How do you guys handle the "Your camera takes good pics" comments on your photos?

My kids can paint better than they make photographs.

JoePhotoOnline wrote in post #8997460
I certainly did not expect that kind of ignorance from a University Professor.

You haven't gone to school very long have you?

University professors are a bit like bankers... if they were even half as good as they would have you think they were, they'd be sat on a beach in the Bahamas having their butler bring them a nice cool drink

Bill Roberts wrote in post #8998740
University professors are a bit like bankers... if they were even half as good as they would have you think they were, they'd be sat on a beach in the Bahamas having their butler bring them a nice cool drink

They would be there, too, but they are so noble as to forgo riches to pass their wisdom onto the next generation.

I just usually answer something like

"It sure does, doesn't it? Why, just the other day I sent it off to the zoo and it came back with some really nice pictures. It's really nice because I don't have to do anything. I can even stay home if I want..."

JoePhotoOnline wrote in post #8997519
I don't care what one person thinks, but this kind of attitude is not just him. It's a growing perspective on photography from most people these days because of digital cameras.

Maybe this all just boils down to my/our/photographer's frustration with how photography has completely changed in just 10 years.

There's a digicam in everyone's pocket and lots of idiots out there giving their mediocre work away for free to businesses/companies/o​rganizations that use to pay for good work from real photographers. The expectations for good photos keep dropping and dropping. Very few people actually recognize a good photo anymore, and it's incredibly hard to actually ask money for a photo. ( After all, we "Only had to push a button" right?)

This is why I'm double-majoring in photography and New Media (Which is Web Design, Graphic Design, Typography, Advertising, etc) because the work for photogs out there is getting smaller and smaller.

You see this is what I see it a key to the problem if people making the photos do not see the value in them then how can we expect the general public to see the value.

As an example how many photographers own work by other photographers. I doubt it is a majority and it is probably a small minority. Why is that? Do they not appreciate other peoples work? Do they see no value in it? Do they think they could make the same thing so why pay for someone elses. Maybe they are just too poor.

I do know photographers that do own other peoples work but I don't think it is as wide spread as it should be.


It is actually easy to ask money for photography. If people do not want to pay a reasonable amount then they likely do not want to pay anything but the photographer has to value the work first.

To be a bit more serious (perish the thought) I genuinely think there's been a general downgrading of the general publics perception of a quality image. They've become so used to seeing absolutely crap quality stills or video from camera phones and so on (even on TV), that they think this is the norm. Automation has become the standard, and even the thought of being able to modify the camera settings has become alien. Given this, they apply no real value to photography at all... after all anyone can press a button, so obviously it's the camera that takes nice pictures!

tkbslc wrote in post #8998479
By that logic, painting is for people to lazy to go out and photograph the real thing at the right time. They have to make stuff up instead.

Also, crappy painting is only slightly harder than crappy photography. Good photography and good painting takes about the same amount of talent and practice to master.

I read somewhere that virtually all disciplines take 10 years of intensive study to reach a level of "mastery". It's immaterial to whether or not said trade could be considered an "art". It would include obviously non-artistic disciplines like Chess, heart surgery, and sailing.

Painting is a more "pure" artform, in that the artist communicates more directly through the medium. Even fine art photography requires a subject, and though visualizing and staging the subject material, lighting, angles, perspective, etc. uses many of the same skills, without a real subject, there is no photograph.

Nate P. wrote in post #8994056
sometimes when I need a little laugh after a long day of shooting I say "thanks, but yours is probably better. Mine only has 3x zoom!" and they go "REALLY?!?!? No way"

Heh, I actually made that mistake once. Somebody came up to me while I was taking pictures at my sons soccer game with the 300mm and he said "Wow, nice lens. What kind of zoom is that, like a 20x?". And I foolishly replied "It actually doesn't zoom. It's a fixed focal length lens.". He replied "Huh? So what, is it like 24x?".... I think I just went "Sounds about right" at that point.

JoePhotoOnline wrote in post #8997519
The expectations for good photos keep dropping and dropping.

I often feel that way even here at POTN.

JoePhotoOnline wrote in post #8997460
I also got this from a Senior-Level Painting teacher:

"Photography is nothing more than right place + right time. It's a documentary-type trade, not an 'art'."


I certainly did not expect that kind of ignorance from a University Professor.

Gurrrrrr! That type of stupidity just pi$$es me off; but does not surprise me from my dealings with college professors. I will be the first to admit I can't draw, paint or compose music worth a d^mn; however I sure can recognize and admire talent even if I am not Mozart, Rembrandt or Ansel Adams. I would have challenged the idiot to get a camera and generate a masterpiece and I will pay for all expenses. Bottom line, some people are just plain stupid, even if they are "educated"!

Edited to add: It is not the arrow, but the Indian!

To some extent this statement holds water.. Photojournalism is all about being in the right place at the right time,, the photo-op..

But fine art photography is totally different where the subject is carefully placed and the lighting used to it's best advantage..

yogestee wrote in post #9040528
Photojournalism is all about being in the right place at the right time,, the photo-op..

But to be good at it, you have to put yourself in that right place, at the right time.

When I get that comment I always smile and say "Thank You!" My mama taught me that it costs nothing to be polite and I don't want my clock cleaned by her if she finds out I wasn't!

Just pretend that you're an ambassador for POTN...

DDCSD wrote in post #9040911
But to be good at it, you have to put yourself in that right place, at the right time.

I agree Derek.