I'm not havin' it !!!

the_monkey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23235771

Twaddle.

DaireQuinlan

the_monkey wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23235771

Twaddle.

How incisive of you. What a considered criticism. What informed commentary !

the_monkey

its bs, smartphones to give photos as good as top L class lenses ???

bs...

Corkbah

the_monkey wrote: »

its bs, smartphones to give photos as good as top L class lenses ???

bs...

smartphones are more than capable of getting a good sharp image and possibly doing better than a DSLR (well some DSLR's) .... if the conditions are favourable for the smartphone.

of course there are limitations to smartphones and they are generally only pin sharp for the first week or two after purchase, they are capable of producing stunning images. (in the hands of someone who knows how to get the best out of it)

the_monkey

Sure but put that sensor technology at the end of an L class lens and it will be even better, point is you'll never replace the lenses .

pete4130

The point is you won't ever replace large format...oh wait...35mm is popular

Anyway...the point is you won't ever replace manual focus successfully...oh wait...

Anyway...the point is you won't be able to make cheap, viable digital cameras for the masses....oh wait....

Anyway...the point is technology won't be able to make taking pictures any easier or better....oh wait...

"L" lenses are great at what they do and all that. They aren't so great at fitting in your pocket.

Splinters

Its obviously aimed at bog standard consumers, not photographers. Probably to the average punter this sensor can produce images as good as the big budget L lens. I'm sure they don't give a flying feck about accurate colour reproduction, wide aperture, chromatic aberration etc. Its just not their realm so I don't see the harm in it.

Corkbah

Splinters wrote: »

Its obviously aimed at bog standard consumers, not photographers. Probably to the average punter this sensor can produce images as good as the big budget L lens. I'm sure they don't give a flying feck about accurate colour reproduction, wide aperture, chromatic aberration etc. Its just not their realm so I don't see the harm in it.

if a camera can take sharp images, with reasonable colours ... I'm sure 70% of photographers wont care.... 24% would obviously be gear snobs (I'm a gear snob), and 6% will refuse to use technology they are unfamiliar with.

* =statistical data was plucked out of my ar$e.

Frank Lee Midere

Unless you're paid for it then you are not a photographer. In fact plenty of professionals use their smart phones.

Splinters

Have to call BS on that one. Anybody who takes a photograph is by definition a photographer. Without getting paid you can still be a good photographer, bad photographer, amateur photographer blah blah blah, you get the idea.

RustyNut

Corkbah wrote: »

* =statistical data was plucked out of my ar$e.

I hope the oul photography works out a bit better than the banking for ya.

Corkbah

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Unless you're paid for it then you are not a photographer. In fact plenty of professionals use their smart phones.

know a professional who has had images printed on the Irish Times and Irish Daily Star taken from a mobile phone (a few years ago)

pete4130

Splinters wrote: »

Have to call BS on that one. Anybody who takes a photograph is by definition a photographer. Without getting paid you can still be a good photographer, bad photographer, amateur photographer blah blah blah, you get the idea.

That means pretty much everyone you know is a photographer then.

I filmed something once so by definition I'm a videographer.

I painted a picture once so by definition I'm a painter.

I did some electrical work by changing a plug so by definition I'm an electrician.

I did some plumbing work when I plunged the toilet so by definition I'm a plumber.

I've done....etc...

Just because you do or have done something doesn't make you "that" particular thing you've done.

pete4130

Corkbah wrote: »

know a professional who has had images printed on the Irish Times and Irish Daily Star taken from a mobile phone (a few years ago)

The standard of imagery in current print media isn't a standard to go by. They take crap CCTV stills, cropped mobile photos, video stills....once it relates to the story and its the best/only image they have it'll run.

Corkbah

pete4130 wrote: »

That means pretty much everyone you know is a photographer then.

I filmed something once so by definition I'm a videographer.

I painted a picture once so by definition I'm a painter.

I did some electrical work by changing a plug so by definition I'm an electrician.

I did some plumbing work when I plunged the toilet so by definition I'm a plumber.

I've done....etc...

Just because you do or have done something doesn't make you "that" particular thing you've done.

we've had this before ... there is a difference between a "trade" and a profession .... photography is not a trade anymore since the invention of digital cameras so anyone who takes a photograph can call themselves a photographer, earning money from photography is a different issue....and so is being a professional photographer!!

and "painted a picture once" ....could also make you an "artist" ...and not a painter.

A tradesperson earns their qualification prior to earning money from their profession, a photographer does not need to be qualified to earn money.

Corkbah

pete4130 wrote: »

The standard of imagery in current print media isn't a standard to go by. They take crap CCTV stills, cropped mobile photos, video stills....once it relates to the story and its the best/only image they have it'll run.

so what standard do you go by ? .... different standards everywhere in photography ... photojournalism/commercial/PR/event/wedding -there is no standard photography apart from having an image sharp and sometimes it can be called "arty" if the image is not actually sharp !

pete4130

Corkbah wrote: »

A tradesperson earns their qualification prior to earning money from their profession, a photographer does not need to be qualified to earn money.

Trade, profession. Call it what you want.

A qualification is a piece of paper to say you've learned the basics about something, hopefully have an interest in it and want to build on it. It isn't a guide on quality of work, standards of practice of professional etiquette. This comes with experience.

While the arts is different to regular work and a recognised qualification is not needed. People new to photography, through digital photography that start to earn money from it after 1-2 years are generally of a poor standard, with a poor grasp on whats really involved. There are plenty of them around, some on this forum too. Taking 1000 jpegs and hoping to get something good isn't a photographer. Anybody with the motor neuron skills to push a button is a photographer. I could train a monkey to point a camera and push the button. Is that monkey a photographer? Are you that monkey?

This phenomena is able to happen with photography because of the lack of knowledge towards photography by the vast majority of people out there. They see someone with a camera and think "Ah, sure they have a proper camera. I'll ask them to take photos of my wedding/birthday/christening/event" and are generally happy with poor to mediocre results they receive as they are hopefully better than everyone else's smart phone photos, which are a baseline standard these days for some people.

The advent of digital cameras could be argued that it has eroded the quality of photography by bringing it so accessible to so many people. It's great its so cheap and almost anyone can pick up a camera. It's not great that some people delude themselves into thinking pop up flash and AUTO settings makes them a photographer.

There is a lot to be said for coming from the old school analogue formats. I'm not being elitist. If it costs you €10 a roll of film, €15 dev and scanning/print to get results you're much more inclined to focus on what you are doing than buying a €500 camera with a kit lens and then setting up a facebook photography page and starting to charge people for images.

But hey....thats just my opinion on the matter. you just have to ask yourself if yo had something important you wanted photographed would you go with the guy with the Canon 1100D he got last Xmas who's €150 or the guy who has been in the game for 20 years and done the hard yards and is looking for €400-500 for example?
It's an unfair question to ask on a photography forum as we are more informed than Joe Soap. Joe Soap will go for the €150 option 90% of the time.

pete4130

Corkbah wrote: »

so what standard do you go by ? .... different standards everywhere in photography ... photojournalism/commercial/PR/event/wedding -there is no standard photography apart from having an image sharp and sometimes it can be called "arty" if the image is not actually sharp !

Pardon the pun, but is it that black and white for you that a sharp image is commercial and an unsharp image is an "arty" image as you put it.

Standards change for different situations. A bad photo is still a bad photo.

Some of the better wedding photos for example, that I've seen have been deliberately blown out, shallow depth of field, tight crops, some out of focus and followed a theme/style that really worked and had some thought behind them. They were still of a very high standard even though they were technically so "wrong" in so many ways. It was a conscious choice by the photographer and it worked really, really well.

Splinters

Theres not really too much grey area on this. Its a word with a fixed definition. I wasn't trying to start a dialogue about what makes somebody a professional photographer. I was simply pointing out that a "photographer" is by definition any person who takes a photograph.

From Collins English Dictionary...

noun
a person who takes photographs, either as a hobby or a profession

I'll fully admit that the term "professional photographer" is massively open to interpretation but "photographer", not so much.

Corkbah

pete4130 wrote: »

Trade, profession. Call it what you want.

A qualification is a piece of paper to say you've learned the basics about something, hopefully have an interest in it and want to build on it. It isn't a guide on quality of work, standards of practice of professional etiquette. This comes with experience.

While the arts is different to regular work and a recognised qualification is not needed. People new to photography, through digital photography that start to earn money from it after 1-2 years are generally of a poor standard, with a poor grasp on whats really involved. There are plenty of them around, some on this forum too. Taking 1000 jpegs and hoping to get something good isn't a photographer. Anybody with the motor neuron skills to push a button is a photographer. I could train a monkey to point a camera and push the button. Is that monkey a photographer? Are you that monkey?

This phenomena is able to happen with photography because of the lack of knowledge towards photography by the vast majority of people out there. They see someone with a camera and think "Ah, sure they have a proper camera. I'll ask them to take photos of my wedding/birthday/christening/event" and are generally happy with poor to mediocre results they receive as they are hopefully better than everyone else's smart phone photos, which are a baseline standard these days for some people.

The advent of digital cameras could be argued that it has eroded the quality of photography by bringing it so accessible to so many people. It's great its so cheap and almost anyone can pick up a camera. It's not great that some people delude themselves into thinking pop up flash and AUTO settings makes them a photographer.

There is a lot to be said for coming from the old school analogue formats. I'm not being elitist. If it costs you €10 a roll of film, €15 dev and scanning/print to get results you're much more inclined to focus on what you are doing than buying a €500 camera with a kit lens and then setting up a facebook photography page and starting to charge people for images.

But hey....thats just my opinion on the matter. you just have to ask yourself if yo had something important you wanted photographed would you go with the guy with the Canon 1100D he got last Xmas who's €150 or the guy who has been in the game for 20 years and done the hard yards and is looking for €400-500 for example?
It's an unfair question to ask on a photography forum as we are more informed than Joe Soap. Joe Soap will go for the €150 option 90% of the time.

maybe were getting mixed up over nothing here ... as far as I'm concerned, a person that takes a photo can be called a photographer - this does not mean that can do the work of a photographer more simply it means they have the ability to press a button and take a photo... yes !

There are huge differences in knowledge and ability in all professions - a tradesperson (Electrician) would spend years learning the basics and after qualification they can earn both experience and money, similarly with photography - except there is no pre-requisite of learning anymore, since the launch of the digital era the standards of acceptability have dropped and with the internet people have a sense of entitlement so rules/laws are broken/ignored .... which allows for the drop in quality.

Yes, someone with a kit lens that they got the previous christmas is unlikely to do as good a job as a wedding photographer who has been at the game 20+ years ...in much the same way that a newly qualified electrician is unlikely to be as expensive when quoting a job than a full-time working electrician with 10/15yrs experience....and then of course you have the crowd of photographers who think if I undercut the other photographers or if I work for free I will make a name for myself and everyone will hire me and I'll be successful..... (if this sounds familiar to anyone reading it... please dont do it as it will rarely work and its only several months/years later that you realise how hard you worked and for what ??)

Anyway - I've jumped a bit.... I agree that the photography market is saturated - mainly because of people buying cameras and taking photos, the standard of these images vary but at the end of the day, as long as I keep getting work from clients I'll continue to work as a photographer....In my 30+(almost 40) years as a full-time working photographer I've seen dramatic changes ... if people are happy producing technically wrong images and are happy to sell them to clients ...then thats their business, if clients choose the lower class of photography to save money then it says a lot about the clients and sometimes its best not to work with those clients - I've made my own blacklist of clients whom I refuse to work with on the basis of previous experience and in one case clash of personalities, I'm fortunate that I can refuse work and have done so....but life isn't about work.

in response to the Christmas Camera versus established professional... it would depend on the job - if it was a straightforward image of a static object/person there would be no reason to choose the professional when the guy with the 1100D could do the job, the camera can only do so much ...if it was an awards presentation - I'd probably go with the professional as their experience and input into the background would be invaluable

Corkbah

pete4130 wrote: »

Pardon the pun, but is it that black and white for you that a sharp image is commercial and an unsharp image is an "arty" image as you put it.

Standards change for different situations. A bad photo is still a bad photo.

Some of the better wedding photos for example, that I've seen have been deliberately blown out, shallow depth of field, tight crops, some out of focus and followed a theme/style that really worked and had some thought behind them. They were still of a very high standard even though they were technically so "wrong" in so many ways. It was a conscious choice by the photographer and it worked really, really well.

but who defines if it is a bad photo ? as you have said the photographer deliberately did things for some wedding photos which you say were technically "wrong" but yet ... you liked it ...others may not.... do you like those images because they are a break from the norm and the photographer is testing the boundaries of what is acceptable or do you like them because they are different from the "standard" image.

I wasn't saying that an out of focus image is commercial and out of focus image is arty - please re-read my post.

pete4130

A bad photo is one that is crap. Crap by looks, technicality, execution and articulation to name a few aspects. Because an image is wrong in a lot of respects doesn't make it a bad image.

If you've been in the industry for near 4 years then you know what a bad photo is and don't need my opinion on it.

I think we are probably reading off the same page on this topic in fairness.

Going back on topic....it won't be long before technology in a few years make SLR's redundant perhaps. Who knows?

Snowie

Corkbah wrote: »

Yes, someone with a kit lens that they got the previous christmas is unlikely to do as good a job as a wedding photographer who has been at the game 20+ years ...in much the same way that a newly qualified electrician is unlikely to be as expensive when quoting a job than a full-time working electrician with 10/15yrs experience....and then of course you have the crowd of photographers who think if I undercut the other photographers or if I work for free I will make a name for myself and everyone will hire me and I'll be successful..... (if this sounds familiar to anyone reading it... please dont do it as it will rarely work and its only several months/years later that you realise how hard you worked and for what ??)

So what your saying is you need 20+ years of experience to be a good photographer, its not true its your approach that makes you good.

As for working for free you work hard for the gained experience you have to be prepared to start at the bottom if your lucky enough to be an assistant to a photographer while doing a few free jobs for charities. Its a good way of getting experience expanding your portfolio and putting what your learning with your mentor into practice on your own.

So there's a couple of reason why some one who wants to be a photographer or thinks they can be one can go there's no under cutting any one majority of photographer who I know and depend on it as an income. There all doing really well for them selves and oddly enough they started of just like the way I described above.

strange...

stcstc

Corkbah wrote: »

Yes, someone with a kit lens that they got the previous christmas is unlikely to do as good a job as a wedding photographer who has been at the game 20+ years ...in much the same way that a newly qualified electrician is unlikely to be as expensive when quoting a job than a full-time working electrician with 10/15yrs experience....and then of course you have the crowd of photographers who think if I undercut the other photographers or if I work for free I will make a name for myself and everyone will hire me and I'll be successful..... (if this sounds familiar to anyone reading it... please dont do it as it will rarely work and its only several months/years later that you realise how hard you worked and for what ??)

I dont think you can generalize like this

just because someone doesnt have experience doesnt mean they are not skilled

and someone with lots of experience does actually mean they are actually any good at taking pictures. after all wedding photography is a business, most of the skills are marketing, people, business type stuff. the photography is a small part of the job, so someone can be very good with people and business and take ok pictures and be successful

Corkbah

Snowie wrote: »

So what your saying is you need 20+ years of experience to be a good photographer, its not true its your approach that makes you good.

As for working for free you work hard for the gained experience you have to be prepared to start at the bottom if your lucky enough to be an assistant to a photographer while doing a few free jobs for charities. Its a good way of getting experience expanding your portfolio and putting what your learning with your mentor into practice on your own.

So there's a couple of reason why some one who wants to be a photographer or thinks they can be one can go there's no under cutting any one majority of photographer who I know and depend on it as an income. There all doing really well for them selves and oddly enough they started of just like the way I described above.

strange...

At no point am I saying that you need 20+ years of experience to be a good photographer, I was given a hypothethical situation between someone who had received a camera with kit lens and a professional with 20+ years of experience.... anyway - doesn't matter.

The vast majority of photographers today (in the digital world) do not want to spend months/years learning by doing assisting (basically being a dogs body and picking up a few hints/tips when the professional deems it suitable)....most people that purchase a DSLR consider themselves to be capable of doing the same as any other photographer.

magicbastarder

it's simple; someone who takes photos for their own enjoyment and does not earn a living from it is an amateur photographer, ergo is a photographer.

Zillah

pete4130 wrote: »

Trade, profession. Call it what you want...

You sound insecure and paranoid about the popularisation of photography. I'd be happy to concede that to call oneself a professional photographer it would need to be your primary form of income, but you mostly just sound bitter that the dirty plebs are getting to paddle in your pool.

pete4130

Zillah wrote: »

You sound insecure and paranoid about the popularisation of photography. I'd be happy to concede that to call oneself a professional photographer it would need to be your primary form of income, but you mostly just sound bitter that the dirty plebs are getting to paddle in your pool.

Anyone can call themselves a photographer. I can choose to call them, in my opinion a good photographer or a sh!te photographer and everyone else can have their own opinion too.

I'm not insecure or paranoid at all. I take and release photos I am happy with. It doesn't mean they are good photos in everyone's opinion. Some people might think they are crap. Thats great!

I think I've refused any sort of payment for the past 6-7 years at this stage (apart from NME yoinking some photos). The money side doesn't interest me. I'm probably owed about AU$3-4K from publications here in Australia over the last year but don't care about it.

I'm far from professional. I'm self taught so I don't know what pool you refer to?

I don't have a pool for dirty plebs to swim in. If I did, I'd be rich from charging for the privilege to swim in my pool.
I'm not rich though...go figure!

The popularisation of photography is great! It keeps forums like this alive with discussions like these for one thing.

My main income is from mining/gas industry where the income of photography is irrelevant in comparison. I still value my photography as more important than the multi million AU$ work I do on a day to day basis.


One is a means to pay the bills. One is a means to enjoy myself.

Corkbah

pete4130 wrote: »

Anyone can call themselves a photographer. I can choose to call them, in my opinion a good photographer or a sh!te photographer and everyone else can have their own opinion too.

I'm not insecure or paranoid at all. I take and release photos I am happy with. It doesn't mean they are good photos in everyone's opinion. Some people might think they are crap. Thats great!

I think I've refused any sort of payment for the past 6-7 years at this stage (apart from NME yoinking some photos). The money side doesn't interest me. I'm probably owed about AU$3-4K from publications here in Australia over the last year but don't care about it.

I'm far from professional. I'm self taught so I don't know what pool you refer to?

I don't have a pool for dirty plebs to swim in. If I did, I'd be rich from charging for the privilege to swim in my pool.
I'm not rich though...go figure!

The popularisation of photography is great! It keeps forums like this alive with discussions like these for one thing.

My main income is from mining/gas industry where the income of photography is irrelevant in comparison. I still value my photography as more important than the multi million AU$ work I do on a day to day basis.


One is a means to pay the bills. One is a means to enjoy myself.

so ...am I correct in saying you do some photography as a sideline within your main job ? as well as your personal interests/images.

thebaz

the only thing that keeps my interest in photography going is an individuals creativity - not sure anyone could do it for the money these days - I was over in galstonbury taking photographs - we were all marched into the pit , to take our shots - then marched out again, as is the norm , suddenly one photographer stopped to take a photograph of a flag on stage , and nearly 80% copied him and started taking the same photograph of this flag - and these guys and girls had the best of equipment - so its not about the tools or how amazing they are , for me , its whether you can be somewhat unique

pete4130

Not quite correct. I've worked with photography being my main income before. It wasn't for me.

I didn't enjoy at all taking photos for other people that I didn't really have a big interest in. Some jobs I'd be stoked on, others not so.

Working in the industry I do (working 2,3,4 weeks away at a time) I've chosen to bring my camera and document that.

The LNG (liquidified Natural Gas) industry is badly reflected on in media. I'm jot saying its good or bad either way. I just want to document what I'm doing, where I'm at an whats going on in my world.

Right now I'm in a super strict work camp (no photography allowed at all....sackable offence including camera phone). as its a ground breaking new technology of processing that takes 5 years to construct....).

I live in a camp/village (with tenis courts, pools, basketball courts, football pitches etc...) right next to the work site. I'd LOVE to jump the fence on the sly one night and creep up thought the rainforest (hopefully not get die from snake bite in there...which is not uncommon) and set up a long exposure shot of the MASSIVE site I'm working on. They have a bus service from one end of the site to the other.....it's that big. Getting caught is sackable, criminal offence, massive fines, visa revoked...so its a big decision to make..