Are Amateurs destroying Photography

Opening the darkroom door is what's ruining photography. Stop coming in when I'm developing.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #13774917
Opening the darkroom door is what's ruining photography. Stop coming in when I'm developing.

end of thread

Ross J wrote in post #13774030
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.

What is a recognizable pattern, that I assume, that I set people up with questions, or both? Well, if referring to the use of questions, not so, usually I just jump right in and go into a loquacious diatribe, so your observation, if this is the case, would be grossly mistaken. Really, if it was typical for me to spit out a litany of quick questions, I'm sure my post count would be higher than 1,325, given that I've been on this site since summer 2005.

That I make assumptions. Yes, I do, and it can be a fault. This said, whether intended or not (don't want to make any assumptions), you have the proclivity to make broad provocative statements that are susceptible to misconception; and I'm being generous.

But true, sometimes I can be quick to misinterpret, and earlier on this thread, I did make a quip that was potentially the result of a misguided inference. Yet, it was the fact that I might be jumping the gun that I sought clarification. See, I'm trying to improve myself. By the way, did you ever consider that you might be making wrong assumptions about my statements?

Asking how you define pro and amateur is a very legitimate question, because some people on this thread are seemingly referring to amateurs---in context of the OP's original question---as just unskilled or untrained photographers who are nevertheless selling their goods, possibly at the expense of professionals…they aren't referring to hobbyists who just shoot for fun.

Moreover, professional could be construed as people who are paid and also skilled, not fulltime hacks, particularly since we all realize (and we all do realize) that there are a number of professionals (as defined solely by those who derive a living from photography) who are inferior to some amateurs (as defined by those who don't earn a living from photography). It gets a bit confusing, particularly when you throw in the fact that we actually have folks who find hobbyists repugnant. In addition, I wasn't sure if you were directly correlating craftsmen/non-craftsmen with professionals/amateurs​.

Anyway, I find this distinction between pro and amateur important, because I wanted to know to what extent you were conveniently conflating photographers; to get a better understanding of who fits into what category.

With this answered, then yes, my second inquiry could be a set up for criticism, but only depending on your response. That I might criticize is no different than that you might criticize, so we both share this particular recognizable pattern. Keep in mind, at least in Western Society, the word "group," particularly in relation to the "individual," has pejorative connotations, so again, my attempt to seek further elucidation is absolutely understandable given the potential contentiousness involved. And while I don't want to assume---but I'm going to anyway---you damn well know that these are potentially inflammatory labels.

As it stands, I'm a hobbyist; I have another occupation, and I have absolutely no qualms with professionals. Why would I? Although you might see me as a threat, I have absolutely no reason to see you as one. Whether some are snobs are not, never really thought about it, since I don't really interact with them much (and good lord it shows in my amateurish work!).

In any event, I don't ever want anyone to tell me what photo to take, so I have no desire to be a professional. And I certainly don't want to be in position in which this hobby, from which I receive great enjoyment, becomes a source of stress or aggravation, outside from my own demands and challenges that I place on myself to improve.

This said, I am passionate about photography, and being that I just jumped into this six years ago, I think I'm doing OK. Again, I'm not selling my photos, and I not aiming to get into the Guggenheim. Not a lot of pretense going on, but if someone wants to give me a few bucks for a print, I won't refuse the offer. Still, it's more a source of fun than anything else.

Nevertheless, if someone is going to somehow define me, my aspirations, aesthetic sensibilities, skill, or nature of my audience vis-à-vis monetary activity, then yes, I have every right to take offense. Not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but my desire to briefly protest in this forum is certainly justifiable. I mean really, Justin Bieber, the producers of reality television shows, and whores are all professionals too.

Moreover, my restraint is actually something that you should commend, because whether you realize or not, whether you intend it or not, you have an audaciously condescending tone that does not benefit the discussion one bit (I am quite keen on detecting this because as I specifically told you on another thread, I can be condescending too).

Even so, I try to filter out any ad hominem contentions, because you obviously have insightful commentary. Do I agree with it, sometimes, sometimes not; I often find your views on art and photography, or at least the impartation of such, a bit dogmatic and elitist, but again, that doesn't mean there is not much to consider.

Ultimately, I'll stand by what I've said on this site, and if I have been mistaken, I will concede as much. But if (notice the conditional, I use it a lot) you are trying to reductively place the style of my responses into some derogatory box, then you have exercised a stunning degree of hypocrisy---if I need a warning label, trust me, you do to. Don't you dare think for one second that the way you present yourself on this site is beyond reproach, and God knows you are just as obdurate with your position as I am with mine.

In the end, however, amid all this yapping, when I view a photograph, I really don't care if the photographer was a professional or amateur, as this distinction does not automatically define the photo's quality; the piece itself does.

As for unskilled amateurs undermining the profession, well, perhaps the issue falls more on the consumer and their taste, giving rise to a market exploitable by the unwashed masses. Hey, those dubious photographers just want the hot girl too.

By the way, are not most ads directed at the 'unsophisticated' masses; and who are making those ads, professionals or amateurs? (Ah look, another one of those entrapment questions…this incessant pattern must be stopped…no, no, no…this is rhetorical).

If there is one thing, though, for which I have certainly developed a pattern, is that after I said all I want to say, I bail out of the thread. This is largely due to the fact that I love to debate, and I found in the past that I could get sucked in for far too long. This said, as always, any issues or questions, PMs are always welcome---I'm not running away.

One of the greatest posts I have ever seen.

Glad you enjoyed it, he lost me at "What".

You misspelled "to" instead of "too".

Todd Lambert wrote in post #13775273
You misspelled "to" instead of "too".

Not every one is perfect now...
But I'm glad he read the whole thread! That by itself is a major accomplishment.

Which pro is the most elitist, condescending and/or snobbish?

#1) pro that gives amateurs the plain truth as he sees it even if it's offensive
#2) pro that gives amateurs what they want to hear and leaves out what makes them uncomfortable
#3) pro that doesn't talk to amateurs at all

Pro #1 is giving the most valuable information to an amateur that might want to advance to the same level, but can be abrasive in his straight-shooting truthfulness. Pro #2 inspires an amateur to feel warm and fuzzy inside, but he's leaving out the grittiest details of what it takes to get to his level. Pro #3 doesn't have any contact with an amateur at all and is totally inaccessible.

If an amateur were to try and answer the original question, then his conclusion might be dependent on personal goals. If he wishes to remain an amateur, then he'll probably think that #2 is the most friendly to his needs and #1 is the most condescending. But if the same amateur seriously desired to attain a pro level, then he might find #1 to be the most friendly and #2 to be the most condescending. In either case, the amateur doesn't even know that #3 exists (which is why #3 is the most elitist/condescending/​snob of them all) BTW - the majority of popular photography teachers/bloggers would fall under the category of pro #2. I've always related best to pro #1, but am starting to think that pro #3 is actually the smartest of them all.

Your logical reasoning is entirely incorrect.

An amateur does not "aspire" to be a pro. Whether you are an amateur or pro is dictated by your personal situation and objectives.

Using Jeffrey's earlier example, if I am paid for intimacy, I am a prostitute (professional sex worker) . If I have intimacy for enjoyment, I am not a prostitute (not a professional). There is no "I aspire to be a prostitute". You either choose to become one, or you don't. And if you are rubbish at the job, you aren't an amateur, you're just a prostitute with no clients.

And what's this continual arguments about "advancing to the same level as a pro". There is no imaginary higher level for pros. Whether you are a pro or not has nothing to do with your skill/experience level. The spectrum of skill/experience between the worst and best pro in the world is a very wide one, and there is no evidence to suggest that the average skill/experience level of an amateur is below this level.

Updated my sign to clarify status...

Ross J wrote in post #13776347
#1) pro that gives amateurs the plain truth as he sees it even if it's offensive
#2) pro that gives amateurs what they want to hear and leaves out what makes them uncomfortable
#3) pro that doesn't talk to amateurs at all

All I know is... Pro #3 is a fool! Coz Pro #1 and Pro #2 are making a crap load of money talking to amateurs.

You know, I may have missed or forgotten something, but I don't thinks anyone in this thread has said or even implied that "pros" as a whole are "snobs".

The closest was the comment that started this particular line of discussion, I believe it was by Jake, saying that the pros he had had contact with were, at least to him, snobs, but that is a whole other statement.

In fact I don't think of snobbery as having anything to do with being a pro, but more of having an overinflated ego for whatever reason, or maybe a need to compensate for something, however one makes a living!

Ross J wrote in post #13776347
Which pro is the most elitist, condescending and/or snobbish?

#1) pro that gives amateurs the plain truth as he sees it even if it's offensive
#2) pro that gives amateurs what they want to hear and leaves out what makes them uncomfortable
#3) pro that doesn't talk to amateurs at all

Pro #1 is giving the most valuable information to an amateur that might want to advance to the same level, but can be abrasive in his straight-shooting truthfulness. Pro #2 inspires an amateur to feel warm and fuzzy inside, but he's leaving out the grittiest details of what it takes to get to his level. Pro #3 doesn't have any contact with an amateur at all and is totally inaccessible.

I certainly understand what you are saying and in fact don't disagree in the slightest, but the problem I see is when someone has such a narrow viewpoint of things that they think they always have to criticise and have nothing helpful or positive to say. So, if "pro #1" feels somehow compelled to always be speaking what are to him "uncomfortable truths", well, to me that's an unbalanced individual.

And, that becomes even more problematic when you consider the fact that much of what people come out with are not truths so much as opinions that are merely expressing one person's viewpoint. Too often people spout off opinions as if they were scientifically verifiable facts! Kinda like politics...

Well, I see people here all the time who ask for and welcome critique, and it's always nice to see people offering constructive critique, and with an actually helpful "tone".

Now if a purpose is not able to offer constructive critique in an overall helpful manner, then I'd just suggest what my grandma used to say: "If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all"!

I don't know about that -- I've heard too many stories about photo teachers that are really "on top of things" in the area of critiquing students' photos...

And that also especially applies to working relationships -- I'm not a pro photographer, but in fields in which I've been not only a "professional" but also have trained a coworker or an employee, I could not afford to let them mess something up without calling them on it and having them correct it (or me if I had to). Otherwise, well, I couldn't stay in business!

Well, then...!

Ross J wrote in post #13776347
Which pro is the most elitist, condescending and/or snobbish?

#1) pro that gives amateurs the plain truth as he sees it even if it's offensive
.

Is pro 1) saying "Here is what you could do better", or is pro 1) saying "You suck".

Both are the 'plain truth' as you say.....

I suppose none of us are #3 just by the fact that we're here. Then it's a matter of 3rd grade "feel good about yourself" critiques (#2) v hard crits like I got (and do myself) in college. I try to be constructive and helpful, but some times I've seen so much absolute trash that my eyes bleed. A snapshot of a foot (that looks like all those film leaders I advanced by clicking frames of the ground), posted like there is something almost great there, just makes me sad.

tman2782 wrote in post #13776649
All I know is... Pro #3 is a fool! Coz Pro #1 and Pro #2 are making a crap load of money talking to amateurs.

Thanks for mentioning that it's possible to make money from amateurs. In fact, amateurs are now so numerous that they can demand and command their own market. There is a whole generation of professionals that could never make a living from commercial clients but can make excellent money from interaction with amateurs. Maybe these folks should be referred to as "professional-amateurs" because they are making a living but not actually working full-time for advertising or traditional commercial clients. These types of photographers definitely fit in the Pro #2 category since they downplay the uncomfortable fact that amateurs are their true source of income. In fact, many professional-amateurs have never shot much more than trades with models, portraits of family and friends, a wedding or two, ads for their gear sponsor, and maybe some low budget gig with a local paper. They're posing as commercial photographers for their amateur clients and creating a virtual reality that amateurs believe is actual reality. Baudrillard would be impressed!