Everyone's a pro nowadays.

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?

Not exactly true, and not a good example for this discussion. Anyone off the street can sign up to be a member of the Screen Actors Guild as long as that person has a job or proof of an upcoming job in either of a few related fields...it has nothing to do with ability/skill/standard​s. Its just a means to control who gets work as an actor and who doesn't, and who gets paid how much at a minimum. Again, nothing to do with skill or talent...just limiting employment to a certain group. You don't join, you don't work as an actor.

But like I said earlier, the client/consumer needs to do his/her part with regard to due diligence...an educated consumer is the best customer. For the record, I'm not a wedding shooter...

argyle wrote in post #10025281
Not exactly true, and not a good example for this discussion. Anyone off the street can sign up to be a member of the Screen Actors Guild as long as that person has a job or proof of an upcoming job in either of a few related fields...it has nothing to do with ability/skill/standard​s. Its just a means to control who gets work as an actor and who doesn't, and who gets paid how much at a minimum. Again, nothing to do with skill or talent...just limiting employment to a certain group. You don't join, you don't work as an actor.

So if anyone can walk in off the street and join SAG, I guess it does nothing to limit, control or otherwise regulate the acting profession. I stand corrected. I assumed it was more akin to the Director's Guild which does have significant membership requirements.

110% in Agreement Here...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10024854
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.

I agree, I don't really know the answer either. Maybe it lies in education for the photographer and the public. The two organizations I'm most familiar with ASMP and PPA have done a fair job in educating their members but haven't done as well in educating the public. Advertising and media cost a lot of money and that may be the reason.

In general the GWC hasn't affected me personally near as much as a crappy economy. A few of the gravy jobs that were done by pros in the past are now done by GWCs but heck it was gravy and it still helped pay the bills.

First of all I admit that I didnt read all the comments of this thread (apologies for my laziness). I feel, the present day camera technology and usability are made easy that any one can have their hands on. It is like computer field.

Most of us having computer now. Fortunately we doesnt need to know C++, Java or HTML to buy a computer Because of having a laptop, one cant become Bill Gates or Eric Schimt. One can become like them, if he/she work hard and innovative like them.

In good old days, kings, queens and aristocrats had had their picture painted by painters. No need to say, it needs higher skill to paint portraits. Then came cameras. It also needed similar skills and dedication. In current digital age, camera technology became very easy to use. With a click of a button any one can get his/her portrait. No one need to be a king to get his portrait now.

Moreover, nowadays, one can easily convert his picture into Van Gogh style painting with photo editing software. That doesnt mean he became Van Gogh. It definitely makes him happy that he can make a picture like Van Gogh. He is not at all competing with Van Gogh.

Professional photographers dont need to worry about increasing general public access to dSLR. If they have right skill, they will shine in their business. The reason why general public prefer dSLR over PS are picture with background blur and better image quality. They are not buying dSLR to become Ansel Adam or Henri Cartier Bresson. They just wants to capture their memorable moments in better way. Thats all. They are not at all competitors to the professional photographers. They might put the professional photographers in the situation to take better photos than ever before.

(These are just my humble opinion about the dSLR photography.)

shomat wrote in post #10025307
How would you conduct the evaluation? The basic mechanics of photography are dead simple. Exposure can be learned from a $25 book over a weekend. Or on the Internet for free. Beyond technical flaws, our output as photographers is entirely subjective.

Also, I think some of the best artists in any medium are often ones who are not formally educated.

Professional organizations are a great idea for organizing and advancing a craft, but I just don't see the need for a governing body outside of any profession in which bodily harm or personal financial hardship can result from poor performance. I'd take offense to any group that asserted the power to decide who can and cannot be a professional artist. As someone else already said, let the market sort us out.

Photography, learning lighting and learning to see light are simple and infinitely difficult at the same time. They take years to master and in fact are a continuing learning process. The more you learn the more ignorant you realize you once were. And though there are greats that weren't formally educated they all have something in common with the greats that were formally educated they were all educated whether it was self taught but most worked for and with established masters and got educated from them.

I think thats what Adams was getting at and I think is very lacking today is no one wants to take the time to learn and especially to learn from an established photographer and if there were some kind of apprentice program the field would certainly become more respected. Other fields have done it and its worked well to keep their skill, wages and respectability high. I think this was the core of what Adams was getting at and I'm not so sure he is all the wrong.

I like the IT reference, it's just the amount of technology accessible to the general public that you get more and more people moving toward professional career.

But like in other fields, just because you have the gear or the want, doesn't mean you have the skill. I know as far as the IT world, the quality you get from a consultant is worlds different. Even consultants I have worked with with BS degrees and slew of certifications have mixed results, some ranging to the poor where I was doing their job, to some who were simply amazing.

I guess what I'm saying is there is always going to be a rush of people to new technology buy years later only the good photographers will still be there. Like the rush of people getting their Relator(r) license, a bet the majority of them are now back to another career.

I didn't read through everything but I do feel that everyone has been picking up Rebels and ends up calling themselves pretty good photographers. I see this as a good thing in the sense that I'll just have to up my game to make sure I stay on top.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10025314
So if anyone can walk in off the street and join SAG, I guess it does nothing to limit, control or otherwise regulate the acting profession. I stand corrected. I assumed it was more akin to the Director's Guild which does have significant membership requirements.



110% in Agreement Here...

Jay:

I just googled the SAG membership requirements...here's the link if you're so inclined:

SAG Membership Requirements

To paraphrase Groucho Marx: "I don't want to be a member in any group that will have me as a member".

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10021725
Humility and Confidence are not mutually exclusive.

I'm quite modest when it comes to what people say to me about my photography but I'm supremely confident about my abilities and not afraid to show the results.

Now, if you want to discuss Confidence Vs Arogance, that's a different animal altogether!

An old mentor of mine once told me that one of the differences between someone who is Confident and someone who is Arrogant is that the Confident one has and can actually deliver.

Basically his confidence comes from the fact that he can and has delivered on a product/service/perfom​ance/etc. and knows he can do so consistently. Doesn't need to convince others of it and when he states his ability to do something it is not out of a need to convince someone/himself but a statement of fact.

Whereas the one who is arrogant merely makes claims based on a feeling of insecurity and possibly self-delusion. Someone who finds a need to convince himself of his own worth/capabilities by loudly trying to convince others.

^^^ Amen! ^^^

Then there's the question of knowing one's own limits.

For Example: Am I capable of shooting a Wedding? Without Question. Do I want to shoot a wedding? Not on a bet...

thebishopp wrote in post #10025970
An old mentor of mine once told me that one of the differences between someone who is Confident and someone who is Arrogant is that the Confident one has and can actually deliver.

Basically his confidence comes from the fact that he can and has delivered on a product/service/perfom​ance/etc. and knows he can do so consistently. Doesn't need to convince others of it and when he states his ability to do something it is not out of a need to convince someone/himself but a statement of fact.

Whereas the one who is arrogant merely makes claims based on a feeling of insecurity and possibly self-delusion. Someone who finds a need to convince himself of his own worth/capabilities by loudly trying to convince others.

The word that you've hit nail on the head is consistency. I think to be successful in photography you need to deliver high quality images to your client on demand and do it consistently. Theres no easy road to being able to do deliver those high quality images consistently but putting in the time and work.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10025977
^^^ Amen! ^^^

Then there's the question of knowing one's own limits.

For Example: Am I capable of shooting a Wedding? Without Question. Do I want to shoot a wedding? Not on a bet...

I don't shoot food. You want food, breal can do it. I have a good friend thats retired from Kraft, he can do it.

Weddings? no way....Been there, done that.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10026051
I don't shoot food. You want food, breal can do it. I have a good friend thats retired from Kraft, he can do it.

Weddings? no way....Been there, done that.

Hey, thanks for the plug. Weddings, never again, my camera doesn't even like weddings. It was two for two this past summer, two weddings and it broke both times. I'll leave weddings to the wedding pros from now on.

breal101 wrote in post #10026238
Hey, thanks for the plug. Weddings, never again, my camera doesn't even like weddings. It was two for two this past summer, two weddings and it broke both times. I'll leave weddings to the wedding pros from now on.

Like Jay said its important to know one limitations and you can't be good at everything. The biggest mistake a lot of photographers make in the beginning is trying to be everything to everybody. I knew when you started giving that guy advise on how to light a food shot I knew that you could do it right. Its exactly the way my bud at Kraft would start with his lighting.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10021088
Having a big pair will take you farther than having a strong portfolio. It's sad, but it's true. If you talk the talk and can convince others that you walk the walk, you will succeed.

Humility has no place in the conversation.

this is very sad and very true indeed.