another GWAC undercutting those in the business

Well, I guess you will have to hope that the quality produced by these new photographers is poor compared to what you were producing. When it comes to art, beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.

duckster wrote in post #18944812
Well, I guess you will have to hope that the quality produced by these new photographers is poor compared to what you were producing. When it comes to art, beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.

i like that little added caveat!

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. I think a professional should be good enough to differentiate his work from an amateur's. If he can't then the person paying the bills would be a fool to pay more. If the professional's work is superior and the person paying the bills still chooses the amateur, then the quality of work wasn't a priority for him. Here again, if the amateur's work meets his requirements, then he'd be a fool to pay more, even if the other person's work is superior.

If the quality of work was most important to him and he wanted the very best, perhaps he'd be looking for a professional that is better than you (not saying there is one, just supposing). The person paying the bills has a certain quality that he's looking for and a certain price he's willing to pay for that quality. If you fall into that slot, then you may be the best person for that job.

Whether you fall into that slot or not, has little to do with skill level. It has to do with what the employer is looking for and what he has budgeted for the product that meets his expectations. This is not true just for photographers, but for any profession.

If I feel like I'm getting the flu, Mom's chicken noodle soup may meet my requirements. If not, I may go see the family doctor to see if he can meet my requirements. However, if I find out I need brain surgery, I'm going to bypass Mom and the family doctor and try to find a brain surgeon. I now have more demanding requirements than I did when I had flu symptoms and neither Mom's chicken noodle soup nor the GP is likely to meet those requirements. The price is an issue, but not the main issue. My requirements and expectations for each scenario are the determining factors.

Sorry for the rambling, but not all people have the same expectations or big budgets. Each person is trying to meet their expectations with workers/products that will fit into their budgets. I know of a number of wedding photographers that are shooting professionally and haven't the skills of any enthusiast photographer. Many don't own a flash nor do they have any idea how to use one, yet they get hired because they fit into someone's budget. Are their images acceptable for a professional? No, but that's all the happy couple could afford and they rarely complain about the quality of the images. The photographer met their client's expectations considering their limited budget. They're not good images, but they're good enough.

bob_r wrote in post #18945682
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here. I think a professional should be good enough to differentiate his work from an amateur's. If he can't then the person paying the bills would be a fool to pay more. If the professional's work is superior and the person paying the bills still chooses the amateur, then the quality of work wasn't a priority for him. Here again, if the amateur's work meets his requirements, then he'd be a fool to pay more, even if the other person's work is superior.

If the quality of work was most important to him and he wanted the very best, perhaps he'd be looking for a professional that is better than you (not saying there is one, just supposing). The person paying the bills has a certain quality that he's looking for and a certain price he's willing to pay for that quality. If you fall into that slot, then you may be the best person for that job.

Whether you fall into that slot or not, has little to do with skill level. It has to do with what the employer is looking for and what he has budgeted for the product that meets his expectations. This is not true just for photographers, but for any profession.

If I feel like I'm getting the flu, Mom's chicken noodle soup may meet my requirements. If not, I may go see the family doctor to see if he can meet my requirements. However, if I find out I need brain surgery, I'm going to bypass Mom and the family doctor and try to find a brain surgeon. I now have more demanding requirements than I did when I had flu symptoms and neither Mom's chicken noodle soup nor the GP is likely to meet those requirements. The price is an issue, but not the main issue. My requirements and expectations for each scenario are the determining factors.

Sorry for the rambling, but not all people have the same expectations or big budgets. Each person is trying to meet their expectations with workers/products that will fit into their budgets. I know of a number of wedding photographers that are shooting professionally and haven't the skills of any enthusiast photographer. Many don't own a flash nor do they have any idea how to use one, yet they get hired because they fit into someone's budget. Are their images acceptable for a professional? No, but that's all the happy couple could afford and they rarely complain about the quality of the images. The photographer met their client's expectations considering their limited budget. They're not good images, but they're good enough.

and i dont dispute any of this. the photographic quality required is not on the same level as that of the NHL. my biggest beef i guess is the willingness of some people to give away the cow, when others are trying to sell the milk. i see it on this forum, a LOT. "my kid/my neighbor's kid/my kids school, does X (band, sports, theater) and i like to take pictures so i shoot the event and give the parents my images" with no regard to the photographers in the town/city who are trying to make a living doing so. if im trying to be competitive and get a job that might go to someone else, i would find a way to do it cheaper, but i wouldnt cut his legs off and offer to do it all for free. maybe its just me but thats my philosophy...

this particular league has an over abundance of "good enough" attitude i believe.

Ltdave wrote in post #18945750
i see it on this forum, a LOT. "my kid/my neighbor's kid/my kids school, does X (band, sports, theater) and i like to take pictures so i shoot the event and give the parents my images" with no regard to the photographers in the town/city who are trying to make a living doing so.

Do you think these people are not being paid? They're not receiving "pieces of silver" but they are definitely being rewarded. They are receiving acknowledgement and respect from their children and the friends of their children and the parents of those friends (and in your case, even from the league). They're seeing their images being posted and "liked" on social media and they are becoming a "Hero" to their children. This isn't something they could buy. They are no longer little Timmy's dad with a receding hairline and a protruding waistline, they're now little Timmy's dad, "The Photographer". People are acknowledging and appreciating their work and this may be a first for them. It's new, it's intoxicating and it's addictive. They want more and don't even consider that their "generosity" may be hurting someone. That's not their intention, but is often the result. Everyone likes acknowledgement and compliments, especially from their own children.

I'm sure that you too enjoy it when people compliment your work and losing this may be just as difficult as losing the income. It's hard for anyone to admit that they can be replaced, but it's especially difficult when their replacement is inferior. It's not that you were replaced for not doing a good job, it's simply that you outgrew the slot that your employer had for a photographer. If you wish to continue in this field, you'll have to find a new slot, a slot that you can fill perfectly. Sometimes there is no slot locally and you may have to move to find that slot, but there's probably one out there for you. I wish you luck finding it.

Ltdave wrote in post #18945750
i see it on this forum, a LOT. "my kid/my neighbor's kid/my kids school, does X (band, sports, theater) and i like to take pictures so i shoot the event and give the parents my images" with no regard to the photographers in the town/city who are trying to make a living doing so.

That's the problem with having a job that other people can do as a hobby with acceptable results. Some professionals make a lot of money cleaning up after the amateurs (e.g. plumbers, IT people), but that doesn't help you either. The only solution seems to be to do it at a very high level, so you get hired by people who can't use "acceptable" output.

The other consideration is that those shots of sports that are given to the coaches/parents etc are harming no one because there is NO ONE else out there taking photos of a cross country meet at 34 degrees with a 30 mph wind. Not professionals, not parents and not even the local paper

duckster wrote in post #18945948
The other consideration is that those shots of sports that are given to the coaches/parents etc are harming no one because there is NO ONE else out there taking photos of a cross country meet at 34 degrees with a 30 mph wind. Not professionals, not parents and not even the local paper

yeah, there are. maybe not all of the events, but our newspaper does cover cross country, softball/baseball, tennis, soccer, football (in those exact conditions last weekend), and a friend of mine (not a pj) covers a lot of those other events. i have too as a stringer/contractor...

Our local paper does not have a photographer on staff. One of the reporters (who doesn't do sports) will take a photo to use with her stories but bascially just snapshots.

duckster wrote in post #18946001
Our local paper does not have a photographer on staff. One of the reporters (who doesn't do sports) will take a photo to use with her stories but bascially just snapshots.

ours (owned by Gannett publisher of USA Today) has one photographer on staff, and their reporters have some experience with "other than point/shoot" cameras...

last weekend for the biggest football game in town between the two HS there was a stringer/contract photographer because the photographer was at a neighboring town's big game between two top ranked schools (lower division). ive done stringer work for them in the past as well...

Ltdave wrote in post #18946287
ours (owned by Gannett publisher of USA Today) has one photographer on staff, and their reporters have some experience with "other than point/shoot" cameras...

last weekend for the biggest football game in town between the two HS there was a stringer/contract photographer because the photographer was at a neighboring town's big game between two top ranked schools (lower division). ive done stringer work for them in the past as well...

It will likely soon be time to host a goodbye lunch for your local shooter. Gannett (sans Tegna) was purchased by GateHouse Media. Gatehouse is even bigger on cost cutting than Gannett.

The first quote sounds like you are bitter that affordable digital photography is available to anyone and it should be reserved only for the Pros.


Sorry but these two quotes just make you sound bitter and of the attitude of "how dare someone undercut me on price" (even if that price is zero). If 'average" photo quality is good enough for me, why would I pay a pro for superior images?

Look at it this way: I need a new car JUST to take my kids to school. A friend has a new Ford he will give me (for free) to take the kids. Another friend has a great deal on a Ferrari (a vastly superior car). But if its just to take the kids to school, why would I pay for a car when I can get one for free? You make it sound like people shouldn't be allowed to give things away.

I change my own oil on my truck...I help my friends do it too. I don’t care if Jiffy Lube goes out of business.

Know your market, demographic, products, marketing strategies, etc. and adapt or go out business.

Sincerely,

GWAOF
(Guy With An Oil Funnel)

AZGeorge wrote in post #18946709
It will likely soon be time to host a goodbye lunch for your local shooter. Gannett (sans Tegna) was purchased by GateHouse Media. Gatehouse is even bigger on cost cutting than Gannett.

i know that the newspaper building, closed as a newspaper about a decade ago and all the content is emailed from the east side of michigan to Nashville for layout/design, then its all sent back to the middle of the state for printing and distribution...

BARELY in time for the next day's delivery...