Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 22 Jan 2012 (Sunday) 09:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Are Amateurs destroying Photography

 
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6334
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Mar 18, 2013 17:39 |  #1171

adza77 wrote in post #15729292 (external link)
I don't think I'm confusing it - maybe not articulating myself correctly. (Or maybe you're right, and I'm not understanding you) :)

From your reply there - I would I say I agree with you. Technique (to a certain point) is the easy part now. As an example: Prior to digital you had to know how to expose right. Maybe there are some professionals that relied on the fact that back in the film days others who didn't know how to expose properly would pay for a professional, rather than risk using up a whole role of film and getting all underexposed/overexpos​ed images and waiting days to find out.

Now - that's no longer as much of an edge. Almost anyone can go out, take a photo, view, correct the exposure and try again. As such, if professionals want to compete with the less skilled - they require more than technique now. Maybe once this was all some required to make a living, but not now - they have to 'constantly' be ahead of the field.

It's my opinion that if people are going to part with their cash to pay anyone to pay someone else to do anything -they need to be able to do more (and be seen to be able to do more) than what the customer could do themselves. Not just for photography. If a professional can't do that - well, maybe it's time they consider another field. I don't think the customer is wrong to use themselves, or a friend as opposed to a photographer if they believe they can do just as good a job.

I do believe that Amateurs are destroying some professionals careers - but I think this would be more the less skilled (or potentially lazy) professionals, rather than what I would consider the real good ones.

Technique has ALWAYS been the easy part.
"Photography is a medium of formidable contradictions. It is both ridiculously easy and almost impossibly difficult. It is easy because its technical rudiments can readily be mastered by anyone with a few simple instructions. It is difficult because, while while the artist working in any other medium begins with a blank surface and gradually brings his conception into being, the photographer is the only imagemaker who begins with the picture completed. His emotions, his knowledge, and his native talent are brought into focus and fixed beyond recall the moment the shutter of his camera has closed." - Edward Steichen

"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

"Photography is an intransigent medium, and it's very hard to express yourself. After you get a certain technical facility — and from the very first I took 'good' pictures — you've got to get at what you feel." - Roy DeCarava

"Today photographers are much more interested in setting up strobe lights and doing technical things. To me, both then and now, technique is not that important." - Alfred Eisenstaedt




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Persian-Rice
Goldmember
1,529 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Apr 2004
Location: Behind a viewfinder.
     
Mar 18, 2013 17:49 |  #1172

The people who deserve to be make a living out of photography will succeed long term, the ones who don't, won't last very long and have little effect on photographers who are higher on the food chain. Every pro started out as an enthusiast at some point.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,866 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 743
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:04 |  #1173

Persian-Rice wrote in post #15729494 (external link)
The people who deserve to be make a living out of photography will succeed long term, the ones who don't, won't last very long and have little effect on photographers who are higher on the food chain. Every pro started out as an enthusiast at some point.

There's a lot of inconsistency above though.

What about fantastic visionary photographers that are hopeless at running a business and are unsuccessful?

What about the below mediocre photographers that sell themselves and have above average business skills and are successful?


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thurman
Member
Avatar
245 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:24 |  #1174

I haven't been in photography that long, about 3 years now so to me i'm still an amateur but i'm not trying to give anyone a bad name i'm not trying to make money off my photos or anything like that. I take photos for the pure enjoyment of photography. I may not know everything a 20 year professional photographer knows but I try to take the best photos I can with what I have. If someone thinks that i'm ruining the photography culture then i'm sorry but i'm going to continue to try to take the best photos I can and hopefully people will see them and enjoy them the same as I do.


Canon EOS Rebel T4i|18-55mm|50mm|55-250mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:24 |  #1175

fotoworx wrote in post #15729548 (external link)
There's a lot of inconsistency above though.

What about fantastic visionary photographers that are hopeless at running a business and are unsuccessful?

What about the below mediocre photographers that sell themselves and have above average business skills and are successful?

What about them? Some artists don't get "recognized" until after they die!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6334
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:33 |  #1176

fotoworx wrote in post #15729548 (external link)
There's a lot of inconsistency above though.

What about fantastic visionary photographers that are hopeless at running a business and are unsuccessful?

What about the below mediocre photographers that sell themselves and have above average business skills and are successful?

Your gonna need it more and more if you want to get away from the herd and to clients that matter. The ones that have money and know the difference. Mediocre photographers are fading fast before our very eyes. They're the ones that fear the wave and they should because their swimming skills are suspect.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6334
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:36 |  #1177

tonylong wrote in post #15729620 (external link)
What about them? Some artists don't get "recognized" until after they die!

Tony I think we are talking commercial work and I mean that in the context of any area where you work for a clint and its for money. Art would be an entirely different conversation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 148
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Mar 18, 2013 18:43 |  #1178

fotoworx wrote in post #15726172 (external link)
Then why have you turned into a computer photographer?

If there's been no benefit in the photographical technological advances in the 30-40 years, why aren't you just getting it all correct in the viewfinder before you click the shutter on a frame of unexposed film?


Couldn't get satisfaction here, huh?

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1284642


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,866 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 743
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:05 |  #1179

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #15729692 (external link)
Couldn't get satisfaction here, huh?

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1284642

Thanks for posting the link Jay, much appreciated.

Its a divergent from this thread and much more entirely apt for many of the arguments put forth in this thread where the title "Are Amateurs destroying Photography" has gone astray.


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,553 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6334
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:18 |  #1180

fotoworx wrote in post #15729772 (external link)
Thanks for posting the link Jay, much appreciated.

Its a divergent from this thread and much more entirely apt for many of the arguments put forth in this thread where the title "Are Amateurs destroying Photography" has gone astray.

If you have positioned yourself away from the herd and put yourself in a situation where clients that know what good is come to you for your vision then the herd is not your competition If you are in entry level areas and your style and vision are not a deciding factors then amateurs and the herd is your competition and things are only going to get tougher for you...

So if you have positioned yourself well as you should have then you have noting to fear. Amateurs are not destroying photography. If anything they are weeding out the riff-raff which is good for the profession.

Photographers being threatened has less to do with technical advances in the medium and more to do with those that have lack any real vision and style.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
llareggub
Senior Member
Avatar
631 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Hungary, Jasz Kun Szolnok
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:23 |  #1181

RandyMN wrote in post #15729316 (external link)
This is the definition for traffic and security cameras. Photography can be defined as much more sophisticated process, unless you snap images similar to a traffic camera.

Maybe that's how photography is being destroyed... too many images being snapped with no more thought process than a traffic camera! And people are charging for it!

:lol:

Only if you choose to, in any argument you must specify all assumptions, there are no stated assumptions in any of the previous 79 pages of this thread!

I posit an absolute, photography is nothing more than the capturing of an image on a medium that can be shown at a later date to a third party!

If someone wishes to define photography as an "art" good luck as I have yet to find a definitive description of art in all of my reading.

If some one wishes to state that the growth of technology has reduced the financial size of the photography market then please state the figures (I have looked but I cannot find them)!

We all love to argue but for the love of god, dognuts or bagels please argue properly!!!!!!!!


My Website :D (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:30 |  #1182

llareggub wrote in post #15729853 (external link)
Only if you choose to, in any argument you must specify all assumptions, there are no stated assumptions in any of the previous 79 pages of this thread!

I posit an absolute, photography is nothing more than the capturing of an image on a medium that can be shown at a later date to a third party!

If someone wishes to define photography as an "art" good luck as I have yet to find a definitive description of art in all of my reading.

If some one wishes to state that the growth of technology has reduced the financial size of the photography market then please state the figures (I have looked but I cannot find them)!

We all love to argue but for the love of god, dognuts or bagels please argue properly!!!!!!!!

I apologize for not 'properly arguing' your 'overly simplistic' definition of photography.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kiapolo
Senior Member
Avatar
870 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Honolulu, Hawai`i
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:31 |  #1183

dtufino wrote in post #13747535 (external link)
The question is... is photography dying in the professional sense?

In 2004 my family paid for a "professional photographer" to take our family pics. In 2008 my brother took our family pics with his Panny DMC-FZ30. This year I set up my T2i/550D and took our family pics.

Were the 2004 pics as good as the 2008 & 2013? Doesn't matter, they were good enough.

That's your problem. Good enough is acceptable for the majority, now.

Is professional photography dying? No. It's evolving.


| kiapolo.com (external link) (blog) | Gear List | Flickr (external link) | YouTube (external link) | 2012 Project 366 (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
llareggub
Senior Member
Avatar
631 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Hungary, Jasz Kun Szolnok
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:33 |  #1184

RandyMN wrote in post #15729893 (external link)
I apologize for not 'properly arguing' your 'overly simplistic' definition of photography.

I have at least tried to define "photography", do you have something better to offer or can you argue against my definition?

Oh go on please try, I could do with a laugh!


My Website :D (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Mar 18, 2013 19:39 |  #1185

llareggub wrote in post #15729905 (external link)
At least I have a definition, do you care to offer one?

That would be getting too far away from the OP's purpose for this thread when it was first posted a year ago. It would need to be taken to another thread.

I only commented on your definition because it over-simplified it. I work with document imaging in which we capture electronic images and store them to case files for later viewing. By your definition that would be photography.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

133,786 views & 0 likes for this thread
Are Amateurs destroying Photography
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is marcusgrandon
809 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.