This forum has ruined photography for me...

Promac

... because the standard is soo bloody high!

I was a film photographer a long time ago and gave it up for various reasons. A few years ago I bought a 450D and got back into it but had to relearn it all. I made the "mistake" of doing that here. Now everything new is old and nothing is good enough.

Screw you guys for being so awesome.

dinneenp

don't forget that several (maybe a fair few) people that post here are professional photographers.

Kenny Logins

dinneenp wrote: »

don't forget that several (maybe a fair few) people that post here are professional photographers.

Does that (getting paid) make a difference...?

ado100

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Does that (getting paid) make a difference...?

I don't know about you, but I find getting paid makes a huge difference.

Oh, I see what you mean...:D

dinneenp

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Does that (getting paid) make a difference...?

Yes and no.
This has been debated slightly before to some extent.

I know there's the debate that some here could turn pro if they wanted, in theory the only difference is that a pro gets paid for his/her work but the reality is different.

In theory a professional photogrpaher should be a better than an amateur photographer; he/she takes photographs for a living so should understand settings inside out, have more expensive equiptment, more experience and may be focused on one area (weddings, sport, commercial).

If I post up a photo of a rubgy match and see another superior photo of a rugby match AND I knew it was a pro that took it then I might think differently if comparing my photo to the pros photo.

If you were down your local on karakoe night as someone blew the crowd away, afterwards they told you they're in a band you might think that explains why they're so good/better than you....

superflyninja

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Does that (getting paid) make a difference...?

Yes I think it does. If photography is their main income then they obviously devote a lot more time perfecting their techniques than weekend shooters could.

DaireQuinlan

dinneenp wrote: »

In theory a professional photogrpaher should be a better than an amateur photographer; he/she takes photographs for a living so should understand settings inside out, have more expensive equiptment, more experience and may be focused on one area (weddings, sport, commercial).

For some definition of the word 'better'. Also 'photography'.

Kenny Logins

superflyninja wrote: »

Yes I think it does. If photography is their main income then they obviously devote a lot more time perfecting their techniques than weekend shooters could.

Yep, that's what you'd think, but I don't believe that is the case. The difference between pros and amateurs isn't always visible IMHO. What about togs in transition? Where do they fit in?

Kenny Logins

dinneenp wrote: »

Yes and no.
This has been debated slightly before to some extent.

I know there's the debate that some here could turn pro if they wanted, in theory the only difference is that a pro gets paid for his/her work but the reality is different.

In theory a professional photogrpaher should be a better than an amateur photographer; he/she takes photographs for a living so should understand settings inside out, have more expensive equiptment, more experience and may be focused on one area (weddings, sport, commercial).

If I post up a photo of a rubgy match and see another superior photo of a rugby match AND I knew it was a pro that took it then I might think differently if comparing my photo to the pros photo.

If you were down your local on karakoe night as someone blew the crowd away, afterwards they told you they're in a band you might think that explains why they're so good/better than you....

Oh yeah, I see where you're coming from now.

dave66

superflyninja wrote: »

Yes I think it does. If photography is their main income then they obviously devote a lot more time perfecting their techniques than weekend shooters could.

The question then becomes 3 questions:

(A) Do the actually devote time perfecting their techniques or just use the the same techniques without doing any prefecting?
(B) If they do devote time to perfecting their techniques, do they succeed?
(C) Even if the do devote time to perfecting techniques and they do succeed, does this mean that their better than some amateurs, who seem to have an inate talent & eye?

There are certainly amateur photographers here, who produce such high quality work that they'd stand up against those who make their living from photography.

I've seen images here, from amateurs, that sometimes make me think, oh sh*te why do I bother. But it doesn't stop me from trying to improve.

DaireQuinlan

Kenny Logins wrote: »

YWhat about togs in transition? Where do they fit in?

Always in your cabin baggage, NEVER in your checked luggage !

melekalikimaka

the old chestnut again.

I thouight we all settled on the idea that you can only be a professional if you have a degree in photography??


:rolleyes:

dinneenp

If there's no difference why are some photography competitions open to amateurs only?
(I know there's more than one answer to that including some amateurs might be 'scared' to enter if pros can too)

Paulw

superflyninja wrote: »

If photography is their main income then they obviously devote a lot more time perfecting their techniques than weekend shooters could.

Professional photographers tend to spend more time running a business than they do taking photos.

Being a professional doesn't mean you take better photos. It just usually means you charge more for the work.

amdgilmore

You are a professional if you have a Facebook page with your name followed by the word 'Photography'.

superflyninja

Well I think dineenp's longer post -

In theory a professional photogrspher should be a better than an amateur photographer; he/she takes photographs for a living so should understand settings inside out, have more expensive equipment, more experience and may be focused on one area (weddings, sport, commercial).

fleshed out more what I meant by my shorter post.
Innate ability or having a good eye aside, just going by the adage that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert a pro (ie full time) tog will be able to pump far more time into photography compared to the amateur(if they choose to). Plus the access to pro equipment is a big factor(yes it does make a difference, someone shooting a landscape on a full frame with expensive glass,sturdy tripod and big stopper etc will produce a very different image to an iphone shot).
There are some excellent amateurs on here and I dont know who is pro or not. But I agree with the OP....the quality in here is getting very high. To the point where I dont bother posting a lot of shots or try and get C&C anymore. Then again maybe if i did look for C&C I might improve.....

superflyninja

Paulw wrote: »

Professional photographers tend to spend more time running a business than they do taking photos.

Being a professional doesn't mean you take better photos. It just usually means you charge more for the work.

but their photos are of such a high standard that they CAN charge Or am I being naive???

DaireQuinlan

superflyninja wrote: »

but their photos are of such a high standard that they CAN charge Or am I being naive???

Yes. Both professional and amateur photographers run the gamut from completely crap to sublime brilliance. The only difference is that the professional is doing it to pay the bills. That's about it.

ScumLord

dinneenp wrote: »

In theory a professional photogrpaher should be a better than an amateur photographer; he/she takes photographs for a living so should understand settings inside out, have more expensive equiptment, more experience and may be focused on one area (weddings, sport, commercial).

I think the equipment they use goes a long way to distinguishing them against amateurs. There are many shots we see that are beyond amateurs simply because they don't have the right equipment. Having that equipment also helps them understand the process more I think.

dinneenp

Paulw wrote: »

Professional photographers tend to spend more time running a business than they do taking photos.

Being a professional doesn't mean you take better photos. It just usually means you charge more for the work.

I shot 2.5 weddings for friends (.5 wedding- I wans't the main photogrpaher, just had a 50mm lens and suprised the bride afterwards with a photobook) and was happy with the results some photos here and from the .5 wedding here. I'm doing a third wedding in December as well.

I've learnt a lot about photography since my .5 wedding, through shooting more weddings, having better & more equipement, shooting more in general.

Compare this to a pro wedding photogrpaher who has shot, say, 500+ weddings. He/she (should) know inside out lighting, best locations for particular shots etc. without even thinking.

So I'd imagine him/her to have better shots.
Not saying mine aren't good and some might be as good as a pro would get but in general it's not the same.

I know people half joke and say differenc is a pro gets paid, so for OP get someone to pay you €10 for a photo, add 'professional photogrpaher' to your facebook page and you're a pro and therefore your pictures will improve.

(the .5 wedding was about 5 years ago and I didn't have freedom to move around the church.)

Paulw

dinneenp wrote: »

Compare this to a pro wedding photogrpaher who has shot, say, 500+ weddings. He/she (should) know inside out lighting, best locations for particular shots etc. without even thinking.

If a pro wedding photographer is shooting more than 100 weddings a year, then they have a poor business model. They are clearly not charging enough to maintain their business. Especially considering that there are only 365 days in a year, so they shoot one wedding each day and then have no time to process images?

Any good wedding photographer I know would only shoot approx 50-60 weddings in a year. They charge what they need to give themselves time to process the images and still make enough to live on.

But, yeah, they should know light better, as well as the venue where they will be shooting.

the_monkey

You should see it as a good thing, it will raise your level what ever happens, don't compare your shots with the ones here (at least not yet!) compare them to your own old shots and you'll see a huge improvment.

km991148

ye - would be handy if there was a complete beginner/idiotic mistake forum and then when you reached a certain level you got booted out

superflyninja

the_monkey wrote: »

You should see it as a good thing, it will raise your level what ever happens, don't compare your shots with the ones here (at least not yet!) compare them to your own old shots and you'll see a huge improvment.

Yup that is very good advice. But its very easy to forget/ignore!

Mountainsandh

How do you get to Carnegie Hall ? Prr...actice !

I do think the pros have an advantage over the rest of us enthusiasts, since they are "forced" to take photographs for a living, they just have to practice on a regular basis.

I spend weeks without taking a single photo, you know the drill... life takes over, not enough time, when I have the time I don't always have the motivation... like a lot of enthusiasts, I'm mildly spurred on to take a pic for a club competition once in a while... then I go through a phase when all I want is to be out taking pics, can't get enough of it, then life takes over...

So from frantic phase to slow phase, I feel like I'm taking one step forward two steps back... I doubt pros ever have a chance to take a step back.

Promac, I do find the standard here extremely high, but it's great, it's inspiring, and the Random thread is great because it does fluctuate enough to allow me to feel comfortable posting more amateurish shots once in a while.
But yeah, it's refreshing and heartening when people dare to post shots that are a little less... "wowcha" sometimes. I wish there was a bit more of that sometimes.

thedarkroom

This old chestnut again!
First thing, in relation to the standard of photography here, it should always be kept as high as possible so that it will inspire others who feel their ability is lacking and need direction. If we are looking at crap all the time then people will just lose interest. By all means put up your work, good or bad, and look for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and ignore the trolls who will criticize everything. Everyone should benefit from all constructive criticism, no matter who's photographs are in the firing line.
Second; The argument about ability of professionals versus amateurs really is irrelevant. The quality of the photo is what matters. Quality is based on several factors, not just technical or having the right equipment. It goes deeper than that. A professional is a professional because they take a professional attitude to their work, ie. they get paid for their work (not necessarily full time) and they approach their work in a professional manner. How often have you gone out and shot a few portraits, landscapes or events but without the pressure of a deadline. An amateur would not have to be too concerned about this but a professional must and must also provide the quality usable pictures. Yes, there are many professional photographers who behave in an unprofessional manner and miss deadlines and provide shoddy work, but karma will eventually take care of that. A professional, generally, will be expected to use the appropriate equipment for the job they are doing. Has anyone seen Ray McManus' kit in Sportsfile. Seriously impressive and certainly up to the job. Not something you could do with a Nikon D300 and a 55-200 f4/5.6 (I know someone will surely correct me on this, complete with examples).
An amateur can revisit work on a regular basis at their own pace and eventually display their work when they feel it is acceptable. Can you define when someone stops being an amateur and becomes a professional, based on work undertaken? Not easy but if a competition says amateurs only, then what do you do. Would consider yourself a hobbyist because you do a couple of commissions a year (half dozen at most)? So what, then, does that do for your perceived amateur status? Would you enter a competition that is for amateurs only if you do a few commissions? Could you defend yourself if you won first prize? Where do you draw the line?
Having said all that, for the photography forums, I would feel that any photograph posted is acceptable, regardless of its quality or the shooter's status.
Finally, even though I teach photography, I don't think a degree in photography is absolutely essential if you want to become a professional photographer but by doing such a course it will expose (sorry for the pun) you to a other areas that you might never have encountered. It will make you operate outside your comfort zone, something that would be essential experience for a professional, and would allow you experiment without the pressure of meeting professional obligations.

As usual, sorry for the long post. I don't post often but what I lack in frequency I make up for in length.

sprinkles

Promac wrote: »

... because the standard is soo bloody high!

I was a film photographer a long time ago and gave it up for various reasons. A few years ago I bought a 450D and got back into it but had to relearn it all. I made the "mistake" of doing that here. Now everything new is old and nothing is good enough.

Screw you guys for being so awesome.

Now look what you've gone and done!

Dave!

Having read some of the photographer profiles in this forum I was pleasantly surprised to learn that some of them haven't been shooting for very many years. That can be a motivator; shows that it doesn't have to take a lifetime to be able to produce something that I'd be happy with.

Promac

The best analogy I've come up with to describe the difference between amateur and pro photography is professional car driving. A very, very few lucky professionals are race-car drivers and have a glamorous and lavish life but most people who make money from driving are taxi drivers and truckers and bus drivers and delivery people, etc. The guys who do it on the weekend because they love it are probably gonna be better at it than most of the professionals who do it because they need the money.

Same with professional photography - it's mostly weddings and christenings and football matches and rallies in Donegal and it's the same job every week and if you're really, really lucky it won't put you off picking up a camera in your free time.

squareballoon

I've moved out of professional photography and now just plan to do it as a hobby. What I love about this board is not just the really, really techniquely excellent photography but the newbies who try new things that a seasoned photographer wouldn't bother with. The quirky shots.

When I started out in 2007 I used to drool over the photographs my idols took. I thought if I could get take one picture like theirs I would be happy. About a year ago I revisited one of those photographer's sites and I searched and searched for the images that had once awed me and all I saw were mediocre images. I think sometimes as we progress we lose sight of how we're improving ourselves.

dirtyghettokid

<squareballoon's post>

this ^^^
it's amazing, isn't it! our tastes change over time, i think too.
some of the landscape shots i see now, that i used to be in awe of, kinda of just bore me now. even my own stuff bores me. i get excited by different styles these days. i think it's exposure to so many different styles on this forum. different subjects, and techniques. it's interesting. i find myself liking stuff that i wouldn't have years ago, cos their colours didn't pop or whatever.

i think photography is more enjoyable when you do it for yourself, and not to pay the bills.