Are Amateurs destroying Photography

Todd Lambert wrote in post #13773418
I love trees.

A monitor does not do this amazing photograph justice
http://www.edward-weston.com …weston_point_lo​bos_18.htm

I come at from more of an artistic view. I am artistic (draw, play guitar, and so on). So when I got my, heaven forbid, kit camera I starting taking pictures. I was satisfied but not excited about the quality of what I was getting so I sought to learn and grow... to please ME. That is exactly how I found this site. Just happens that as my skills have improved so has my satisfaction with my work... in turn, so does the approval of people that view what I have done. So, as I have grown and continue to improve in my HOBBY I am making others happy.

I do believe alot of us hobby folks see the result of paid sessions and think "man, I can put out a product as good as that." Hence, doing my own family pictures recently. It was my first portrait work. While not technically perfect... it was better than what my sister-in-law just paid for. I have a great job and do this as a hobby (no desire to go "pro") but I have had several request to do family shots from people that come see the 20x30 I shot of my family over the mantel. Like someone else has said in this thread... you pay for quality. Because a hobby guy doesn't have a listing in the yellow pages or a business card doesn't mean he doesn't produce high quality work... and heck, if he can make a buck here and there... right on.

Is a professional commercial photographer any more then a button pusher anymore? Commercial studios have an art department, a stylist whether food, face, fashion or whatever, a set designer and single/multiple levels of directors. Most images are shot at F11 or above for maximum detail. The photographer is now only responsible for lighting and shutter speed. At least this seems the case in many of the larger studios I've been in.

sjones wrote in post #13773289
Just for clarification, even if it involves reiteration, please define professionals and amateurs.

pros - make a living with a camera
amateurs - don't make a living with a camera

The reason that the divide is so contentious is because it places the group in opposition to the individual. The amateur is representative of the group because everybody can be an amateur. The professional is representative of the individual because only some people can be pros. This can become a really ugly situation because if an amateur wants to become a pro then he should not be in opposition to them. If he is in opposition then he's actually at war with himself and maybe that's what is preventing him from leaving the group and going pro.

Chet wrote in post #13773463
Is a professional commercial photographer any more then a button pusher anymore? Commercial studios have an art department, a stylist whether food, face, fashion or whatever, a set designer and single/multiple levels of directors. Most images are shot at F11 or above for maximum detail. The photographer is now only responsible for lighting and shutter speed. At least this seems the case in many of the larger studios I've been in.

Not the type of advertising/commercial work I do which is mostly real people on location and I everything I shoot I have a lot of freedom because my clients come to me for the way my work looks.

One of my professors from college no longer teaches and has one of the top furniture photography business in the country. Hes the one calling all the shots on his shoots. Many good shooters get hired for the way their work looks and those are the ones that are going to be successful moving forward because they are getting hired for something not everyone has, their look. Thats the difference between the ones that will continue to be successful moving forward and the button pushers.

Ross J wrote in post #13773519
pros - make a living with a camera
amateurs - don't make a living with a camera

The reason that the divide is so contentious is because it places the group in opposition to the individual. The amateur is representative of the group because everybody can be an amateur. The professional is representative of the individual because only some people can be pros. This can become a really ugly situation because if an amateur wants to become a pro then he should not be in opposition to them. If he is in opposition then he's actually at war with himself and maybe that's what is preventing him from leaving the group and going pro.

Exactly because to do it right and really learn most need to work for one for a while and learn from the inside out.

Chet: button-pusher pro photo? What about lens choice, framing, lighting, yada yada?

I was thinking what lame environment would it have to be where someone say, "Yeah, I'm an amateur photographer...". Either a camera store counter, air show, or maybe a bar looking for a hookup. I suppose wedding guys & corp event guys get told this all the time. So they're the professions link to the other universe. Whew.

But whatever. "Amateur" has no weight. Amateur pilot, no thanks. Amateur lawyer? Amateur carpet layer? Aside from the licensing issue, I don't think the word "amateur" negatively impacts any of the professionals.

As I've said, for me, its not about words or getting paid. Its about keeping quality high and advancing art. Anyone who does that is OK in my book.

airfrogusmc: That's how I work also. Always did. Photographers SHOULD be getting paid big enough money so that when they hire you, the client trusts 100% and doesn't interject.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13773554
Exactly because to do it right and really learn most need to work for one for a while and learn from the inside out.

That's right. Working for awhile on the inside, like assisting, is becoming a rare experience and therefore is more connected to the individual. Meanwhile, online education and cheap digital gear is available to everybody so it is connected to the group. Any person that wants to go pro has gotta find a way to extricate himself from the group, so things like assisting are a good way of helping him to accomplish the task.

Ross J wrote in post #13773519
pros - make a living with a camera
amateurs - don't make a living with a camera

The reason that the divide is so contentious is because it places the group in opposition to the individual. The amateur is representative of the group because everybody can be an amateur. The professional is representative of the individual because only some people can be pros. This can become a really ugly situation because if an amateur wants to become a pro then he should not be in opposition to them. If he is in opposition then he's actually at war with himself and maybe that's what is preventing him from leaving the group and going pro.

So being an individual is superior to being just part of the group, is that right?

mcluckie wrote in post #13773579
Chet: button-pusher pro photo? What about lens choice, framing, lighting, yada yada?

I did mention lighting being controlled by the photographer. In food photography you don't change lenses very often.

sjones wrote in post #13773782
So being an individual is superior to being just part of the group, is that right?

No, you're making assumptions and your questions appear to be attempts to come up with something to criticize. I've been involved in several other threads where you've done the same thing so now it's a recognizable pattern.

Numenorean wrote in post #13772753
Well I'll give an honest opinion.

I love when you give the opinion and then the person starts defending their blurry horribly composed image as if they are Monet with a camera or something.

Maybe they are. Just because someone was good in one art form doesn't mean he's any good in another. Monet may have been terrible at photography.

Ross J wrote in post #13773164
@mattia

might want to read the whole thread before posting next time

I wrote about craftsmanship in my first post in this thread and it's just a means-to-an-end rather than an end-to-a-means. But it does serve as a good dividing line since it can only be learned through synthetic experience. All of the automation that is offered by digital has no impact on what still constitutes high levels of craftsmanship. The best craftsman get their images right at capture and the reward is 3-dimensional depth. Meanwhile, the folks that rely on automation or PP inevitably create work that is 2-dimensional. It's easy to tell them apart when a person knows what to look for and the vast majority of digital work being created nowadays is a collapse into pre-Renaissance 2-dimensional depth perspective. That's why I consider the divide to be craftsmanship rather than pros vs amateurs. The divide in craftsmanship is between 2d and 3d.

I don't understand you - if you accept the craftsman argument then why throw in these troll bombs?

Ross J wrote in post #13772878
Of course, the amateurs will call the pros "snobs and elitists." But if pros actually lowered their standards too far in order to avoid being labeled elitist then they would be the same as the amateurs. So it's an unresolvable conflict because an amateur will never become a pro unless he also risks becoming a snob. And a pro will never remain a pro unless he's willing to accept being slurred as a snob.

Ross J wrote in post #13772904
BTW - both sides are engaging in cognitive dissonance...

The pro imagines that he's not a snob. But he is a snob.

The amateur imagines that he's just as good as the pro. But he's not as good as the pro.

???

How many times does it need to be said that being a professional photographer does not equate to being better than an amateur?

Mcluckie mentioned professional drivers.

A taxi driver is a professional driver who sells his/her services. If you live in Australia, you would have to be insane to think that a typical taxi driver is a better skilled driver than you or me.

why nobody say that the pro are destroying the hobby
because we have to buy new gear (one after one ) to match their work's level .......
...... by the end no more money to buy new gear and the hobby ends

smorter wrote in post #13774746
I don't understand you - if you accept the craftsman argument then why throw in these troll bombs.

Many camera operators are so out-of-touch with the industry and the art that they've never encountered a normal photo theory type of discussion. Since they haven't encountered it before, then they often falsely assume that it's trolling. Baudrillard warned against this when he said that the loss of craftsmanship and the death of resemblance to nature would lead to the creation of simulacra where virtual reality would replace actual reality. He said that reality would be a ghost in the simulacrum. Maybe, I'm the ghost in your simulacrum and you can't tell the difference between a troll and the real thing.