Everyone's a pro nowadays.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10028842
And I wouldn't disagree insofar as getting a foot in the door and getting started goes. Or if you're happy being a "One and Done" type of shooter where you never have to go back to the same agency / client more than once.

After many years mucking about near the top of the sports broadcasting world, my own experiences have shown me that, eventually, you will be called on to walk the walk.

And you'd better be able to deliver the goods.

The media "ladder" is very much shaped like a pyramid. Really wide base with room for lots of people but as you move up, there is less and less "wiggle" room. And if by some miracle you happen to actually reach the pinnacle, the view is great but there's nowhere to go but down!

Agreed as I think that is the case in most professions/jobs. There are extremely skilled people who work at their skill all the time to maintain themselves at the top and there are those who will never make it to the top.

Does that stop them being "pro"? No, but they had better be aware enough to know what they can and cannot deliver otherwise there will be trouble stored up for the future.

One problem is that "pro" can have different meanings to different people. What I class as "pro" would be someone who approaches each shoot in a professional manner, deals with people properly, ensuring the lighting is adequate or he has a solution for low lighting, has backups for his equipment etc. In other words, he approaches his whole craft in a professional way.

Others might take "pro" to be that he makes money out of it.

Both can mean "pro" but I know which pro I would want to get when things really mattered!

There will probably be a relevelling of talent in the next few years as a lot of the GWC realise that photography isn't a great earner unless they devote a lot of time to it (especially after buying and maintaining all their gear)

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10029522
Most commercial/advertising jobs require you to work with others that also have knowledge. Like art directors and graphic designers. You might be able to fool them and get in the door but to be successful you had better deliver the goods or you ain't stay'n at the table. If you are going to be successful you have to have repeat business. You have to be in it for the long haul.

Its not like shooting a job and never having to see that client again and having an endless pool to to get work from. You blow a job or the art director sees that your not what you claimed to be (it'll show in the work and how you work) not only will he not use you he will tell all his art director buddies.

Connections, absolutely and those connections come from having knowledge and a solid foot in the field and also giving the client the goods. If you can't deliver the work you are not going to be successful no matter how good you market. These peoples reps and jobs are on the line so if they hire a schmoe they have a price to pay.

Absolutely true. For large ad campaigns involving hundreds of thousands of dollars for production and millions for placement the account for the ad agency could be in jeopardy. Ad agencies compete for business much like photographers, they may have a contract for a certain period of time and have to re-bid when it's up. If they lose the account it's almost certain that heads will roll. It's highly unlikely with that on the line that they would fall for a line of BS. That's one reason that art directors average so little time with an agency, the pressure on these people is tremendous and it takes it's toll. Burnout is way too common in that line of work, imagine having to come up with new ideas under the pressure of deadlines week after week. I know for certain it's not a job I want.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10028809
Is there a way for someone to be an amateur engineer of embedded applications? Do you ever decry "wannabe" embedded aplication engineers? Ever get lowballed or undercut by someone who just bought a book on embedded application engineering and stole a contract out from under you? Do EA Engineers advertise on Craigslist and are any willing to give away not only the finished app but all the source code as well?

There is a continual influx of new engineers for an ever widening reduction in jobs and shifts in technology which obsolete a skill set in 5-10 years time. Competition is expected. If one is suffering from inroads made by competitors for their job A) the market is flooded and the client is blind regarding outcome or B) time to get competitive and update the skill set, marketing, and client base.

There are never enough jobs.
In my business the client owns the source code and the ideas I work on including ideas I introduce to bring their product to life. Standard fare.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10028809
My point here is that photographers (and media people in general I think) suffer more from the inroads made by amateurs and intermediate-level counerparts than do a lot of professions. It's pretty rampant in the TV Production world as well. Probably going to get nothing but worse with dSLR video. Many people lost a lot of work when the engineering "powers that be" decided that traditional broadcast standards no longer applied and that a DV Cam, Premiere / Final Cut, Cakewalk and a DVD Burner were all you needed to become a "Production House." Same goes for photography I think.

Just as Joe Public became a video production house by reading Video Editing For Dummies, he can now become a photographer by reading Digital Photography For Dummies.

It's not going to get any easier with a corporate footprint that wants everyone to own a camera to go with their computer and facebook account. Licensing isn't going to stop a bean counter from evaluating labor costs and selecting a source of labor that will work for peanuts on the dollar. Happens all the time.

jetcode wrote in post #10029731
It's not going to get any easier with a corporate footprint that wants everyone to own a camera to go with their computer and facebook account. Licensing isn't going to stop a bean counter from evaluating labor costs and selecting a source of labor that will work for peanuts on the dollar. Happens all the time.

Joe, but here is the reason in many areas of commercial/advertising the GWC or the guy thats read Petersons book cover to cover will not be competition because the experienced photographer that has the inside knowledge of the field and the product will save money because he gets the shot, knows the client, knows the product and will save TIME which is $$$$$.

neilwood32 wrote in post #10029562
One problem is that "pro" can have different meanings to different people. What I class as "pro" would be someone who approaches each shoot in a professional manner, deals with people properly, ensuring the lighting is adequate or he has a solution for low lighting, has backups for his equipment etc. In other words, he approaches his whole craft in a professional way.

I consider this approach standard fare for making a living in the modern world. On a current assignment there are service staff who assist clients with the product. They do a great job yet I never hear them or the engineers I work with discuss the merits of being "pro" but I assume they must be if they are responsible for getting the job done right. Everyone knows they can replaced or terminated at any time.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10029793
Joe, but here is the reason in many areas of commercial/advertising the GWC or the guy thats read Petersons book cover to cover will not be competition because the experienced photographer that has the inside knowledge of the field and the product will save money because he gets the shot, knows the client, knows the product and will save TIME which is $$$$$.

Agreed Allen. I think what I am saying here is whining about reality doesn't change reality. Do you really want to work for someone who can't see the difference in skill set between a newbie and the experienced? It really comes down to the quality of employment. Consistent problem solving has been the backbone of my business since day 1. Clients want a reliable source.

jetcode wrote in post #10029830
I think what I am saying here is whining about reality doesn't change reality. Do you really want to work for someone who can't see the difference in skill set between a newbie and the experienced? It really comes down to the quality of employment. Consistent problem solving has been the backbone of my business since day 1. Clients want a reliable source.

Whining gets you no where. I believe that to be successful in the future you need to get into a field that GWCs are not an option to a client.

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 so true. I can name 5 local photogs here in the NYC area that take crappy over processed photos and get constant streams of business because they "look trendy" and spend more time marketing than learning their rigs. Seriously who'd have ever thought a pair of skinny jeans and aviators would ever get you a photography job?

AudibleSilence wrote in post #10029887
This is so true. I can name 5 local photogs here in the NYC area that take crappy over processed photos and get constant streams of business because they "look trendy" and spend more time marketing than learning their rigs. Seriously who'd have ever thought a pair of skinny jeans and aviators would ever get you a photography job?

Maybe what you consider "crappy" looks good to their clients. Some photographers find a niche market for their processing style and learn to exploit it...nothing wrong with that. Don't forget...beauty (or art) is in the eye of the beholder. OTOH, what's "trendy" today may not be tomorrow. But to call someone's work "crappy" because you don't like their style is a bit disingenuous on your part...jealousy maybe?

AudibleSilence wrote in post #10029887
This is so true. I can name 5 local photogs here in the NYC area that take crappy over processed photos and get constant streams of business because they "look trendy" and spend more time marketing than learning their rigs. Seriously who'd have ever thought a pair of skinny jeans and aviators would ever get you a photography job?

Constant stream of business to me sounds like portrait/wedding/entry level model shooters. Those are areas that are seeing the biggest hits.

In areas where you deal with other visual professionals like I've said, Joe has said, breal has said, Jay has said, you probably wont get through the door but for sure won't last if you don't have skills.

thebishopp wrote in post #10028161
This is a pretty broad statement to make without knowing the talent level and experience of some of these "weekend warrior or neighborhood photographers".

An excellent example of both ignorance and arrogance.

Yup...and often seen in people who feel threatened by the "younger" competition.
Btw, I ain't no spring chicken either. But being in another cut-throat industry with lots of new gen talent coming in year after year, I know what the reality is. Don't assume anything based on the person's age...Especially the so-called young and green ones.

breal101 wrote in post #10027889
Old school thinking like actually learning a craft before you start charging people for doing it. Is that what you mean? Now I know exactly how Clarence Laughlin felt when confronted by the new breed of photographers he called hip shooters. Jeez, I promised myself I wouldn't become bitter but attitudes like yours make it very, very difficult.

And yes high end shooters have a lot more to offer than the weekend warrior or neighborhood photographer. It's called talent and experience.

I didn't realize learning a craft was exclusive to the old schoolers. But then again it sounds like everything is exclusive to the old schoolers, you know, actual talent, that high end ad assignment, basically anything that requires actual talent...that is, according to the old schoolers. Which is what makes them old schoolers I suppose...

Anyways, I don't even know why I am getting into all this because it's like trying to convince my parents. And no, I am not a teenager...actually closer to middle aged. Still haven't won an argument with my parents yet...

nicksan wrote in post #10030138
Yup...and often seen in people who feel threatened by the "younger" competition.
Btw, I ain't no spring chicken either. But being in another cut-throat industry with lots of new gen talent coming in year after year, I know what the reality is. Don't assume anything based on the person's age...Especially the so-called young and green ones.

I can't speak for others but I lecture at a local college that has a very good photography program that I used to teach part time at years ago and I have seen some of the talent there first hand and some of those students talent is amazing.

One thing that will always be in play is consistency. Being able to deliver high quality images that meet the requirements of the client, consistently, day in, day out, whether you're 18 or 65 is key to success. If you can't do that in the commercial/advertising world, that 18 year old will have a young, short, career. The 65 year old would have never survived in it that long.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10030246
I can't speak for others but I lecture at a local college that has a very good photography program that I used to teach part time at years ago and I have seen some of the talent there first hand and some of those students talent is amazing.

One thing that will always be in play is consistency. Being able to deliver high quality images that meet the requirements of the client, consistently, day in, day out, whether you're 18 or 65 is key to success. If you can't do that in the commercial/advertising world, that 18 year old will have a young, short, career. The 65 year old would have never survived in it that long.

That's true. I guess if you are 65 and still doing it, the proof is simply in the pudding.

I think you got to the heart of the matter. Consistency. And it makes completely sense that the number of "reps" is what gets you that consistency most of the time. In other words experience...

nicksan wrote in post #10030264
That's true. I guess if you are 65 and still doing it, the proof is simply in the pudding.

I think you got to the heart of the matter. Consistency. And it makes completely sense that the number of "reps" is what gets you that consistency most of the time. In other words experience...

And also to stay successful you also have got to stay current and fresh. Look at fashion trend setters like Avedon and Skrebneski still setting visual trends late into their careers.

Also Mark Twain had something to say and I'm para phrasing and I also found it to be so true. It went something like this, the older I became the smarter my father became.

When I was in my teens my dad was an idiot. He suddenly became a genius when I got married and had kids.