Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is digital diluting pro revenues?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:44:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

First off, apologies for the cross-post, but I think this is relevant in
both groups.

With the mass infusion of digital cameras into the marketplace, most of
which are capable of taking photos a lot better than the average 35mm P&S
cameras they replaced, do you think that there will be less need for
professional photographers as the technology advances?

I'm thinking specifically in terms of things like photographing functions
and certain types of low-end product protography. In days gone bye no one
(except the truly brave) would have attempted to take photographs of their
products for reproduction on litho using a 35mm P&S. Yet today we have
some digital cameras that are highly adaptable and capable of producing
images that can be immediately used in print. Also, the element of cost
(in terms of film) is removed, thus resulting in a far shorter learning
curve for new photographers than was the case for those making a living
out of film photography only a few years ago.

Digital has brought more and more photograhers into the realm and I
strongly believe that as these cameras evolve and become cheaper, the
already crowded professional market might just not be able to cope with
it as more and more people begin using digital to produce imagery that can
pass for professional work.

I'm seeing this now in one area that I used to make a bit of spare cash
in, namely pre-school informal portrait photography. Many former clients
are now being approached by kids weilding top end 8MP digital P&S cameras,
doing the same job I used to do for them using my DSLR. Some school owners
are even doing it themselves and making a killing in the process.

What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Rox-off wrote:
snip
> With the mass infusion of digital cameras into the marketplace, most of
> which are capable of taking photos a lot better than the average 35mm P&S
> cameras they replaced, do you think that there will be less need for
> professional photographers as the technology advances?
>
> I'm thinking specifically in terms of things like photographing functions
> and certain types of low-end product protography. In days gone bye no one
> (except the truly brave) would have attempted to take photographs of their
> products for reproduction on litho using a 35mm P&S. Yet today we have
> some digital cameras that are highly adaptable and capable of producing
> images that can be immediately used in print. Also, the element of cost
> (in terms of film) is removed, thus resulting in a far shorter learning
> curve for new photographers than was the case for those making a living
> out of film photography only a few years ago.
>
> Digital has brought more and more photograhers into the realm and I
> strongly believe that as these cameras evolve and become cheaper, the
> already crowded professional market might just not be able to cope with
> it as more and more people begin using digital to produce imagery that can
> pass for professional work.
>
> I'm seeing this now in one area that I used to make a bit of spare cash
> in, namely pre-school informal portrait photography. Many former clients
> are now being approached by kids weilding top end 8MP digital P&S cameras,
> doing the same job I used to do for them using my DSLR. Some school owners
> are even doing it themselves and making a killing in the process.
>
> What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?

No, and I don't think it will, to any great extent. Most of my work
involves a combination of writing and photography, even in auto
features. This requires reasonably extensive knowledge of the subject
being photographed, whether a classic car or a woodworking technique or
tool or a house, or...you name it.

The car features might be affected, but...there is more to it than just
point and click away with a shiny object in front of you. Composition
and pinpoint sharpness in the correct areas start the list. Reflections
add to it: I just sent an editor a semi-joke photo called "Find the
photographer" of the gleaming trunk lid of a classic car. Though I had
danced over half of creation trying to hide, I was still visible if you
knew where and how to look.

Angles, lighting, focus, general composition all make it more difficult
to do well than just pointing a good camera and clicking the shutter.
That will probably always be the case.

Some portrait photographers are going to be in trouble, I'm sure. I
know companies often pay to have head shots taken for use with press
releases. I have no idea what is charged, but that's one point where a
background and a couple cheap lights, along with a decent low end
digital camera, can kill photography markets. I noticed, too, that even
church photographers have gone digital. That's a market that may be due
for some major shifts, but I think it's largely because people are
becoming less satisfied with the results they see, the production line
quality of the sittings.

Wedding photography? I doubt it, really, in the long run. I've shot a
few weddings, none recently and I won't do a full wedding ever again.
Too much work. If the person buying the package compares what the pro
does with what his amateur buddies do, then the checkbook will hit the
pro's desk first. It's not just a matter of talent and camera. It is a
matter of a developed "eye" for what is likely to strike each client as
the best at bringing back memories (of course, if the divorce rate
keeps rising, it may be that no one will WANT those memories, but
that's an entirely different subject).

Basically, I see the production line photographers, school and church
particularly, as running into some problems, possibly minor. Many may
be forced to rethink their approach to photography, to get away from
the cliched poses and exposures that have been in use since before I
was in high school. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Even
amateur competition can be good if it improves what the client receives.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off <roxy@empirerods.com>
wrote:

>What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?


You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.

If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
must have been doing the heavy lifting before.

In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
created by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your
business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Rox-off wrote:
> What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?
>

I can speak to this. I bought a basic dSLR and a telephoto zoom lens
this spring (a 300d and a <gasp> Tamron 75-300), and my girlfriend has
used it on a weekly basis to attend low-end horse shows to take
pictures. She works on a P&S level, and wouldn't know an L-series 300mm
if it fell on her foot. There is a local riding organization where she
is one of the 'staff' photographers who are similarly equipped and
experienced. Then the pics are made available for the org. members to
browse thru and purchase for a very reasonable price. (pricing of
course is commensurate with the experience/investment of the
photographers, but for the pics that come out well presents quite a nice
value to the customer).
I have to say, we/she can get some stunning images, and the customers
are very happy. There was one show where a true professional
photographer attended (by mistake of the organizers, who also invited
her club's photographers), complete with a powered trailer loaded with
post-processing and printing gear to make instant prints. It didn't
take long to realize that because he had little experience riding and
shooting horses, that his technical skills were offset by the eye of the
amateur staff photographers. Once that pro figured out the situation,
he was pretty pissed (usually it's an exclusive agreement to be the
photographer), he gave them dirty looks all day long, but it wasn't
their fault. It takes an eye for the breed and showing type to capture
images the way the riders want to see themselves - and that IMO seems to
make the big difference. And these shows aren't big enough to warrant a
professional equestrian photographer.
So, I guess my conclusion is that since in good lighting conditions,
affordable digital products make for a legitimately sellable product in
some cases (outdoor shows with good lighting, low-level riders). Is she
making real money doing this? No, certainly not enough to pay for the
gear investment, and if we would invest in more appropriate equipment (a
20d, f/2.8L 70-200, etc) she would never catch up. At the cost point
she's offering at it's mostly a service and the print sales almost pay
for her time. I think that this organization's staff photography has
definitely cut into the realm of a few pros, but that it's at a low
level (in $$) and the staff crew won't be cutting in much further.

Dave
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Rox-off wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> > movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
>
> I watched that the other day. Girls were very different back then...

Yeah, smarter.


>
> --
> Save photography | shoot some film today!
> email: drop rods and insert surfaces
August 11, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Think back to the time when word processors first came out. Did
everyone write a life changing novel for people?
Or back further to when anyone could walk into a store and buy a 2400
baud modem. The fact that they were even online made many ppl believe
that everything they said was very insightful and true.

High end AF cameras have only made it easier for people to turn out
large amounts of bad photos. A real pro (tm) can pick up any camera,
anywhere and still get the shot while others are bewildered by the
"business" of photography ie: metering and composition.

An AF camera doesn't automagically make a good photographer. Photo
editors with experiance know this and know who they can relay on.

Don


Paris photo workshops.com
http:/www.parisphotoworkshops.com
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Don wrote:
> Think back to the time when word processors first came out. Did
> everyone write a life changing novel for people?
> Or back further to when anyone could walk into a store and buy a 2400
> baud modem. The fact that they were even online made many ppl believe
> that everything they said was very insightful and true.

It often works that way today.

>
> High end AF cameras have only made it easier for people to turn out
> large amounts of bad photos. A real pro (tm) can pick up any camera,
> anywhere and still get the shot while others are bewildered by the
> "business" of photography ie: metering and composition.

I don't totally agree. Back in the days of mostly mechanical cameras,
the differences from one camera to another weren't that great, at least
as far as setting exposure and focus. Today, half the damned cameras
out there have hidden power switches and menus that bury any decent
usage qualities under a mess of jog switch movements. And no menu is
like another, with some of the widest differences falling within the
lines of a single manufacturer.

Add in such things as shutter delay, and it takes at least some study
to get that "real pro" clicking these days.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I'm a wedding photographer, so I will comment on this arena.


I don't fear this happening at all. Already, and it has always been so,
that a good percentage of brides do not hire a pro, anyway, due to budget
restraints and not enough desire to have pro quality pictures.

Still, the large percentage of brides that do value quality photos, and do
have it within their means to hire a pro, will always do so because it is
important to have someone dedicated to the task. This is even more true
today because of the trend towards "photojournalistic" style wedding
photography, which demands that someone be dedicated to the task of
capturing moments, and who has the trained eye to see them.

Patrick
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:12:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"McLeod" <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:1c8mf1t07tbupb77eh1rb626mcir5hk992@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off <roxy@empirerods.com>
> wrote:
>
>>What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?
>
>
> You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.
>
> If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
> must have been doing the heavy lifting before.
>
> In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
> created by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your
> business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

here here. I found that more people want video than stills. I think my
editing skills make the difference. A background track, a few titles, fades
and wipes, not using the zoom and not panning too fast is enough. Just
spent the weekend whittling down 60 mins of footage to 40 mins. Then
putting on the fancy stuff. Went down very well.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:59:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Rox-off wrote:

> First off, apologies for the cross-post, but I think this is relevant in
> both groups.
>
> With the mass infusion of digital cameras into the marketplace, most of
> which are capable of taking photos a lot better than the average 35mm P&S
> cameras they replaced, do you think that there will be less need for
> professional photographers as the technology advances?

There has been some commentary and speculation in the industry, though in
general there are only a few realities. Mostly business practices have
impacted professional photographers much more than technology. Rights issues
and speculation type work are hurting the industry.

There is a huge controversy about OnRequest Images, who have something they
call "Custom Stock". Basically, it is shoot on speculation, with expenses
covered by the photographer, and no guarantee of payment later, unless an
image gets used. If you want to know more, I suggest you investigate at ASMP,
APA, or on PDN Forums.

Similar bad contracts have decimated the photojournalists field. Pay rates
have greatly dropped, credit for images has disappeared in many places, and
future rights have been usurped. Photojournalism has almost become a
pay-to-play field, with many new to the industry quitting in less than three
years.

Now we have an issue of the public providing news images for free, sometimes
from camera phones. At least one company in the UK is trying to tap into that
market, providing news and event coverage from "donated" images. My feeling
is that if someone is making money from the images, then the photographer
should be paid, even if that photographer was only an amateur or enthusiast.

>
>
> I'm thinking specifically in terms of things like photographing functions
> and certain types of low-end product protography.

You might be on it with product photography. That realm is all about high
volume in most situations. Some places are going in house with their own mini
studio. The sad thing I see is job listing for this type of in-house work
that pay barely above minimum wage level.

> In days gone bye no one
> (except the truly brave) would have attempted to take photographs of their
> products for reproduction on litho using a 35mm P&S. Yet today we have
> some digital cameras that are highly adaptable and capable of producing
> images that can be immediately used in print.

I don't think it is the quality, I think it is the immediate feedback
creating a false sense of security. What looks good on a small LCD, or even a
computer monitor, might not look as good in final printing.

> Also, the element of cost
> (in terms of film) is removed, thus resulting in a far shorter learning
> curve for new photographers than was the case for those making a living
> out of film photography only a few years ago.

Maybe only true in product photography . . . . . I think what is missed here
is that photography is much more than learning a camera. The skills of
composition and lighting, combined with an intuition of knowing when to push
the shutter button, are what makes images compelling. Volume of shots does
not automatically make someone a better photographer.

>
>
> Digital has brought more and more photograhers into the realm and I
> strongly believe that as these cameras evolve and become cheaper, the
> already crowded professional market might just not be able to cope with
> it as more and more people begin using digital to produce imagery that can
> pass for professional work.

I think it would be more of lowering the bar, or more acceptance of
mediocrity. Professional does not mean owning and operating the gear, or you
might as well just be a rental house, rather than a photographer. What
separates one professional from another are the ability to create compelling
images, a creative vision (some call that a style), and the connections to
people so they know who you are and what you do.

Photography as a business is still a business. Just having people low balling
bids, or clients using speculative methods to get images, large stock
libraries, et al, does not diminish professional photography. The greatest
competition is actually at the lowest end of the market, often towards
clients that might have never hired a photographer for a specific assignment.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty enough to keep some photographers
employed just by going after this low end market. It would be easy to stay
super busy catering to the low end and small businesses. My feeling is that
it is better to work smarter, not harder, and attract business from those
companies that understand and appreciate my talents.

>
>
> I'm seeing this now in one area that I used to make a bit of spare cash
> in, namely pre-school informal portrait photography. Many former clients
> are now being approached by kids weilding top end 8MP digital P&S cameras,
> doing the same job I used to do for them using my DSLR. Some school owners
> are even doing it themselves and making a killing in the process.
>
> What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?

I saw this a few years ago when I ran into Mr. InstaPrint at an event next to
my house. He had a Kodak DCS digital body, and a dye sub Kodak printer in the
back of his car. Using those, he was able to produce prints at the event very
quickly, and sell them fairly quickly. That instant gratification market
worked well for him. He had no assignments, and just kept a listing of
events, then showed up anywhere he could and tried to make some sales.
Basically, he met a need, but only to the point that his gear was slightly
better than what the average person at the event already was using.

If you are trying to sell your services based on what you use, you will
eventually either be priced out by constant upgrades, or beat out by the
average person you see as a potential customer. The only way to sustain an
imaging business is by offering compelling and interesting images, something
beyond what the average individual can accomplish.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com&gt;
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:49:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> >movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
>
> It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is, by
> people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the paparrazi
> haven't helped.
> -Rich


Yes, everybody wants to be a photgrapher, except the ones who are...
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:50:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> >movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
>
> It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is, by
> people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the paparrazi
> haven't helped.
> -Rich


Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:04:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <7oGKe.8109$1b6.4838@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote:

> "McLeod" <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:1c8mf1t07tbupb77eh1rb626mcir5hk992@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off <roxy@empirerods.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?
> >
> >
> > You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.
> >
> > If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera
> > must have been doing the heavy lifting before.
> >
> > In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is
> > created by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your
> > business, then your business was snap shooting with a better camera.
>
> here here. I found that more people want video than stills. I think my
> editing skills make the difference. A background track, a few titles, fades
> and wipes, not using the zoom and not panning too fast is enough. Just
> spent the weekend whittling down 60 mins of footage to 40 mins. Then
> putting on the fancy stuff. Went down very well.

What are you? A blowfish?
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:49:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Don" <parisphotog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123775230.950453.156540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Think back to the time when word processors first came out. Did
> everyone write a life changing novel for people?
> Or back further to when anyone could walk into a store and buy a 2400
> baud modem. The fact that they were even online made many ppl believe
> that everything they said was very insightful and true.
>
> High end AF cameras have only made it easier for people to turn out
> large amounts of bad photos. A real pro (tm) can pick up any camera,
> anywhere and still get the shot while others are bewildered by the
> "business" of photography ie: metering and composition.

However, the average joe can get lucky. In some situations, decent
equipment, the opportunity to take many pics, and a little luck can make for
a few very good photos. You don't need to be a good photographer to make a
few good shots. Unless artistic aspects or lighting setups are a major
consideration, the new gear puts this in the reach of ordinary folks.

> An AF camera doesn't automagically make a good photographer. Photo
> editors with experiance know this and know who they can relay on.

But when two pictures are in front of them and one captures the moment
that will sell, they don't care who it's from. Sometimes this puts the pro
in a tough position. I'm not saying it happens often, but it can happen.

Dave
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:10:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > >It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> > >movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
> >
> > It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is, by
> > people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the paparrazi
> > haven't helped.
> > -Rich
>
>
> Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....

Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two classic
cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win them all).
The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars are gorgeous,
there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some problems, and both
articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant work, I want more!
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:16:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

OK, 'often unpleasant'


...as in boring, tedious, etc.....


Charlie Self wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > RichA wrote:
> > > On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> > > >movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
> > >
> > > It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is, by
> > > people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the paparrazi
> > > haven't helped.
> > > -Rich
> >
> >
> > Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> > out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
>
> Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two classic
> cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win them all).
> The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars are gorgeous,
> there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some problems, and both
> articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant work, I want more!
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:21:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:04:39 -0400, McLeod wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:44:23 +0200, Rox-off <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
>
>>What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?
>
>
> You're only worth what someone is willing to pay you for.
>
> If you're losing money to people with good cameras, then your camera must
> have been doing the heavy lifting before.
>
> In other words, a camera is a device to record an image which is created
> by the photographer. If snap shooters are stealing your business, then
> your business was snap shooting with a better camera.

No, you're not reading the point correctly. What I am saying is that
because of the fact that photography is now open to a lot more people, the
market for professionals has become a little tougher because a lot of
people are now able to do better with their digitals than they were able
to in the past. Whether or not they actually achieve something better than
if they did it themselves is not relevant.

I used my situation as an example. I am sure there are others.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!

email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee wrote:

> It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.

I watched that the other day. Girls were very different back then...

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!

email: drop rods and insert surfaces
August 11, 2005 9:25:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>
> However, the average joe can get lucky. In some situations, decent
> equipment, the opportunity to take many pics, and a little luck can make
> for a few very good photos. You don't need to be a good photographer to
> make a few good shots. Unless artistic aspects or lighting setups are a
> major consideration, the new gear puts this in the reach of ordinary
> folks.
>

This is what I hope for. Photoshop helps too.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:35:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>do you think that there will be less need for
>professional photographers as the technology advances?

Why is digital the trigger point? Film cameras have existed for
decades and people continue to hire pros to shoot even though 35mm SLRs
have existed for a very long time (over 50 years). People hire pros
because they own a variety of equipment and/or have some essential
skills to take shots in extreme circumstances that even photographic
enthusiasts may not have, using even the same camera and lens
combination. Or they have the experience to deal with shooting in
stressful circumstances (Have you ever tried to shoot a wedding and get
photos rapidly with a demanding mother or bride bossing you around?!?!
Many pros will not shoot weddings simply because they are too taxing on
them, and the have the skills to get the shots!)

Price of digital has nothing to do with nothing, in terms of number of
pros. Amateurs have offered their services for hire even though they
have not had the skills, just owned the equipment and could get
business cards printed! I recall being at a 'swap meet' for photo
equipment, seeing a gal with a camera bag and her pro photography card
on the luggage tag, and she was asking the vendor what a skylight
filter was for!

Don't fool yourself about the quality of 35mm DSLR. Read what some
pros say, about still seeing more ultimate image quality on a
film-based MF camera. 35mm DSLR is very darned close to MF in quality,
but quality film cameras still have an edge. Digital is faster (don't
have to wait for the film to get back from the lab). Quality is very
high, Photoshop allows many 'tricks' possible previously on with the
swings and tilts of large format cameras. Digital has CHANGED the
world of the pro, however.

BTW I am not a working pro, but I have provided services at the level
of a pro, shooting everything from 35mm to Medium Format to monorail
4x5 studio camera , and 'competing' on the basis of quality of work,
not price. So I am not writing from the defensive position of a
working pro whose income depends on his skills.

--Wilt
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:00:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Patrick L." <hereiam@notsonice.com> wrote in message
news:3eCdndGA1sPMHWbfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> I'm a wedding photographer, so I will comment on this arena.
>
>
> I don't fear this happening at all. Already, and it has always been
> so, that a good percentage of brides do not hire a pro, anyway, due to
> budget restraints and not enough desire to have pro quality pictures.
>
> Still, the large percentage of brides that do value quality photos, and
> do have it within their means to hire a pro, will always do so because it
> is important to have someone dedicated to the task. This is even more
> true today because of the trend towards "photojournalistic" style wedding
> photography, which demands that someone be dedicated to the task of
> capturing moments, and who has the trained eye to see them.


The photographer who did my sisters wedding said he even had family members
dangle their camera in front of his after he had gone to the trouble of
arranging everybody. He know shoots into the light. It throws out most p+s
systems and amateur users.

My own experience of customers who get under exposed shots and blame the
camera automation " it can't be me i had it set to full auto". Personally i
think setting up a service of photoshop retouching and improving for other
photographers will be more lucrative than trying to sell my own prints.
Digital restoration, dust and scratch removal, red eye removal etc £45 quid.
successive prints are still very expensive.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:41:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.08.11.07.44.22.138000@empirerods.com...

>
> What do you think? Has digital encroached on your market yet?
What I've seen happening, is that it seems every rich kid with a DSLR
suddenly thinks they are a Pro photographer. I occasionally do work in a
printing lab that caters for a lot of the "pro's" who do weddings etc, and
frankly most of this work is pure rubbish. We have a regular clientel of
about 10 wedding photographers, who all do a wedding pretty much every week.
Of those, there is only 1 that I would even consider getting to do work. The
rest seem to not have a basic grasp of exposure, focus, depth of field and
framing. A photographer who can't get exposure and focus reasonably right
with a 20D or D70 is pretty hopeless IMO.
I don't actively pursue professional photographic work (although I will take
it when asked), and I certainly don't consider myself a pro, but I can tell
the difference between someone taking snapshots and someone who is a
professional photographer in the real sense of the word. (I think I fit
somewhere in the middle).
Considering "professional" simply means those who are paid to take photos, I
think there are a couple of categories within the term professional.
1. There are the true professionals, who are excellent at their craft. These
people could take sellable photos with a camera-phone or a disposable,
because their skill lies not only in mastering the technical side of
photography (exposure, focus etc), but also in the artistic side of
photography (composure etc).
2. There are the snapshooters with an expensive camera. These people take
pretty good photos, but it is only because they have expensive equipment.
They may have mastered the ability to purchase gear, and are probably pretty
good at the technical aspects of taking a photograph, but often are mediocre
or worse when it comes to the artistic side of photography. These are also
the people who seem most likely to enter into "my gear is better than your
gear" matches, or brag about how many Canon L series lenses they own.
It is the photographers who fit into category 2 that I see are becoming more
and more prevalent in professional circles, especially wedding and portrait
photography.
A few months ago I shot a wedding where the client hired 2 photographers -
one did digital colour work and I was there for B&W film work. The #1
photographer was well and truly a category 2 above. The whole time he was
ridiculing me for still shooting film, ridiculing me for using a Pentax
camera, and gloating that pro's only use Canon. He was a total pain in the
arse. Did you know that the trouble with Pentax cameras is that the images
they produce are too sharp to be considered professional? This is because
the camera does more in-camera sharpening than Canons, and this applies to
both film and digital cameras. just one of the little gems of wisdom from
this moron. That from someone who couldn't understand why I would be using
colour filters when shooting B&W film. I know for a fact that I sold more
prints from that day than he did, so there can't be too much wrong with
those over-sharp pentax film cameras.
>
> --
> Save photography | shoot some film today!
> email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:41:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:41:54 +1000, Justin Thyme wrote:

> What I've seen happening, is that it seems every rich kid with a DSLR
> suddenly thinks they are a Pro photographer.

Of course there is no substitute for pure talent, but another aspect of
digital photography that is having an effect on the professional market is
that out of the mire there are appearing quite a lot of talented
"photographers" who *can* actually make a decent image with whatever
camera they are given. Their shorter learning curve means they are into
the thick of things a lot earlier than would have been the case in days
gone by.

These are largely people who were previously scared off of doing serious
photography because of the costs involved in post-shoot processing, but
who are now saying, "Hell yeah, I'll shoot your wedding for you on my 8MP
Sony Mavica" (or whatever they call them these days).

Sooner or later this will have an effect on the "pro" market.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:41:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Rox-off wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:41:54 +1000, Justin Thyme wrote:
>
> > What I've seen happening, is that it seems every rich kid with a DSLR
> > suddenly thinks they are a Pro photographer.
>
> Of course there is no substitute for pure talent, but another aspect of
> digital photography that is having an effect on the professional market is
> that out of the mire there are appearing quite a lot of talented
> "photographers" who *can* actually make a decent image with whatever
> camera they are given. Their shorter learning curve means they are into
> the thick of things a lot earlier than would have been the case in days
> gone by.

I really don't think the learning curve is shorter. In just one class in
college (a few months), some people will stand out above the others, and some
will never get it. The difference is not in the volume of images, but in the
creative vision. Taking lots of images is not how to learn photography.
Taking good images, and understanding why they are good images, is what makes
a photographer "talented". Some of that is up to the person teaching that
individual photography. A really good teacher could impart an idea of
compelling and interesting images without ever having the students pick up a
camera.

>
>
> These are largely people who were previously scared off of doing serious
> photography because of the costs involved in post-shoot processing, but
> who are now saying, "Hell yeah, I'll shoot your wedding for you on my 8MP
> Sony Mavica" (or whatever they call them these days).

I think you are missing it. Such a careless approach is not any guarantee of
any improvement. A higher volume of images can make editing tougher. Editing
is a skill that takes far longer to master.

>
>
> Sooner or later this will have an effect on the "pro" market.

Only for bottom feeders. Least common denominator market idea, and then the
low pay will just as quickly make them lose interest in photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com&gt;
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:41:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Gordon Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42FBA353.9FCE0098@attglobal.net...

My experiences of wedding photography is more about experience and people
skills than photographic. The guy the wedding i videoed was polite
courteous. Tellingly he was the only one there in a full blown wedding suit
that properly fittted. He also knew exactly how to fold the wedding dress
trail etc. Got pre arranged permission from the church. I wasn't allowed
to shoot in there it wasfpre arranged pros only. Your skills as a business
man, working the crowd knowing how to get the shot are far more important
than your technical ability. By the way by all accounts this guy was good
at that too.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:41:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:

> "Gordon Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:42FBA353.9FCE0098@attglobal.net...
>
> My experiences of wedding photography is more about experience and people
> skills than photographic. The guy the wedding i videoed was polite
> courteous. Tellingly he was the only one there in a full blown wedding suit
> that properly fittted. He also knew exactly how to fold the wedding dress
> trail etc. Got pre arranged permission from the church. I wasn't allowed
> to shoot in there it wasfpre arranged pros only. Your skills as a business
> man, working the crowd knowing how to get the shot are far more important
> than your technical ability. By the way by all accounts this guy was good
> at that too.

I think that is exactly right. People skills and business skills will get your
further than technical skills. Often a good smile and a nice handshake mean
more than a glossy portfolio.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com&gt;
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:41:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net> wrote:

> I think that is exactly right. People skills and business skills will get
> your further than technical skills. Often a good smile and a nice
> handshake mean more than a glossy portfolio.

This has always been the case. I remember reading a quote somewhere, of
a famous photographer complaining about 135 cartridges and associated
small cameras, and how they allowed anyone to think they were a good
photographer, all to the detriment of the craft.

Like it or not: Photography is a market created by technology, so as
technology chages, so does the market.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:43:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme@nowhere.com> wrote:
>1. There are the true professionals, who are excellent at their craft. These
>people could take sellable photos with a camera-phone or a disposable,
>because their skill lies not only in mastering the technical side of
>photography (exposure, focus etc), but also in the artistic side of
>photography (composure etc).

Are you trying to say that the true professional needs to be good at
composition and exposure, or needs to maintain his/her composure?

;-)
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:15:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1123789815.682357.47300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

> RichA wrote:
> > On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > >It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> > >movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
> >
> > It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is, by
> > people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the paparrazi
> > haven't helped.
> > -Rich
>
>
> Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....

Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is until they find out
find out that being a photographer is more than want.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:16:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<Snip>

I agree on thw whole, but there will always be a "professional" gap. And
sadly I think the manufacturing companies out there will help to keep this
gap open by the way they price there products.

By this I mean we will see the prices of "professional" equipment, like
lenses / flash / etc go higher so there is a distinct gap between
amateur/prosumer to professional.

I can take some pretty good photos with my prosumer equipment. And if I had
the AU$16,000 Canon 400m f2.8L IS USM I could take some really good photos.
That is the gap that will keep the prosumers from being pro's.

Lachy
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:16:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:16:07 GMT, "Lachy" <idont@think.so.com> wrote:

>I can take some pretty good photos with my prosumer equipment. And if I had
>the AU$16,000 Canon 400m f2.8L IS USM I could take some really good photos.
>That is the gap that will keep the prosumers from being pro's.


Yes, I guess if everyone could afford that lens they would all be
professionals.

It's all in the equipment you own, right?
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:17:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1123794643.348042.110300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:

> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > RichA wrote:
> > > On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> > > >movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
> > >
> > > It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is, by
> > > people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the paparrazi
> > > haven't helped.
> > > -Rich
> >
> >
> > Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> > out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
>
> Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two classic
> cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win them all).
> The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars are gorgeous,
> there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some problems, and both
> articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant work, I want more!

You sound to much like a "photographer" to be a photographer. If life is
the bliss that you say live, your images are as shallow as the
reflection you make on the chrome bumpers.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:17:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

kz8rt3 wrote:
> In article <1123794643.348042.110300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> RichA wrote:
>>>> On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's.
>>>>> Remember the movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the
>>>>> times.
>>>>
>>>> It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is,
>>>> by people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the
>>>> paparrazi haven't helped.
>>>> -Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they
>>> find
>>> out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
>>
>> Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two
>> classic cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win
>> them all). The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars
>> are gorgeous, there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some
>> problems, and both articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant
>> work, I want more!
>
> You sound to much like a "photographer" to be a photographer. If
> life
> is the bliss that you say live, your images are as shallow as the
> reflection you make on the chrome bumpers.

Yo, Charlie: If you divine what this entity was saying, let us in on
it, ne?

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:38:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:o IHKe.88$6q.5711@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
[SNIP]
> Considering "professional" simply means those who are
> paid to take photos, I think there are a couple of categories
> within the term professional.
> 1. There are the true professionals, who are excellent at
> their craft. These people could take sellable photos with a
> camera-phone or a disposable, because their skill lies not
> only in mastering the technical side of photography
> (exposure, focus etc), but also in the artistic side of
> photography (composure etc).
> 2. There are the snapshooters with an expensive camera.
> These people take pretty good photos, but it is only
> because they have expensive equipment. They may have
> mastered the ability to purchase gear, and are probably
> pretty good at the technical aspects of taking a photograph,
> but often are mediocre or worse when it comes to the
> artistic side of photography. These are also the people who
> seem most likely to enter into "my gear is better than your
> gear" matches, or brag about how many Canon L series
> lenses they own.

Yes, this has always been true to an extent, but now it is particularly so.
I like to think it will in time settle back to the level it used to be at,
as the buying public whittles away the very worst ones, but there have
always been bad photographers able to make a living despite their lack of
skill. Part of that is because most fields of professional photography
require, in order to make a living, more marketing skills than they do
anything else.

I could think of plenty of sub-divisions of category 1, not all of them
flattering. I can also think of some famous photographers who I'd put in
category 2, because their fame rests entirely on the mastery and technical
excellence of one particular 'original' technique, either in photographic
style or business practice. (Step forward Messr.s Testino, Zucker, ....)

> It is the photographers who fit into category 2 that I see are
> becoming more and more prevalent in professional circles,
> especially wedding and portrait photography.
> A few months ago I shot a wedding where the client hired 2 >
photographers - one did digital colour work and I was there > for B&W film
work. The #1 photographer was well and
> truly a category 2 above. The whole time he was ridiculing
> me for still shooting film, ridiculing me for using a Pentax
> camera, and gloating that pro's only use Canon. He was a
> total pain in the arse. Did you know that the trouble with
> Pentax cameras is that the images they produce are too
> sharp to be considered professional? This is because the
> camera does more in-camera sharpening than Canons, and
> this applies to both film and digital cameras. just one of the
> little gems of wisdom from this moron.

LOL! Apart from the obvious idiocy in that, Pentax digitals, if anything,
apply less sharpening by default than Canons do - not saying that is
necessarily either good or bad for either camera, but it does show just
which end of his digestive system this guy was talking out of.

Were you actually able to keep from laughing out loud when he said that? I
don't think I could have stopped myself.

> That from someone who couldn't understand why I would
> be using colour filters when shooting B&W film. I know for
> a fact that I sold more prints from that day than he did, so
> there can't be too much wrong with those over-sharp
> pentax film cameras.
> >

Yes, you can't beat Pentax glass. But I somehow think there may have been
other, more wetware related, factors at work too....


Peter
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:47:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123767275.699339.140310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's.
> Remember the movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way
> behind the times.
>

I know a number of (young, attractive) girls who think it's very cool, and I
suspect that with at least some people I know only vaguely I wouldn't get
invited to their parties if I was the same 'me' in every respect, but an
accountant not a photographer.

However, in a way I do agree with you - I enjoy what I do, but I don't see
it as particularly 'cool'. Maybe fashion is, maybe.



Peter
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:53:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123794982.365490.260810@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> OK, 'often unpleasant'
>
>
> ..as in boring, tedious, etc.....
>

Fo most pro.s that's true. Most, by number, do weddings, social
portraiture, schools, and low artistic value / high volume
product/packshot/catalogue work. That would bore me silly, I know. There
are relatively few people doing interesting product and advertising work,
and fewer still doing landscape, travel, wildlife, fashion, etc - all of
which are very hard work, but at least interesting. Fewer still get to
pursue an artistic vision and sell art prints for other than a very small
part of their total income.

(I guess 'glamour' - as in seedy - photographers may enjoy their work too,
but not for artistic reasons!)



Peter
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 8:57:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"McLeod" <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:iktnf1tb5k5se9fe8rdilemkp4it07gubo@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:16:07 GMT, "Lachy" <idont@think.so.com> wrote:
>
>>I can take some pretty good photos with my prosumer equipment. And if I
>>had
>>the AU$16,000 Canon 400m f2.8L IS USM I could take some really good
>>photos.
>>That is the gap that will keep the prosumers from being pro's.
>
>
> Yes, I guess if everyone could afford that lens they would all be
> professionals.
>
> It's all in the equipment you own, right?

At the upper end where a lens like that is needed.......yes. With the
equipment I can afford and / or own, I could not take an equivalent photo as
I could with the above mentioned lens.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:26:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Now we have an issue of the public providing news images for free, sometimes
> from camera phones. At least one company in the UK is trying to tap into that
> market, providing news and event coverage from "donated" images. My feeling
> is that if someone is making money from the images, then the photographer
> should be paid, even if that photographer was only an amateur or enthusiast.

I think this is the biggest problem. The fact that "normal" people can
produce technically decent pictures is not a threat; the fact that so
many of them are willing to give it away or sell it for next to nothing
is. A great shot from an amateur is worth just as much as the same shot
from a full-time pro would be.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:28:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Lachy <idont@think.so.com> wrote:

> At the upper end where a lens like that is needed.......yes. With the
> equipment I can afford and / or own, I could not take an equivalent photo as
> I could with the above mentioned lens.

But you could take a different one that is still just as good. With digital
the equipment does become more important, but you don't need the best gear
to do good work.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:39:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:49:48 -0400, David Geesaman wrote:

> However, the average joe can get lucky. In some situations, decent
> equipment, the opportunity to take many pics, and a little luck can make
> for a few very good photos. You don't need to be a good photographer to
> make a few good shots. Unless artistic aspects or lighting setups are a
> major consideration, the new gear puts this in the reach of ordinary
> folks.
>
>> An AF camera doesn't automagically make a good photographer. Photo
>> editors with experiance know this and know who they can relay on.
>
> But when two pictures are in front of them and one captures the moment
> that will sell, they don't care who it's from. Sometimes this puts the
> pro in a tough position. I'm not saying it happens often, but it can
> happen.

This is very true. Consider the "pro" and the amateur who are both at the
same event. They both get relatively similar shots. They send them to a
picture editor who makes the decision on which one to use.

If the pro is asking for $500 and the amateur is saying, "Hey! Just print
my name under it!", who's pic is the editor most likely to use?

Not every photo field is affected, but I believe that many are.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!

email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:46:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Can someone explain what is the fundmental premise why Digital is
***any different than the decades of affordable 35mm SLR and lenses***,
which would make pro's quake in their boots worring about amateurs MORE
NOW THAN IN PRIOR YEARS (e.g.1980)???

I read statements about DSLR in this thread that all could be replaced
by 'film SLR'.

>The fact that "normal" people can
>produce technically decent pictures is not a threat; the fact that so
>many of them are willing to give it away or sell it for next to nothing
>is.

There is a whole lot of truth in the above statement...it was true in
film times (10 years ago) and still true now. Yes, it costs money to
process film and print it...10 years ago, you merely passed on that
expense to the bride in your fees. Digital leaves more in the pocket
of the photographer, both amateur and pro. But the lack of that
expense now does not narrow the difference between pro and
amateur...they both use DSLR so there's no difference in advantage,
with film or without film.

While I was shooting weddings in the 90's there were plenty of people
with film SLRs taking photos around me, and lots P&S cameras. As the
hired pro, ministers would often tell me 'no photos during the
ceremony...do them all after the ceremony'. I complied. But all
during the ceremony everyone would be shooting their P&S and you'd see
many flashes going off (and being more disturbing that if I could
shoot available light photos during the ceremony very
unobtrusively...but the minister asked me not to shoot during the
ceremony. But I digress.) In other words the cost of processing was
NO barrier to many amateurs shooting with their cameras, back in the
days before any affordable digital cameras existed!

--wilt
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:17:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> It's all in the equipment you own, right?

<chuckle>

Yeah, right (not). Like owning the fastest race car makes you the fastest
driver?

Toa
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:37:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <9r2dnfSDs_BvcGbfRVn-gA@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> kz8rt3 wrote:
> > In article <1123794643.348042.110300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> RichA wrote:
> >>>> On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's.
> >>>>> Remember the movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the
> >>>>> times.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is,
> >>>> by people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the
> >>>> paparrazi haven't helped.
> >>>> -Rich
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they
> >>> find
> >>> out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
> >>
> >> Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two
> >> classic cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win
> >> them all). The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars
> >> are gorgeous, there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some
> >> problems, and both articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant
> >> work, I want more!
> >
> > You sound to much like a "photographer" to be a photographer. If
> > life
> > is the bliss that you say live, your images are as shallow as the
> > reflection you make on the chrome bumpers.
>
> Yo, Charlie: If you divine what this entity was saying, let us in on
> it, ne?

Please, I am human like everyone else. If I know myself I know everyone
else. It ain't magic.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:37:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:37:14 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>Please, I am human like everyone else. If I know myself I know everyone
>else. It ain't magic.


That doesn't appear to be true because no one else has a clue about
what you were saying in your previous post, "You sound to much
like..."
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 8:37:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> OK, 'often unpleasant'
>
>
> ..as in boring, tedious, etc.....
>
>
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > RichA wrote:
> > > > On 11 Aug 2005 06:34:35 -0700, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >It hasn't been 'cool' to be a photographer since the 60's. Remember the
> > > > >movie 'Blow-up'? These people are way behind the times.
> > > >
> > > > It's still considered by many as a desirable profession, that is, by
> > > > people who aren't in it. However, the activities of the paparrazi
> > > > haven't helped.
> > > > -Rich
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> > > out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
> >
> > Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two classic
> > cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win them all).
> > The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars are gorgeous,
> > there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some problems, and both
> > articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant work, I want more!

Not either. But the problem lies with the fact that it IS work, I
guess. I spent hours today out in 85-95 deg. weather, with 70%
humidity, shooting three vehicles. I was wringing wet and tired when I
finished, but there was no tedium, nor any boredom. Up and down
ladders, onto a ground pad, check for dust, check for reflections, wipe
myself down so I don't screw up somebody's $8000 paint job or $5000
upholstery. Work. If work equates with tedium in someone's world, then
I do believe they have a problem.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 8:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1123794643.348042.110300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> > > out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
> > Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two classic
> > cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win them all).
> > The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars are gorgeous,
> > there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some problems, and both
> > articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant work, I want more!
>
> And next week? The week after that?

Can't help you there. Find your own work. I've been doing similar work
since the late '60s and I still enjoy it.

>
> All jobs have sublime moments. Too many sublime
> moments; they're no longer sublime; and then what do
> have to look forward to?

WTF? Is this one of "man's lot is a sorry one" concepts? As an
incidental point, some jobs do NOT have any sublime moments. They are
just nasty. Try loading semi trailers at night to pay for college.

>
> Real jobs require sweat. If the job is so easy and
> wonderful why pay someone to do it?

You should have been with me today, then. You could have been the one
passing me the towel. I was wring wet halfway through shooting the
first car and stayed that way for hours more.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123794643.348042.110300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> > out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
> Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two classic
> cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win them all).
> The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars are gorgeous,
> there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some problems, and both
> articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant work, I want more!

And next week? The week after that?

All jobs have sublime moments. Too many sublime
moments; they're no longer sublime; and then what do
have to look forward to?

Real jobs require sweat. If the job is so easy and
wonderful why pay someone to do it?

* * *

I have just returned from 21 days in Glacier National Park:
burbling brooks make me seasick; flowers are just spots
before my eyes; and if I have one more look at Goose Island
I will kill myself, I swear I will.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:03:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

> "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1123794643.348042.110300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Yes, everybody wants to be a photographer...that is, until they find
> > > out it's work, and unpleasant work at that....
> > Not some types. Tomorrow, I'll spend the day photographing two classic
> > cars, outdoors (hot as hell this summer, but you can't win them all).
> > The owners are two exceptionally nice people, the cars are gorgeous,
> > there are plenty of challenges with the shoots, some problems, and both
> > articles are already sold. If that's unpleasant work, I want more!
>
> And next week? The week after that?

Nature of the business. Those who can manage well might get 100 days of
actual photography into a year. The rest of the time could be spent doing
paperwork, billing, time on the computer, or meeting with potential clients.
The other time element is largely unpaid, since only the actual photography
work generates direct income; though the other aspects are necessary time
periods to generate more work.

Those who are fortunate enough to establish a name, get a good regular
client list, or get a busy rep generating work for them have it differently.
However, those are not givens, and take time to establish, unless one is
really lucky.

>
>
> All jobs have sublime moments. Too many sublime
> moments; they're no longer sublime; and then what do
> have to look forward to?

Enjoying what you do. Satisfaction in what you accomplish. Do we need more?

>
>
> Real jobs require sweat.

What . . . we should all be digging ditches, otherwise we should feel
ashamed?

> If the job is so easy and
> wonderful why pay someone to do it?

Sure, we should all hate our jobs and monday mornings just like the rest of
the working class . . . only fair. It's not right for anyone to actually
enjoy working . . . if you think about it, work is a four letter word . . .
so we cannot be liking it. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com&gt;
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:21:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net>, with later insertions,
wrote approximately:

> Technical skills (If you can then DO) won't get you as far as
> people and business skills (If you can't DO, then MANAGE).

Technical skills hold you back. When the technology
changes, "ATT lays off 25,000 Engineers," what can you do
for a living if all that you know is obsolete?

With the best smile and handshake around you would
have been promoted: You can't DO anymore, and so
obviously you must now ...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 10:21:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

> Gordon Moat <moat@attglobal.net>, with later insertions,
> wrote approximately:
>
> > Technical skills (If you can then DO) won't get you as far as
> > people and business skills (If you can't DO, then MANAGE).
>
> Technical skills hold you back. When the technology
> changes, "ATT lays off 25,000 Engineers," what can you do
> for a living if all that you know is obsolete?
>
> With the best smile and handshake around you would
> have been promoted: You can't DO anymore, and so
> obviously you must now ...

We are discussing photography as a career, not engineering. In that
sense, photography is largely a service industry. However, creative is
not limited nor bounded by technology; technology is merely a tool for
expressing and sharing creativity.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com&gt;
!