr is that a problem with the customer?

Steve

[pcasciola]

This begs the question: is that a problem with the photographer opr is that a problem with the customer?

SteveA little bit of both, but I think the photographer's who operate this way are more the problem, because many times they are taking advantage of people who are relying on their expertise for guidance. To me, it's no different than a half-assed contractor who takes advantage of unknowledable homeowners who just don't know any better. I'm not sure if that happened in the case of the original post, because maybe the guy was working for free or really cheap, but in my friend's case, a few of us agreed he was completely mislead and ripped off.