Everyone's a pro nowadays.

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 don't really know how I feel about it either but I think not only would it protect the client but I feel the real protection would help the medium price level portrait, wedding business because it could weed out the fly by night, low ball, riff-raff as competition to those businesses.

This would have little to no impact on what I do. My clients would never dip in that well anyway. Can you imaging anyone getting a photographer to shoot a tedious open heart case from Craig's list The cost of having the right insurance drives most out of the pool.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10024186
I don't really know how I feel about it either but I think not only would it protect the client but I feel the real protection would help the medium price level portrait, wedding business because it could weed out the fly by night, low ball, riff-raff as competition to those businesses.

This would have little to no impact on what I do. My clients would never dip in that well anyway. Can you imaging anyone getting a photographer to shoot a tedious open heart case from Craig's list The cost of having the right insurance drives most out of the pool.

Control and regulation, rather than letting the marketplace determine pricing. I see where this is going... Sorry, but I fervently disagree with this philosophy. If Joe Schmoe can shoot a fictitious wedding, for instance, for $750 and deliver an acceptable product to his client, both parties win...Joe gets his price and makes some money, and a happy client got a product they're happy with and saved some money in the process. Schmoe will also benefit further by receiving word-of-mouth recommendations for future work. If Joe Pro wants to charge $2000 for the same service, he'd better well be able to justify it by selling the client on how he differentiates his service from that of others. Maybe Joe Pro has an established reputation in the community...fine, convince the client of its value and sell them on it. I happen to believe that competition is good for the consumer. If prices are regulated, everybody loses. There's also responsibility on the part of the client as well...if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. A dose of "caveat emptor" goes without saying...

argyle wrote in post #10024675
Control and regulation, rather than letting the marketplace determine pricing. I see where this is going... Sorry, but I fervently disagree with this philosophy. If Joe Schmoe can shoot a fictitious wedding, for instance, for $750 and deliver an acceptable product to his client, both parties win...Joe gets his price and makes some money, and a happy client got a product they're happy with and saved some money in the process. Schmoe will also benefit further by receiving word-of-mouth recommendations for future work. If Joe Pro wants to charge $2000 for the same service, he'd better well be able to justify it by selling the client on how he differentiates his service from that of others. Maybe Joe Pro has an established reputation in the community...fine, convince the client of its value and sell them on it. I happen to believe that competition is good for the consumer. If prices are regulated, everybody loses. There's also responsibility on the part of the client as well...if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. A dose of "caveat emptor" goes without saying...

I agree that the market should set itself in this case but if you 'are a wedding photographer. And again, nobody was talking about price control just competency. And this doesn't effect me in any way. What I shoot, price is not the major consideration. I think that to be successful moving forward that is going to be the client you need to be getting. Price is important but not the main motivating factor to obtain your services.

I believe theres going to be a blood letting in those lower end markets in the next few years. Many that are shooting low end weddings now won't be in 3 years. So you're right the market will set itself at some point but can you withstand it until it does? I feel if your not in a very high end portrait wedding market the time are lean and as Mr Dylan once said "the times, they are a change'n."

Argyle... I agree with pretty much everything you have said here. I think some of you folks need to take a break from the computer, go outside, take a nice walk, and think about it for a sec. Regulating photography is ridiculous. Lets start running background checks before people buy paintbrushes why don't we? If your business cannot survive, time to change what you are doing (whether the profession or just business model modifications)

I think it is time we calmed down the political discussion here. Not sure why Alan Greenspan had to be brought to the table.

themadman wrote in post #10024772
Argyle... I agree with pretty much everything you have said here. I think some of you folks need to take a break from the computer, go outside, take a nice walk, and think about it for a sec. Regulating photography is ridiculous. Lets start running background checks before people buy paintbrushes why don't we?

I think you missed the point...

No one is saying the tools should be regulated, nor the ability to use them but many trades are regulated, licensed or have guilds for which you must prove your mettle or worth before being allowed to join.

Actors have a Guild and Musicians have Unions.

Both are "artistic, free expression" activities just like photography but both have organizations that set a very high standard for membership and have a major impact over when and where you can ply your craft (at least in any meaningful, long-term way.) But, just like photography, there are amateurs and part-time actors and musicians as well.

But, would you pay the same dollar amount to see someone's garage band play a major arena (with garage band gear) or to see the Smithfield Players perform Rigoletto at the Met (without proper sound reinforcement) as you would to see a major act or the house company perform at either? Moreover, is it fair for them to expect you to?

I think Adams saw it as a problem in the 1940s I think there is a bigger problem today but how to handle I have no idea. I handled by putting myself into a position where people hire me for a specific skill that most GWCs don't have. Bringing the disciples of Ayn Rand into the discussion isn't helping your argument. All ya gotta do is go back about a year and a half and see where years of those theories got us.

Thats not meant to be political just economics.

Post deleted just for you madman, I didn't see moderator under your name, oh wait, that's because you aren't one.

great point. Everyon gets a trophy and a pizza party. Yes it all does even out.

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...

Like usual I missed the post you were referring to ...

Im proud of my work despite what people think. Although theres always room for improvement. Compared to just point and shoot, DSLR is more capable of producing better quality images. I have seen great improvements in my shots from the first time I started to date and that's all that matters.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10024769
I agree that the market should set itself in this case but if you 'are a wedding photographer. And again, nobody was talking about price control just competency............​.. "the times, they are a change'n."

Licensing is usually used as a backdoor means of price control. Most of the time in industries like this the very low end consists of "micro-businesses", hobbyist that do it more as a labor of love than a primary means of making a living. By compelling the government to regulate an industry through licensing your are creating a barrier to entry that reduces the amount of competitors at a given price point. Normally when this happens those "professionals" currently practicing are grandfathered in, and the license serves to keep out others who would be willing to start at the bottom and work for less.
Let us also not forget that when you ask the government to license an activity you are asking them to regulate that activity. Government bureaucrats tend to be very black and white, I don't think I would want them handling photography regulation.
edit: would I want to have to get a license as a "pro" because I have pro level gear? Would I want to be compelled to obtain a lisence so I could shoot a friends wedding or bar mitzvah?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10024847
I think you missed the point...

No one is saying the tools should be regulated, nor the ability to use them but many trades are regulated, licensed or have guilds for which you must prove your mettle or worth before being allowed to join.

Actors have a Guild and Musicians have Unions.

Both are "artistic, free expression" activities just like photography but both have organizations that set a very high standard for membership and have a major impact over when and where you can ply your craft (at least in any meaningful, long-term way.) But, just like photography, there are amateurs and part-time actors and musicians as well.

But, would you pay the same dollar amount to see someone's garage band play a major arena (with garage band gear) or to see the Smithfield Players perform Rigoletto at the Met (without proper sound reinforcement) as you would to see a major act or the house company perform at either? Moreover, is it fair for them to expect you to?

I would go to say than I don't believe those guilds should exist, but since they aren't government run, I don't really care.

I am a extremely llaissez-faire in my view of things. I feel red tape, guilds, and other organizations exists to both make money and hinder free ideas. I can see how an guild can easily suck money form members why join simply because you must join to be competitive, and I don't think we need that.

So to your analogy, if that garage band can convince me their performance is worth my money, whatever that dollar amount is, then their have my money, simple.

My pictures are better than all of yours COMBINED!

Haha, I know I'm not that good. I've never claimed to be good. I like taking pictures. If other people like them, great. If not, whatever. I don't go out of my way to make myself known. I also enjoy long walks on the beach and a stiff drink.