Everyone's a pro nowadays.

breal101 wrote in post #10028244
Until I see a weekend warrior shooting an ad campaign for Cartier or some other high end advertiser I'll stand by my statement. Maybe you can show me one.

Have you actually looked at a "high end ad" recently? We aren't talking the pinnacle of photography here LOL. Just for you I googled "Cartier" ads since you set the "high end standard" with them.

Not impressed. Looks like decent product photography with some photoshop graphic design work thrown in. Seen just as good if not better here on POTN.

Perhaps you could point me to a stunning "high end ad" that blows my mind away with the talent of the photographer and his/her years of experience that they offer, and not that of the mags graphic designer.

I know I have learned more from some of the people here on POTN than the photog who took those Cartier shots... but to be totally truthfull, I could probably learn more from the Graphic designer who designed those Cartier spreads and did the photoshop work on them than the fellow who took the stock photo for them.

20droger wrote in post #10031358
Photography is like writing; everybody thinks they can do it. But almost nobody can.

For every published author, there are a thousand wannabes who just flat out can't write. For every Stephen King there are a thousand published authors whose books are only good for recycling. And for every William Shakespeare there are a thousand Stephen Kings.

Very nice!

One other thought from my little corner of the world:

You can be "professional" in how you approach something without being a "Pro" at it...

Best Example: Mr. Bobby Jones had one of the most professional approaches to the game of Golf the world has ever seen but he was never a Pro Golfer.

And for every Shakespeare there are a few kids that come along every generation and change the world forever : the beatles, jobs and wozniak; (add your own favorite young earth shaker)

thebishopp wrote in post #10031576
Have you actually looked at a "high end ad" recently? We aren't talking the pinnacle of photography here LOL. Just for you I googled "Cartier" ads since you set the "high end standard" with them.

Not impressed. Looks like decent product photography with some photoshop graphic design work thrown in. Seen just as good if not better here on POTN.

Perhaps you could point me to a stunning "high end ad" that blows my mind away with the talent of the photographer and his/her years of experience that they offer, and not that of the mags graphic designer.

I know I have learned more from some of the people here on POTN than the photog who took those Cartier shots... but to be totally truthfull, I could probably learn more from the Graphic designer who designed those Cartier spreads and did the photoshop work on them than the fellow who took the stock photo for them.

Usually the photographer is given a look by an art director and he has to match the look. It is usually image placement, color palette of the image and color palette of the overall piece are all worked out before the frist frame is shot. I remember years ago shooting a catalog and we even had to light from the gutter out. We had to draw the exact dimensions of each shot an the ground glass.

I doubt the photographer had a lot to do with the overall look. I haven't seen the ads but usually the art director is the driving force. They will usually hire a photographer that shoots close to the look they are going for but the photographer is usually more of a problem solver than the creative force for the overall look and feel of the piece. .

20droger wrote in post #10031358
Photography is like writing; everybody thinks they can do it. But almost nobody can.

For every published author, there are a thousand wannabes who just flat out can't write. For every Stephen King there are a thousand published authors whose books are only good for recycling. And for every William Shakespeare there are a thousand Stephen Kings.

If it were easy everybody would be shooting ads for all the major agencies making huge bucks. Its hard and having a full time business that can support a decent lifestyle is even tougher. 80% that open a full time photography business will probably fail. Its that simple.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10032668
If it were easy everybody would be shooting ads for all the major agencies making huge bucks. Its hard and having a full time business that can support a decent lifestyle is even tougher. 80% that open a full time photography business will probably fail. Its that simple.

Photo studios are like restaurants. The majority are constantly under new management.

[Hyuni wrote:
='[Hyuni];10030846']

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

LOL - I'm at, "Dammit, I suck"...

Note to Jay: Please go back to "Transportation"...

gkarris wrote in post #10032740
LOL - I'm at, "Dammit, I suck"...

Note to Jay: Please go back to "Transportation"...

Hey!!! What'd I Do?

Ever see the five stage of being freelance?
1) Who's Jay?
2) Get Me Jay!
3) Get Me Someone Like Jay!
4) Get Me A Young Jay!
5) Who's Jay?

lol @ the HDR hole

i love that graph. im sure that was forged in the bowels of 4chan. lol

I've been reading this whole thread with interest and felt I had to comment about this:

breal101 wrote in post #10022787
This has me wondering if it's time to license photographers the same way so many other trades are licensed. I'm talking about a license obtained through an examination, not a business license to collect sales tax. In my state they require a license to be a handyman but not to be a photographer. While no one is likely to be physically injured as a result of bad photography it is hurting the industry as a whole. I've always been opposed to licensing photographers but I might be changing my mind. Just curious to know what others think.

breal101 wrote in post #10024135
As I noted in my earlier post, I've always been opposed to licensing photographers for the many reasons others have pointed out. I'm beginning to change my mind because of the influx of new inexperienced photographers on the market. Like Allen, it doesn't impact me so much as it does the wedding and portrait guys. I still have sympathy for them. The general public seems unaware of the difference between commercial photography and personal photography. When I mention my profession to most people they immediately assume that I do weddings and portraits. For that reason I think that the bad photographers do us all a disservice.

I mentioned handymen for a reason, after the hurricanes did so much damage to Louisiana every person with a truck and tools was offering themselves as handymen and even general contractors. The many consumer complaints prompted the state to license anyone offering construction services. They rigorously enforced this law and some people even went to jail. A large media effort was launched to educate the public to ask for credentials before giving their money over to someone offering building services. It didn't make the problem go away but it did cause some to pause before they tried to deliver unlicensed work.

While the photography problem may not have risen to that of the contractors and handymen it's beginning to be a problem to the average consumer of photography. I'm saying that a licensing requirement for photographers could have some effect and offer additional security to those who seek to hire a qualified person.

I disagree with the licensing of photographers and disagree with the comparison to handymen and construction workers.

If a plumber makes a mistake, the house might flood from a broken water line, or worse, explode from a botched gas line installation. If a carpenter makes a mistake the building could collapse and if an electrician makes a mistake, someone could be electrocuted.

If a photographer makes a mistake, the worst thing that's going to happen is that they might end up on Judge Joe Brown...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10023426
Adams had concerns over 60 years ago. Heres what he had to say about it.

" I believe in the absolute necessity of a strong and severe licensing control of professional photography, and a firm guild organization among creative artists and professionals. Medicine, the law, architecture, engineering, and other professions, are strengthened by such procedures of control, and I see no reason why photography should not be among them. Assuming that it requires five to eight years of serious training to be proficient in the major professions, why should photographers, be turned loose on the world with only suoerficial knowledge of their craft, and little or no experience in application?"
Ansel Adams June 1943

One of the few times Adams was wrong...

The digital revolution is still going on and will continue for quite a while. Give it several years and the market will shake itself out to the point where the photographers delivering the quality product will still be around and the rest will revert to hobby photographers.

Also, the economy has to have an effect on this as well. There's likely a large number of unemployed persons whe were hobby photographers when they had a full time job, but are now looking to use their photography as a way to make some money. As the economy improves, a lot of these will return to full employment in their chosen fields and revert to photography as a pastime.

If they can talk someone into paying for their work, they are a pro.

friz wrote in post #10034473
If they can talk someone into paying for their work, they are a pro.

That's a stretch....

friz wrote in post #10034473
If they can talk someone into paying for their work, they are a pro.

they'd either b very persuasive, or have really good work that convinces people to hire them.