solara wrote in post #13634697
Nothing wrong with non-full-time photogs trying to make money on the side
Nothing wrong with it at all so long as they're not predatory and they don't work in a "scorched earth" fashion (like some do.)
Failing to work in a professional way goes far beyond simply "take the money and run." Some can't be bothered to follow up in a professional manner and they'll often leave their customers hanging for weeks and even months because they either can't, won't or don't know to devote the time to proper communication (a large part of being "professional.")
At least they have their primary job to pay the bills, so they can still enjoy photography without the stress
As I said above, "free of stress" sometimes means devoid of a sense of responsibility to their clients. Granted, not every part-timer is this way but there are enough that it makes the pages here and we read where clients got burned (not specifically by POTN members)
As for competition - that's always a good thing. If full-time photogs are not good enough to even compete with part-time photogs, then maybe they should be in a different field - or find a primary job to pay the bills. Just because someone spends all their time doing photography does not mean they're any good and that they should continue to make that their career.
I'm all for fair competition but, as is the case even between nations, let alone photographers, the playing field is rarely level. I personally hate the "if you aren't good enough" argument simply because I know I am as good or better than many against whom I "compete" but the reality is that much of it is driven by relationships and "back scratching." This is a time-honored tradition and I'm ok with that aspect but when someone else rolls in to your backyard with money, time, resources or name recognition and pimps my local market, it's damn frustrating.
A good photog should be able to produce stunning photos with moderately-priced equipment, so saying that full-time photogs are being cr#pped on by those with high disposable incomes because of their money and equipment is inaccurate since we all know having expensive equipment does not equate to stunning photos (not saying that that's what you're implying).
Ultimately, it's not about the gear, you're right. But, "better" gear in the hands of an amateur is more likely to accelerate the Blind Pig Theory. A HS Freshman really wanting to get into sports using a 50D and a Sigma 150-500 won't feel pressure from a Mom or Dad with their Rebel and Kit Lens but what about the Mom or Dad with their 1DMkIV + 400mm f/2.8L IS? Is that really fair?