Everyone's a pro nowadays.

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 #10022787
This has me wondering if it's time to license photographers the same way so many other trades are licensed.

It would probably hurt as much as help. My real job (yes, I make some money in photography) is in commercial construction. I deal with people on an almost daily basis that while they have all the right credentials, aren't worth the hammer on thier tool belt. In fact, the best, most skilled, hardest working people I deal with are the ones that have no credentials at all.

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.

No need for a license...the marketplace will take care of that. If you're hired to shoot a wedding or any other type of paid shoot, and deliver a crappy product to the customer, word will eventually get out. Too much regulation when the paying customer is the best arbiter...

I think at the same time though that there are kids that can take good pictures. I'm only 18 and have been shooting for a few years. I don't sell a lot of stuff, but I've sold some of my sports pictures and my school newspaper did an article on me. I'm not in it for that though, I like shooting because it's fun. There's a stereotype that says all teenagers like photography because it's cool and what not, but I saved to buy myself some good gear that makes taking pictures more fun and the end results tend to come out better.

I was talking with one of my friends the other day that asked why I needed such a nice camera. I said it had to do with priorities. He had just gotten himself a new car, compared to my '98 civic. I like taking pictures more than I like driving, so I buy myself a nice camera and make do with the car I have. Nothing wrong with that IMO. It's the same way with mountain biking, one of my other hobbies; a nice bike won't make you faster but it will make riding more fun. And my car is still just a way to get to the trailhead.

Not really interested who is using a DSLR and how it's being used. Frankly, people are free to do as they please. Photography isn't an exclusive activity. If you think it is, then it says more about you.

As to those folks who shell out the dough for pro gear, if they can afford it, good for them. Absolutely no justification needed at all...

Don't get what all the fuss is about.

I would just like to comment on my sister and her husband. They are photography "nuts", and between them have THREE 5DMK2's. My comment is they go against the grain. I've seen their work, and it is spectacular, but they are humble, and don't even think of trying to sell, or otherwise take advantage of their skill and artistry.

I commend them, as true artists who enjoy their work, for its own sake . . .

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.

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

i think what bothers me about people who are too cocky about their photography is that it can make it difficult for them to get better, especially when there's much to learn.

if you're under the impression that you're henri cartier-bresson or the kobe bryant of photography, there might not be motivation for improvement.

When i started this thread, i just imagined that people could just take photographs, share and be happy. But there will always be arrogance and competition. We're just human. haha

But you're right, i probably shouldn't care about other people if their pictures are junk and act snooty about it. (but its difficult when its always being flaunted in front you hahaha)

Adams was overreaching, in my opinion. As a registered Professional Engineer, I had to take rigorous certification examinations to demonstrate my proficiency for the simple reason that errors on my part can injure or kill people...same for doctors and architects. Putting photographers in that same classification is just ridiculous.

If I take crappy photos, they won't sell, period...no way to cause any bodily harm to anyone. If I sign up to be a photography instructor, and show students and administrators that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, I'd get fired, and deservedly so. The marketplace will always prevail. I admire Adams for what he accomplished, but why he sometimes gets elevated to 'god' status mystifies me.

argyle wrote in post #10023637
I admire Adams for what he accomplished, but why he sometimes gets elevated to 'god' status mystifies me.

None of us were there when he shot school photographs year after year. Ansel wasn't satisfied with the profession and led the modern landscape revolution. He was a working photographer but that gets lost in translation.

argyle wrote in post #10023637
Adams was overreaching, in my opinion. As a registered Professional Engineer, I had to take rigorous certification examinations to demonstrate my proficiency for the simple reason that errors on my part can injure or kill people...same for doctors and architects. Putting photographers in that same classification is just ridiculous.

If I take crappy photos, they won't sell, period...no way to cause any bodily harm to anyone. If I sign up to be a photography instructor, and show students and administrators that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, I'd get fired, and deservedly so. The marketplace will always prevail. I admire Adams for what he accomplished, but why he sometimes gets elevated to 'god' status mystifies me.

There are plenty of other trades and profession like plumbers. pipe fitters, etc that have standards and I think some miss the point in that it was said to protect qualified working photographers as a way to separate them from GWCs. As we are seeing today in the areas that don't require special training or skill sets. I don't know how I feel about it because most of what I shoot is kinda like that already. But I do think it could certainly help the medium cost portrait, wedding, school sports areas where you would just be able to buy a camera and put out a sign and have any credibility. I don't think those areas wouldn't be hurting the way they are now if there were some kind of standards.

jetcode wrote in post #10023683
None of us were there when he shot school photographs year after year. Ansel wasn't satisfied with the profession and led the modern landscape revolution. He was a working photographer but that gets lost in translation.

I said that I admired him for his accomplishments...just that he's wrong on the need to 'certify' photographers. The marketplace will always weed out the charlatans...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10023781
There are plenty of other trades and profession like plumbers. pipe fitters, etc that have standards and I think some miss the point in that it was said to protect qualified working photographers as a way to separate them from GWCs. As we are seeing today in the areas that don't require special training or skill sets. I don't know how I feel about it because most of what I shoot is kinda like that already. But I do think it could certainly help the medium cost portrait, wedding, school sports areas where you would just be able to buy a camera and put out a sign and have any credibility. I don't think those areas wouldn't be hurting the way they are now if there were some kind of standards.

The problem is you can't set a standard on 'art' or its expression...it's something different to different people. Who would have thought that some guy flinging paint against a canvas would sell paintings for several million dollars? Do you think any of the 'masters' would have considered this as art? Some people (the marketplace) did though. If not, they'd have been tossed into the trash bin. Now a plumber or other tradesman, that's different...but again, when your work deals directly with the safety and well-being of the public, standards and certifications need to be in place. Photography does not, and never will, fall into that category. If a GWC wants to hang out his shingle and open a business, more power to him...but if he can't produce results that are acceptable to a client, his door will close just as fast as it opened.

jetcode wrote in post #10023683
None of us were there when he shot school photographs year after year. Ansel wasn't satisfied with the profession and led the modern landscape revolution. He was a working photographer but that gets lost in translation.

And I wanted to ad that Adams was the first to clearly articulate the zone system and therefore was able to teach what was once known by some but never fully articulated or taught. His photographs were as much about light as subject matter with a bit of philosophy thrown in.

Theres a reason why a couple decades after his death he is still relevant. How many hundreds of thousands of photographs of Yosemite have been made but few are on the level of his work? How many people have gone to New Mexico and stood in exactly the same spot and tried to recreate Moonrise Over Hernandez?

God NO, great photographer, YES, and the reason why he gets quoted so much is he wrote and spoke a lot about the medium where a good deal of photographers avoid as much as they can. How many photographer will still be relevant while they are still alive let alone 20+ years after they're gone.

DSLR's for everyone now means anyone is capable of taking professional quality photographs for less than 500 bucks out the door at best buy.

doesn't mean they will, but they CAN.

and since the equipment is readily available, anyone can do it. you don't need thousands of dollars of gear, expensive licenses... just patience and skill.

i'm getting married soon, and will probably hire a photographer since i can't be taking the photos i'm going to be in (albeit with a small wedding i can probably tripod it:P). i know enough about digital photography at this point that after a quick chat with some potentials i can see who is full of crap.

regardless of this fact, this just means that the pros need to JUSTIFY the high price of their services if someone with a 1000D they got for christmas can get similar results.

argyle wrote in post #10023882
I said that I admired him for his accomplishments...just that he's wrong on the need to 'certify' photographers. The marketplace will always weed out the charlatans...

The problem is you can't set a standard on 'art' or its expression...it's something different to different people. Who would have thought that some guy flinging paint against a canvas would sell paintings for several million dollars? Do you think any of the 'masters' would have considered this as art? Some people (the marketplace) did though. If not, they'd have been tossed into the trash bin. Now a plumber or other tradesman, that's different...but again, when your work deals directly with the safety and well-being of the public, standards and certifications need to be in place. Photography does not, and never will, fall into that category. If a GWC wants to hang out his shingle and open a business, more power to him...but if he can't produce results that are acceptable to a client, his door will close just as fast as it opened.

Not once did he say anything about aesthetics. He is strictly referring to the technique which can be judged. How do we know thats what he was referring to ? He went on to say this later in the article.

"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and build confidence in the creative spirit."
Ansel Adams

But the nuts and bolts can be taught and regulated.