Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 13 Oct 2010 (Wednesday) 17:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is new camera technology killing the legitimate photographer

 
jeffreynmandy
Senior Member
348 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Oct 13, 2010 17:40 |  #1

I am not a professional, and I don't claim to be. but I could see it as something I could make money at and get enjoyment from it as well. People even ask me why not look in to it. But in my area it seems that every lady who buys or receives a rebel or Nikon is now a photographer and actually charges money for stuff that is taken with a black bed sheet hung up using the pop up flash. Is this the norm? I would want to provide fully professional, edited photographs. but I just cant see it being worth my time when every one charges 40 bucks for a disk and a copyright sheet. seeing that price is going to make it hard for a real photographer. Is this what photography is coming to, or is it just in my area? Ok now I'm done with my rant.


Ever changing.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dave ­ kadolph
"Fix the cigarette lighter"
Avatar
6,138 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Mar 2007
Location: West Michigan--166.33 miles to the Cook County courthouse
     
Oct 13, 2010 17:56 |  #2

I think the term "legitimate photographer" needs a little more definition.

My daughters new P&S takes multiple images--selects the best one--fixes flaws and red eye--and applies skin smoothing--all before you see the image.

You could be horrible and never know it --LOL


Middle age is when you can finally afford the things that a young man could truly enjoy.
Tools of the trade

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MDoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,252 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Tampa
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:00 |  #3

Better tools improve craftsmanship, however it does require skill to use them properly. A person who knows how to use a camera to its full potential will always be in demand.


Ray : "My pictures are only worth 100 words"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Taylor02GT
Senior Member
892 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Quincy, IL
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:06 |  #4

I myself am not a photographer, I call it my hobby. When people ask me to do things for them I do it at little to no cost and make sure I tell them i'm no pro. This was back when I had lots of L glass hehe.

What I find funny...I have a friend who's stellar at photography. Uses a 5d2 and 35L, 70-200L, and uses the hell out of them. She's afraid to charge for her work because she feels she's just a hobbiest. But I'll tell you again, her stuff is worthy of pay. Especially at weddings.

On the other hand, i have another friend who charges people lots of money for her work. Yet uses a Nikon D40 and kit lens with pop-up flash. Her images look like point and shoot yet she still keeps getting gigs from people.


Taylor - flickr (external link)
Canon EOS 6D + Canon 50mm 1.8 STM | Canon EF 24-105mm F4L
Feedback + Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
superdiver
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,862 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ketchikan Alaska
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:13 |  #5

And this new fangled interweb is de-legitimizing the real data researcher...


40D, davidalbertsonphotography.com
Newbie still learning

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
superdiver
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,862 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ketchikan Alaska
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:15 |  #6

And those new fangled carihcles are de legitimizing the fact that you should have to walk from photog shop to Photog shop to ask this question....


40D, davidalbertsonphotography.com
Newbie still learning

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
superdiver
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,862 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Ketchikan Alaska
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:16 |  #7

of course i am just kidding, but when you think about it its a similar question...

now if you tell someone you didnt manipulate a picture and you did then thats wrong...


40D, davidalbertsonphotography.com
Newbie still learning

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,083 posts
Likes: 1269
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:19 as a reply to  @ superdiver's post |  #8

IMO, the worst thing for the professional photographer was auto focus, auto exposure, auto "everything cameras...

In the "old days when professionals used 4"x5" press type cameras and "everyone else" used Box Brownies - the professional had the edge over the amateur.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jeffreynmandy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
348 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:22 as a reply to  @ MDoc's post |  #9

I am mostly meaning that unqualified photographers are driving down profits for qualified photographers. If the average family gets a business card offering custom photos with copyright for around 50$. They are going to choose that over more qualified photographers witch I doubt would charge 50$ for an hour shoot at the customers choice of location, with full photo-shop editing and then give all images to the person with the copyright for all photos.

This is a true story: I was up In Charlotte a few weeks ago to look at some photography gear on craigslist. It turns out that it was from a very nice man who was an established photographer who is dieing of lung cancer. He was also saying that the competition just makes it too hard to make a living on photography. He used to shoot for nascar in the nineties and would take three days for a full shoot. Day one would be setting up lighting, backdrops, bringing the car in, testing equipment, etc. Day two, wait on Jeff Gordon to show up and take Photos for about five minutes. Day three take down equipment and clean up. And charged 2,000 dollars witch included paying the help.
Then One day he gets a call and they tell him " we have found someone that wants to take our photos for free. If you can do them for free we will keep you on as our photographer."


Ever changing.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iceburn
Member
Avatar
93 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Austin
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:23 |  #10

It doesn't matter, the new features are just that "new features". Yes my pit may be crowded at times but kids with the auto everything will not get the same shot I get. new gear only helps in producing better work.


I Blog, Check It Out! (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iceburn
Member
Avatar
93 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Austin
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:24 |  #11

Also check out http://www.zarias.com …mselves-not-the-industry/ (external link)

The photo industry will be strong for a while, but I see a movement towards general multimedia. with photo and video.


I Blog, Check It Out! (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TGrundvig
Goldmember
Avatar
2,876 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Colorado
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:28 |  #12

MDoc wrote in post #11091455 (external link)
Better tools improve craftsmanship, however it does require skill to use them properly. A person who knows how to use a camera to its full potential will always be in demand.

Agreed!

Buying the best gear in hopes in will make you a great photographer is like buying the best pots and pans in hopes in will make you a great cook.

A camera is only as good as the person behind it.;)


1Ds Mk II, 1D Mk II, 50D, 40D, XT (for my son), 17-40L, 24-105L, Bigma 50-500 EX DG, Sigma 150 Macro EX DG, Tokina 12-24 AT-X, Nifty Fifty, Tamron 28-300 (for my son), 580ex II, 430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,253 posts
Likes: 2298
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:29 |  #13

There is no such thing as an unqualified photographer. If your out there with you D40, pop up flash, delivering snapshot quality pics and your making $$ doing it, more power to you. Free markets are wonderful, the best will eventually make it and the chaff will fall by the wayside. I know photographers who invested in bodies and lenses and have a go at it. They got a job or two and determined that it was too much work for not enough $$. There is more to running a photography business than having the ability to take good pictures.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DigitalSpecialist
Goldmember
Avatar
2,286 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: Finding a New World, thru my camera
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:49 |  #14

I won't blame the technology for the troubles the Studio Photographers and Owners are having. The beginning problem starts with the availability of the technology. Medium Format cameras had a hefty price tag compared to 35mm in the old days. Most Medium format shooters were classicaly educated, or apprenticed photographers that worked for studios, and in studios.

I spent two years under a well known photographer in California in the Eighties. But it was my Large Format, and 35mm work that got me noticed by her to even get into the studio. Things were that tough, and I was competing with college students that knew lighting. So that is how I got my foot into the world of working photog.

Today, our equipment is inexpensive. Our darkroom is very easily mastered with a few classes. No more imulsions and time in the darkroom learning chemistry lessons. No more bulk purchases of film and using sport(12frame) rolls to get your light evaluations, light metering, all figured out before you do a full shoot. Today most Digital Photographers don't even use an external light-meter, or they frown on them. Only the experienced photographer takes the time to use an external light-meter today. Also in this technology driven world, learning studio lighting is easy, and the lights are cheap compared to the old HOT lights.
The professionals that are truly hurting are those that own commercial studios, and only do in house work. The larger studio that I am affiliated with has forty paid staff photographers on call(of which I am one). Only six of those forty knows about actual Darkrooms and film processing! In 2001, the studio had three large format printers on sight. Today all our work is sent out! Worst of all, this studio is owned by a realestate broker that made it big. His daughter is the receptionist, and he manages, neither of them knows the first thing about actual photography.
Ok, I ranted, and maybe even raved.


JIM
EOS 630, 1N, 1DsMkII, and 5D/wgrip and some L glass.....

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tempest68
Senior Member
Avatar
980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Manchester, PA
     
Oct 13, 2010 18:49 |  #15

I am just a hobbyist. I dream of doing photography as a profession, but I make decent money programming computers so photography will probably remain a hobby for some time.

When all I had was a Rebel XT w/kit lens, I had many people think I was a pro just because of the DSLR and all they are used to is a point-n-shoot. It just goes to show that perception can very easily trump reality.

However I do not think a good professional should not have to be worried if they are able to properly market what makes their style of photography unique and something that no other photographer, even another pro, can duplicate. Every photographer has their own style and skills. Making sure the paying customer understands that they really will get what they pay for is key. If the customer would compare the portfolios of the cheap photographer vs. their own work, hopefully their own work stands out.

The NASCAR photographer should have told them they are still allowed to call him after they realize the free photographer will most likely not provide the same quality as their work. If they're satisfied with lesser quality, then more power to them.


Jim
Canon: EOS 3, 40mm f2.8 STM, 85mm f1.8 USM. Voigtlander: R3A, 28mm F2.8 SL II, Nokton 40mm f1.4, 50mm f2 Heliar.
Nikon: SB-25. Yongnuo: YN565EX, YN-622C transceiver (x2)
Sony: A7S, a6000, 24-240mm f3.5-6.3 G, Nissin i40.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,803 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is new camera technology killing the legitimate photographer
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lvb64
2191 guests, 340 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.