If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
In article
, RichA wrote: There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work. I've been asked numerous times by people to shoot weddings or portraits and I'll never do it. I'm not a pro photog and I can't ask the prices they would so I won't degrade their profession's reputation by doing a job I have no training or major experience doing. It's not as dire a someone without a medical license practicing medicine, but the results to the particular profession are just as bad, maybe worse. I've been doing photography in various forms for over 45 years - 16+ operating my own portrait studio. I estimate that I've photographed 600-700 weddings which isn't much compared to some in the biz. But it's still a lot. What passes these days for professional photography is mostly crap. I hate the crooked horizons and washed out trendy junk. Nobody learns about light and shadow, musculature, posing, etc. And with digital, the craftsmanship is gone. Today, all you have to do is press a button, and you'll probably get something well-exposed and in focus. You don't have to spend time in a darkroom sloshing around chemicals...using the right combination of film, paper, and chemistry. I'm glad I got out of it when I did. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:55:04 -0800, "Mr. Strat"
wrote: : I've been doing photography in various forms for over 45 years - 16+ : operating my own portrait studio. I estimate that I've photographed : 600-700 weddings which isn't much compared to some in the biz. But it's : still a lot. Certainly. : What passes these days for professional photography is mostly crap. I : hate the crooked horizons and washed out trendy junk. Nobody learns : about light and shadow, musculature, posing, etc. I'm sure some do, but I suppose you're basically right. : And with digital, the craftsmanship is gone. Today, all you have to do : is press a button, and you'll probably get something well-exposed and : in focus. You don't have to spend time in a darkroom sloshing around : chemicals...using the right combination of film, paper, and chemistry. But so what? Craftsmanship isn't what matters; results are. If some things about modern photography are easier or quicker, what's wrong with that? Doesn't it give you more time to spend on artistic judgement, rectification of mistakes, exploitation of special effects, etc.? Or to take a different point of view, to get more work done in a given time and be more price competitive? : I'm glad I got out of it when I did. If the shoe fits, wear it. But I'm probably as old as you are, and I'm glad to be getting my toe in the water now. When photography was added to my duties at work, I leapt at the opportunity; in the film era I might have ducked it. Time will tell whether I made the right choice, but I'm happy with my decision so far. Bob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:15:31 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: "Mr. Strat" wrote: : In article : , : RichA wrote: : There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third : Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing : jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting : the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work. : : I've been asked numerous times by people to shoot weddings or : portraits and I'll never do it. I'm not a pro photog and I can't ask : the prices they would so I won't degrade their profession's reputation : by doing a job I have no training or major experience doing. It's not : as dire a someone without a medical license practicing medicine, but : the results to the particular profession are just as bad, maybe : worse. : : I've been doing photography in various forms for over 45 years - 16+ : operating my own portrait studio. I estimate that I've photographed : 600-700 weddings which isn't much compared to some in the biz. But it's : still a lot. : : What passes these days for professional photography is mostly crap. I : hate the crooked horizons and washed out trendy junk. Nobody learns : about light and shadow, musculature, posing, etc. : : And with digital, the craftsmanship is gone. Today, all you have to do : is press a button, and you'll probably get something well-exposed and : in focus. You don't have to spend time in a darkroom sloshing around : chemicals...using the right combination of film, paper, and chemistry. : : I'm glad I got out of it when I did. : : : My sentiments exactly. I think wedding photography is one of the most : stressful jobs I have ever done. I am *so* glad that I don't do it : anymore. It was good while it lasted, but even better when it : stopped. ;-) : : I think the idea of buying 20 inexpensive digital cameras and giving : them to the wedding guests is a very good one. Whoever then has the : job of collating and editing the results into a coherent record of the : event will soon realise that wedding photography is rather more : difficult than it might first appear, especially when the formal shots : that people want (despite their prior protestations to the contrary) : do not appear among those taken. I've been to two or three weddings where they did that, but I believe there was always a professional photographer there too. Bob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems MC wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote: It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people can take good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with hours in darkrooms and thousands spend at labs. What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have a decent camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that, to a greater and greater extent, the only thing that separates pros from amateurs is the photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter, and doesn't help. But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good. This leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate photographic services as being the norm. Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived. Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the problem with satisfying it? The people who can tell the difference between good and bad photographs will naturally want to hire a good photographer, so what are the good photographers complaining about? Surely not that they used to get paid for good photographs by people who would have been happy with cheap bad photographs but the technical difficulties and costs of photography made it difficult for cheap bad photographers to exist? -- Chris Malcolm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good
photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the problem with satisfying it? The people who can tell the difference between good and bad photographs will naturally want to hire a good photographer, so what are the good photographers complaining about? Surely not that they used to get paid for good photographs by people who would have been happy with cheap bad photographs but the technical difficulties and costs of photography made it difficult for cheap bad photographers to exist? -- Chris Malcolm Many people will hire a "pro" because: - they had a recommendation. - they hope the pro won't mess things up, and you will get a set of photos. - the pro has the authority to discipline those present into groups, which a friend of the family might not. - the pro knows what the expected shots are, and will be able to work to a checklist. - it's a pay and forget approach, and something less to worry about on the day. I suspect that the quality of the gear or of the images is not high on the list of reasons! Mind you, it's not a circle I move in these days, so I may be quite wrong. Cheers, David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
In article , Bruce
wrote: My sentiments exactly. I think wedding photography is one of the most stressful jobs I have ever done. I am *so* glad that I don't do it anymore. It was good while it lasted, but even better when it stopped. ;-) I think the idea of buying 20 inexpensive digital cameras and giving them to the wedding guests is a very good one. Whoever then has the job of collating and editing the results into a coherent record of the event will soon realise that wedding photography is rather more difficult than it might first appear, especially when the formal shots that people want (despite their prior protestations to the contrary) do not appear among those taken. A lot of what I see are images taken outside. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have rain nine months out of the year. Since none of these amateurs knows how to use more than one flash, I wonder how they do it. And you're right...they want to do all these artsy things but ignore the basic bread-and-buttter shots that people want (and buy). Eh...just give 'em a CD or DVD and call it good. Very bad business plan. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote: It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people can take good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with hours in darkrooms and thousands spend at labs. What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have a decent camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that, to a greater and greater extent, the only thing that separates pros from amateurs is the photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter, and doesn't help. No, I'm bitter that people with no talent or understanding of the basics are screwing people out of their hard-earned money. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
In article , MC
wrote: But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good. This leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate photographic services as being the norm. Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived. Ka-ching! We have a winner here. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions erodedby hacks?
On 1/29/2012 12:33 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people can take good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with hours in darkrooms and thousands spend at labs. What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have a decent camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that, to a greater and greater extent, the only thing that separates pros from amateurs is the photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter, and doesn't help. But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good. This leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate photographic services as being the norm. Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived. Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the problem with satisfying it? Agreed The people who can tell the difference between good and bad photographs will naturally want to hire a good photographer, so what are the good photographers complaining about? Surely not that they used to get paid for good photographs by people who would have been happy with cheap bad photographs but the technical difficulties and costs of photography made it difficult for cheap bad photographers to exist? Neither. Photographers are complaining about substantial changes in the nature of the business. Obtaining a stock image is considerably less expensive than hiring a photographer to do a location shoot. There is a proliferation of good to excellent stock photographs that are easily reviewed for acceptability. There are a substantial number of potential customers who are able to satisfy their needs with this stock. The work still has to meet a certain standard, whatever that is, to be accepted by a stock house. -- Peter |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:42:33 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: Mr. Strat writes: : : No, I'm bitter that people with no talent or understanding of the : basics are screwing people out of their hard-earned money. : : But they aren't, as long as their clients are happy with their work. : : What has really happened is that anyone can be a photographer now. : It is no longer possible for mediocre photographers to pretend to be : good just because they've spent a lot on equipment. : : Likewise, photographers with talent but no money now have a chance : to use their talent, whereas before they were locked out by the high : cost of equipment. That argument can be pushed only so far, though. Better equipment makes almost any photographer better. The more skilled a photographer already is, the more difference better equipment makes. Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|