Are Amateurs destroying Photography

Ricardo222 wrote in post #13877173
But I would support the idea of a Guild that photographers could join after completing whatever apprenticeship was deemed appropriate.

Hmmm.. Modelled on the Assassins' Guild of Ankh-Morpork maybe???

Okay pros - not that you'll make me feel terribly guilty - tell me how much I'm in the wrong on this one:

A family in my church is homeless. Their graduating senior is a musician - a good one, but someone who prefers to style himself as "unique" - he doesn't want to be like anyone else if at all possible, including having the same poses and backgrounds as the rest of his school's senior pictures. Our church believes very much in God moving in our hearts, and the day that I discussed with hubby offering to photograph this kid, he approached me and asked me to do his pictures.

So far we've gotten formal poses done. He is in love with what I've gotten so far (and when his mom saw them she squealed and hugged me) and can't wait for our location work once the weather cooperates when we both have the time available.

A photographer showed up for the school's career day (our local photographer was driven out of business last year; strangely this photographer's portrait charges are 40% less than going rates around here) and did a slide show of students she had done pictures with and then approached students she hadn't provided services for (including this teenager) asking when she could pencil them in. He told me yesterday he didn't like various things about her photography, including using windblown backgrounds while the subject's hair, etc., was completely still, lighting on the subject being in the opposite direction of lighting in the background, and similar poses for each background used (students posed the same in front of x background, y background had y pose). He considers himself unique and wants pictures that will be completely unlike everyone else's and reflect who he is - a talented, unique musician.

So, even if he paid for portraits, it is unlikely he would have gone to her if he could have found other options.

Did I steal her "sale"?

wuzzittoya wrote in post #13877502
Okay pros - not that you'll make me feel terribly guilty - tell me how much I'm in the wrong on this one:

A family in my church is homeless. Their graduating senior is a musician - a good one, but someone who prefers to style himself as "unique" - he doesn't want to be like anyone else if at all possible, including having the same poses and backgrounds as the rest of his school's senior pictures. Our church believes very much in God moving in our hearts, and the day that I discussed with hubby offering to photograph this kid, he approached me and asked me to do his pictures.

So far we've gotten formal poses done. He is in love with what I've gotten so far (and when his mom saw them she squealed and hugged me) and can't wait for our location work once the weather cooperates when we both have the time available.

A photographer showed up for the school's career day (our local photographer was driven out of business last year; strangely this photographer's portrait charges are 40% less than going rates around here) and did a slide show of students she had done pictures with and then approached students she hadn't provided services for (including this teenager) asking when she could pencil them in. He told me yesterday he didn't like various things about her photography, including using windblown backgrounds while the subject's hair, etc., was completely still, lighting on the subject being in the opposite direction of lighting in the background, and similar poses for each background used (students posed the same in front of x background, y background had y pose). He considers himself unique and wants pictures that will be completely unlike everyone else's and reflect who he is - a talented, unique musician.

So, even if he paid for portraits, it is unlikely he would have gone to her if he could have found other options.

Did I steal her "sale"?

If I read your post correctly, you had already contracted with the young musician (and his mother) before this photographer showed up. Ergo, no, you did not steal her sale.

Even if she had shown up first, her offerings were such that they would have been refused by the young musician. Therefore, she would have made no sale in this instance, and the client would have been free to seek a contract elsewhere, which he did, with you. You did not steal her sale.

Also, even if she were offering her services for sale coincident with you offering services for free to the young musician, and price were not an issue, the young musician has made it clear that he did not like what she had to offer. He would not have gone with her in any case. You did not steal her sale, she failed to make it. A different thing altogether.

However, money was an issue. The young man and his family had none to "waste" on photographs. Unless the other photographer was willing to do the shots for free, there was no "sale." You did not steal her sale.

Finally (yes, finally there is a "finally"), he asked you to do his pictures as not only a photographer but a fellow member of the same church. He solicited you. The fact that you were considering offering your services is irrelevant (but very nice of you). There was no sale for you to steal.

Feel better now?

If the photographer doesn't have good enough images to have someone book them, they've lost nothing because they never had anything in the first place.

doogle510 wrote in post #13819250
Haven’t read this whole thread, don’t know if it’s been brought up, but you couldn't some of the blame of "amateurs destroying photography" be placed on the manufactures. 20 years ago photography was very expensive, but over time the price of a good camera has dropped drastically, which in turn has open the world photography to a larger group of people. So shouldn’t the “pro” be mad at Canon and Nikon for making cameras cheaper, instead of guy who is able to afford one.

Cameras and lenses should drop in price even more. Photography shouldn't be some exclusive club that only rich chosen few can afford.

It seems that the heavy dependence on the definition of "professional" is what may or may not be "destroying photography."

I completely understand where everyone is coming from regarding the issue of DSLR kits and every owner believing that are a professional. Granted, I am not an amateur nor am I a professional. I have had a couple images published and I do get paid for my work but I am always learning from other photog's and hopefully other people have learned from me.

It's actually a huge pet peeve of mine when friends say I am a professional photographer because I never market myself like that. I inform people that I freelance in photography and if they're interested they can look through my previous work/come to their own conclusions of what kind of photographer I am. We all work hard at perfecting our understanding of photography and our skills, and we have dropped countless amounts of cash into our gear.

That being said don't let the labels force you to become angry or disinterested in photography. I think the best thing I've ever heard in regards to photography and individuals on POTN was:

"Amateurs discuss gear, photographers discuss lighting."

wuzzittoya wrote in post #13877502
Okay pros - not that you'll make me feel terribly guilty - tell me how much I'm in the wrong on this one:

A family in my church is homeless. Their graduating senior is a musician - a good one, but someone who prefers to style himself as "unique" - he doesn't want to be like anyone else if at all possible, including having the same poses and backgrounds as the rest of his school's senior pictures. Our church believes very much in God moving in our hearts, and the day that I discussed with hubby offering to photograph this kid, he approached me and asked me to do his pictures.

So far we've gotten formal poses done. He is in love with what I've gotten so far (and when his mom saw them she squealed and hugged me) and can't wait for our location work once the weather cooperates when we both have the time available.

A photographer showed up for the school's career day (our local photographer was driven out of business last year; strangely this photographer's portrait charges are 40% less than going rates around here) and did a slide show of students she had done pictures with and then approached students she hadn't provided services for (including this teenager) asking when she could pencil them in. He told me yesterday he didn't like various things about her photography, including using windblown backgrounds while the subject's hair, etc., was completely still, lighting on the subject being in the opposite direction of lighting in the background, and similar poses for each background used (students posed the same in front of x background, y background had y pose). He considers himself unique and wants pictures that will be completely unlike everyone else's and reflect who he is - a talented, unique musician.

So, even if he paid for portraits, it is unlikely he would have gone to her if he could have found other options.

Did I steal her "sale"?

Not at all. A donation to a cause you consider worthy is a fine thing. Plus the teenager has a right to decide the style of portrait he wants - unless the school doesn't allow that.

mrwalker wrote in post #13877451
Hmmm.. Modelled on the Assassins' Guild of Ankh-Morpork maybe???

YES!!!!

With the Weird Sisters as arbitrators!

Frugal wrote in post #13890953
Not at all. A donation to a cause you consider worthy is a fine thing. Plus the teenager has a right to decide the style of portrait he wants - unless the school doesn't allow that.

I agree. The bottom line is this...just because a "pro" takes the pictures, we the public are under no compulsion to buy them if they're not good enough, unless we were foolish enough to contract to do so no matter what the quality.

Wuzzi did a favour, and in the client's eyes did a better job than the "pro", so good on you, Wuzzi...you stole nothing from that photographer.

geeky wrote in post #13890609
I completely understand where everyone is coming from regarding the issue of DSLR kits and every owner believing that are a professional.

See, I don't believe that's what's happening.

In fact, what's happening is exactly the opposite.

If someone goes out and buys an entry level kit, I don't really believe they're going to start calling themself a "professional" just because they may post a Craig's List ad. The people who are saying that the newbies think they're pros are, well, the pros.

I've never heard someone referring to themself as a "pro" just because they own a DSLR...

BreitlingFan wrote in post #13891329
See, I don't believe that's what's happening.

In fact, what's happening is exactly the opposite.

If someone goes out and buys an entry level kit, I don't really believe they're going to start calling themself a "professional" just because they may post a Craig's List ad. The people who are saying that the newbies think they're pros are, well, the pros.

I've never heard someone referring to themself as a "pro" just because they own a DSLR...

Ive seen it and heard it on multiple occasions. I've been to car meets where I no longer even bother bringing my own setup unless I know i'll be doing an individual shoot afterwards for a specific car.

I've been to huge car meets where kids are running around with their rebels and saying "totally going to make this into an HDR, check it out on my professional facebook and flickr pages man!" etc. it gets annoying, quick.

Thank you everyone. I was waiting for an "amateurs shouldn't shoot photos that would have been done by a pro, period" kind of answer. Strangely, there are those of us who do not have a professional portrait/wedding/event photographer shingle out, for whatever reason, that can feel like targets of the "amateur who is destroying photography" thread, at least I did. I don't know that I could make a living with professional portraits doing them the way that I am for him... this will take me hours including location work, because I want to really portray who he is inside at this moment, including his love of music and how it expresses his "soul." I've played various musical instruments since age five, and know from experience that when you are playing your heart out you lose yourself in the music. A few of the images I'm doing will focus more on him making the music than him. I also want to do "street musician" shots, the shots he asked for (though I don't know why he wants to play guitar laying in a mud puddle, I'll do my best to make it look good) and shots of him in our local (very tiny, but very interesting) music store. He has played in their booth regularly for any of our town street fairs, so it will be more than okay with the owner.

My camera doesn't make me a pro. I consider myself a freelance photographer the same way I'm a freelance writer. Sometimes my creations will earn me money. In the meantime I work on making them better because I love to make things (words or images) that make people think and/or feel. This is what is important to me. This thread really made me question whether or not I should take on the few photo sessions I had agreed to, since I wasn't a "professional" photographer who advertises for her work that way. It is probably one of the reasons I argued so hard about it. If I'm a competent photographer who is approached by someone to use my skills, why am I not allowed to be paid a fair wage (yes, I've read books on business practices for photography and know how to determine what the market rate is and have no plans of regularly undercutting established photographers for the sake of being able to have a portrait studio)?

There are people out there who have no clue... I still insist that they probably won't last too long unless they either improve their quality and/or increase their prices to cover their expenses adequately. If they are pricing themselves below the rest of the market they won't remain competition for long and chances are there are very few clients a good photographer is losing to them.

wuzzittoya wrote in post #13892087
Thank you everyone. I was waiting for an "amateurs shouldn't shoot photos that would have been done by a pro, period" kind of answer. Strangely, there are those of us who do not have a professional portrait/wedding/event photographer shingle out, for whatever reason, that can feel like targets of the "amateur who is destroying photography" thread, at least I did. I don't know that I could make a living with professional portraits doing them the way that I am for him... this will take me hours including location work, because I want to really portray who he is inside at this moment, including his love of music and how it expresses his "soul." I've played various musical instruments since age five, and know from experience that when you are playing your heart out you lose yourself in the music. A few of the images I'm doing will focus more on him making the music than him. I also want to do "street musician" shots, the shots he asked for (though I don't know why he wants to play guitar laying in a mud puddle, I'll do my best to make it look good) and shots of him in our local (very tiny, but very interesting) music store. He has played in their booth regularly for any of our town street fairs, so it will be more than okay with the owner.

My camera doesn't make me a pro. I consider myself a freelance photographer the same way I'm a freelance writer. Sometimes my creations will earn me money. In the meantime I work on making them better because I love to make things (words or images) that make people think and/or feel. This is what is important to me. This thread really made me question whether or not I should take on the few photo sessions I had agreed to, since I wasn't a "professional" photographer who advertises for her work that way. It is probably one of the reasons I argued so hard about it. If I'm a competent photographer who is approached by someone to use my skills, why am I not allowed to be paid a fair wage (yes, I've read books on business practices for photography and know how to determine what the market rate is and have no plans of regularly undercutting established photographers for the sake of being able to have a portrait studio)?

There are people out there who have no clue... I still insist that they probably won't last too long unless they either improve their quality and/or increase their prices to cover their expenses adequately. If they are pricing themselves below the rest of the market they won't remain competition for long and chances are there are very few clients a good photographer is losing to them.

If any full time professional hasn't positioned himself so that these things are not an issue to them then that photographer has some real problems.

I donate my services either severely discounted services or out right donate to things that I really care about and to organizations that help my community that I know do not have the funds but there services are important to those helped by them. One is a therapeutic riding stable that helps disabled veterans and handicapped children. Like what you described its something that wouldn't get done if I didn't step up. What you did shouldn't hurt any real pro. Just like what I do doesn't take the food outta anybodies mouths and its the right thing to do.

I will restate this from a previous post, the real issue isn't pro non-pro, its those that respect the medium and are constantly trying to learn and push. Those that truly understand that technique is just the beginning and that the real test is learning the visual as well. That means pushing to find their own style and develop their own personal way of seeing and that can be anyone pro, non-pro and everything in-between.

And then theres the others that think photography is just pushing a button. Its a lesser art form. They have no desire to learn anything more than to push the button and make a buck with it or not but to them its no more than a fact taking peace of equipment. Those are the real danger to photography, pro or non-pro.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13892228
If any full time professional hasn't positioned himself so that these things are not an issue to them then that photographer has some real problems.

I donate my services either severely discounted services or out right donate to things that I really care about and to organizations that help my community that I know do not have the funds but there services are important to those helped by them. One is a therapeutic riding stable that helps disabled veterans and handicapped children. Like what you described its something that wouldn't get done if I didn't step up. What you did shouldn't hurt any real pro. Just like what I do doesn't take the food outta anybodies mouths and its the right thing to do.

I will restate this from a previous post, the real issue isn't pro non-pro, its those that respect the medium and are constantly trying to learn and push. Those that truly understand that technique is just the beginning and that the real test is learning the visual as well. That means pushing to find their own style and develop their own personal way of seeing and that can be anyone pro, non-pro and everything in-between.

And then theres the others that think photography is just pushing a button. Its a lesser art form. They have no desire to learn anything more than to push the button and make a buck with it or not but to them its no more than a fact taking peace of equipment. Those are the real danger to photography, pro or non-pro.

+1 this is exactly what I posted about. I definitely am not a professional nor an amateur but I am constantly shooting to learn more and understand.

I would put myself there, too - the learning and improving. I don't want to press a button and capture something - I want to find the best way to portray it - to make it something powerful when it is captured. Hubby drives me crazy - he insisted on "sharing" a DSLR so I got him his own. He still has not learned how to take it out of green square mode, will not learn to change lenses, etc. However, he holds no delusions as to "professional" photographer, thank goodness!