Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: JeffColburn on September 30, 2010, 02:56:58 pm
-
Lately, many photographers, including myself, have been complaining about the negative impact that digital photography has had on the photography industry.
Some of these complaints include:
- Amateur photographers taking work away from professionals.
- Image buyers purchasing images from microstock sites, and paying pennies where they used to pay thousands.
- The photography market is being flooded with new, and less skilled photographers.
- Photo buyers are satisfied with buying cheaper mediocre images instead of more expensive great ones. Mainly because their clients don't care if images are just mediocre.
These, and other complaints, are all part of the industry changing. Similar complaints were probably heard in photography when people started going from black and white to color, and from view cameras to 35mm cameras.
Photographers shouldn't feel singled out. Many industries have been negatively impacted by a world going from analog to digital, including: music, movies, newspapers and magazines.
The photography industry will change and adapt. That's what always happens. The photographers who take great photos, are good at marketing and know how to use the digital revolution to their advantage will be fine. Those who don't do all three of these will have limited to no success. There will be a purging of the photography field, and a redesign of the industry, but that's life. Change is inevitable, it just depends how you deal with it to determine if it's good or bad for you.
Comments?
Have Fun,
Jeff
-
Jeff, I've got news for you. I don't know whether or not you're a pro because you don't list a URL for a web, and I don't know how old you are because you're of N/A age. But:
(1) "amateur" photographers have been taking work away from "professionals" at least since 1943 when I first started photographing.
(2) I don't remember when buyers used to pay thousands unless they were dealing with a pro like Gene Smith, and even then, considering the extent to which our currency has been debased, I doubt they were paying Gene "thousands" for a single shot. Probably more like hundreds. Not long ago someone on LuLa mentioned buying prints from Ansel Adams for twenty-five bucks a pop.
(3) The "new and less skilled photographers" always were out there, but if people are buying more pictures from them nowadays the problem is with the people doing the buying, not with the new and less skilled photographers.
(4) If photo buyers are satisfied with buying cheaper mediocre images instead of more expensive great ones, mainly because their clients don't care if images are just mediocre, again the problem is with the buyers and their clients not because there are more mediocre images out there.
But you're absolutely right. Change is inevitable, and the market will adjust. The main difference is that with the web, people have a much wider choice available and wide competition keeps prices down. The same thing's true for everything from cars to socks. That range includes photographs.
-
Hello,
Google is your friend. He has various sites including http://www.thecreativescorner.com/ http://www.creativecauldron.com/ and http://www.stockphotosarizona.com/
I think in today's web and digital imagery world there is undoubtably more supply. My hunch would be that the clever photographer would choose to compete by producing material that amateurs cannot possibly compete with.
-
Nass, I'm not sure what you take as the difference is between an "amateur" and a "professional," but let me assure you that there's nothing a professional can do that an amateur can't do. You're assuming that "professional" implies good photography. What it actually implies is paying photography. Sometimes that's very good photography since most pros are experienced folks, but sometimes it's pretty bad. Walk down your main street and look in your local photographers' windows to see what I mean. Experience often leads to technical competence but it doesn't necessarily lead to an ability to look and see.
-
RSL, actually you're saying the same as me. Because amateurs can be really good, why then compete in the same arena? Which is why I would have thought that the thing to do would be to produce work that amateurs with day jobs can't really do. Like I dunno, go stay in some country during some season observing things that Jo Smo like myself, rooted in middle class comfort in some place with 2.2 kids and a job just doesn't ever think about going to. ie change the goalposts. I know it's not quite that simple, and I'm just theorising, but hey, makes some sense to me.
-
^^ see, I think you're doing exactly what I mean fredjeang. I mean there's nwih I as an amateur have access to top-models & celebrities. So I simply cannot compete. Now if you were to specialise in landscapes of English churches, well I could (almost) compete because hey, I can jump in my car and go there too!
Again, simplistic, but maybe it helps to show what I'm (badly) trying to explain =)
-
I mean there's nwih I as an amateur have access to top-models & celebrities. So I simply cannot compete.
You can get a model to pose for you by paying them with money - just like a pro. You get access to top-models by having a solid portfolio and paying even more, or getting someone else to pay the bills - just like a pro. You can get a celebrity to pose for you by producing outstanding, unique and desired photos - just like a pro.
No pro starts their business with magical access to top-models and celebrities. They build their portfolio and reputation over years and years. Granted, they probably spend more time with it than a dedicated amateur - but I guarantee that if your portfolio is as good as Marco Glaviano's without the top models and celebs, you'll get the top models and celebs to pose for you, no matter what your status as a pro is.
-
^^ see, I think you're doing exactly what I mean fredjeang. I mean there's nwih I as an amateur have access to top-models & celebrities. So I simply cannot compete. Now if you were to specialise in landscapes of English churches, well I could (almost) compete because hey, I can jump in my car and go there too!
Again, simplistic, but maybe it helps to show what I'm (badly) trying to explain =)
Having access to "exotic" locales is an asset only if you understand your ultimate audience and/or have a story you want to tell. You could probably make a go of Landscapes of English Churches targeted at the Asian tourist markets. Probably not a lot of people filling that space, yet. While selling the same print at a local market most likely won't get you much.
Come to think of it, I bet your local council would like the idea of a promotional calendar that could be used to promote tourism in the area. But you better hurry up. I'll be spending lots of time in the Lakes District starting in 2012.
-
(2) I don't remember when buyers used to pay thousands unless they were dealing with a pro like Gene Smith, and even then, considering the extent to which our currency has been debased, I doubt they were paying Gene "thousands" for a single shot. Probably more like hundreds. Not long ago someone on LuLa mentioned buying prints from Ansel Adams for twenty-five bucks a pop.
Russ,
I have to correct a small detail in your point #2. My first prints from Ansel in the mid 1960s cost me $6 each (8x10" contact prints, mounted, signed, numbered). I did buy a couple of outrageously expensive Edward Weston prints, too, printed by his son Cole. Those cost $25 each.
Cheers,
Eric
-
Jeff, I've got news for you. I don't know whether or not you're a pro because you don't list a URL for a web, and I don't know how old you are because you're of N/A age.
Pro / 54 / sold first image to a magazine 35 years ago / It's very tiny, but check my signature and you'll see a link to http://www.TheCreativesCorner.com
(1) "amateur" photographers have been taking work away from "professionals" at least since 1943 when I first started photographing.
True, I had to explain to more than one art director why he should hire me instead of hiring a recent graduate who would work for nothing except images for his/her portfolio. However, the number of amateurs in competition with pros has skyrocketed with digital photography.
(2) I don't remember when buyers used to pay thousands unless they were dealing with a pro like Gene Smith, and even then, considering the extent to which our currency has been debased, I doubt they were paying Gene "thousands" for a single shot. Probably more like hundreds. Not long ago someone on LuLa mentioned buying prints from Ansel Adams for twenty-five bucks a pop.
I used to see it rather frequently with magazine covers and other areas.
But you're absolutely right. Change is inevitable, and the market will adjust. The main difference is that with the web, people have a much wider choice available and wide competition keeps prices down. The same thing's true for everything from cars to socks. That range includes photographs.
Very true.
Have Fun,
Jeff
-
I'm not sure what you take as the difference is between an "amateur" and a "professional," but let me assure you that there's nothing a professional can do that an amateur can't do.
Your correct, sort of. I always tell people that when an amateur takes a great picture he says, "Wow, look what I did." When a professional takes a great picture he says, "That's what I expected."
A pro knows his equipment, how to get the image he wants, and how to get that image every time.
Have Fun,
Jeff
-
I suspect that much of the theory here is just that: theory.
Nobody who actually did work with real stock libraries would be surprised by the thousand buck sale: even I had a few. Just as relevantly, nobody with the same experience would claim that micro has improved the stock industry. Why do you imagine the original, big agencies got into it, bought so many micros? Because of one thing: the micros were killing the economics of the industry itself, not just the snappers, but the agencies too. You buy, absorb and hope to smother. But it was too late: the effin' genie was out of the bottle and also the wider economy fell off the cliff.
But not everything has gone sour; some still do make a lot of money and some deserve to so do. It's just that the numbers in that position appear much smaller and certainly not as spread over the spectrum of practice as was the case years ago.
Access to models. It depends, and always did, on far more than just money and how good one's snaps. I have news for those who hold the view that that's all that matters: remember the Shrimp? Hardly available to all comers, even though in her day the fee wasn't really that much. Even with my pinup calendars, big clients with huge resources, even there I ran into the occasional situation where I could not get the person I wanted for one reason or another - even one as simple as jealousy: not of me, but of the girl not being permitted, by the boyfriend, to travel on trips... it's true.
As for celebrities, the magazines now often have to accept the photographer that her/his PR company says is going to do the shoot! If anything, I believe it has become more difficult than ever to break into the business, and as always, it is more people orientated than talent orientated. Isn't everything, when you scratch the surface?
Rob C
-
A pro knows his equipment, how to get the image he wants, and how to get that image every time.
Have Fun,
Jeff
Exactly!
If you are contracted by, let's say Chanel, they will hire a "big boy" because of his/ artistic talent and background, BUT because also: failure is not an option.
I'm not sure this is a point really understood (and in its implications) when this topic amateur-pro shows up.
-
Your correct, sort of. I always tell people that when an amateur takes a great picture he says, "Wow, look what I did." When a professional takes a great picture he says, "That's what I expected."
A pro knows his equipment, how to get the image he wants, and how to get that image every time.
Jeff, It's a good point, but an experienced amateur knows his equipment and knows how to get that image every time, and when he gets it he says the same thing the pro says. The difference is that the pro has to get the image he was after. The amateur doesn't.
Also, a lot depends on what kind of "pro" you're talking about. The guy who does fashion can set up his shots. The photojournalist doesn't have that advantage. The fashion guy always gets what he expected. The journalist doesn't always get what he expected. Sometimes he gets more than he expected. Sometimes less. Same thing's true of the amateur when he does the same kind of shoot.
-
I think the distinction between "pro" and "amateur" is pretty basic.
1: True Professional: A person who can comfortably pay all of his bills, and who lives (and eats-off-of) the money he makes as a photographer;
2: Semi-Pro: Eats and pays most of his bills off of other-generated income, but who supplements his income with (i.e., occasionally makes a profit off of) his photographs;
3. Amateur/Wanna-Be: A person who "takes photographs," but hasn't yet been paid for them, and who would starve to death within a week relying on the non-existant income generated from his work.
With that said, I would always listen to the advice of a successful professional over anyone else on the subject of making money as a professional photographer. More specifically, I would listen to the advice from someone within the field of photographic specialization that interests me. For example, model photography holds little interest for me, so the goings-on in this offshoot-profession wouldn't apply to me. But a published and successful nature photographer would have things to say that would benefit me, as that is my interest.
I have been taking macro shots for only a couple of years now, and just as I wouldn't know the first thing about doing a high-end model shoot (as I have never done one), I have seen "macro photography" presented from "otherwise-professionals" that are so pitiful I personally would have deleted them in-camera (let alone bother to edit and display them in public). Therefore, as with any profession, there are few people who can "do it all" exceptionally-well, and it seems that those who want to make money at photography need to specialize ... and then get very, very good at their specialty ... which simply takes time, dedication, and the right contacts.
Jack
.
-
Russ,
I have to correct a small detail in your point #2. My first prints from Ansel in the mid 1960s cost me $6 each (8x10" contact prints, mounted, signed, numbered). I did buy a couple of outrageously expensive Edward Weston prints, too, printed by his son Cole. Those cost $25 each.
Cheers,
Eric
Eric, Wow! I hope you hung on to those six-buck and twenty-five-buck prints. If you did, your heirs and assigns will have it made. What really bugs me about your story is that when I think back I realize I had the opportunity to do the same thing you did, but I blew it.
-
I think the distinction between "pro" and "amateur" is pretty basic.
1: True Professional: A person who can comfortably pay all of his bills, and who lives (and eats-off-of) the money he makes as a photographer;
2: Semi-Pro: Eats and pays most of his bills off of other-generated income, but who supplements his income with (i.e., occasionally makes a profit off of) his photographs;
3. Amateur/Wanna-Be: A person who "takes photographs," but hasn't yet been paid for them, and who would starve to death within a week relying on the non-existant income generated from his work.
Jack
Jack, I think that's a pretty accurate description of the difference. On the other hand, even though I sell prints out of local galleries I consider myself an amateur. The trouble with the word, "amateur" is that its original meaning has become corrupted with the introduction of the idea that "amateur" implies "novice." As an amateur (meaning I do it because I love it) I do a lot of free work for which a pro would charge. For instance, I do street photography for the Colorado Springs Downtown Partnership's web site and publications, and for a new organization in Manitou Springs that's in the process of building an advanced web for the city. I'd be stealing work from the pros if either outfit could afford to pay for the kind of work I do, but they can't. I spend a lot of hours on the street. If I were charging on an hourly basis it'd break their banks. And I've never heard of a pro willing to do that kind of work. The pro would start out with a shooting script -- one that would include certain buildings, shops, people in posed situations, etc. But since I don't work from a script -- just wander and keep my eyes open -- I come up with the unexpected, which is exactly what they're looking for. I guess my point is that when you come right down to it, it's pretty hard to defend the kind of categories we've both been making.
-
I had to explain to more than one art director why he should hire me instead of hiring a recent graduate who would work for nothing except images for his/her portfolio.
Jeff, I hope they hired you. I did software engineering for 30 years and stopped at the end of 2008. In the early nineties there was a fairly large and rapidly growing local shop that sold an eclectic mix of products, some on outright purchase, some on consignment, whose owner was trying to keep her records manually and failing. She realized she was going to have to automate. A friend of both of us put me on to her and I gave her a pretty comprehensive proposal for a system that would get things under control. She thought it over for a while and then told me she had a friend who had started doing computer programming who would do it for free. My friend and I both watched in horror as the business went down the drain over the following two years. She ended up with not the slightest grasp of her financial situation or her inventory, and finally just closed the whole thing down.
-
Jack, I think that's a pretty accurate description of the difference. On the other hand, even though I sell prints out of local galleries I consider myself an amateur.
I would consider you a semi-pro (or pro) based on how much of your living/income is generated by your photography.
The trouble with the word, "amateur" is that its original meaning has become corrupted with the introduction of the idea that "amateur" implies "novice."
Well, I don't think the problem is with the "word" amateur so much as with people's misinterpretation of it.
I have seen some absolutely astounding images presented by amateurs ... and some absolutely mediocre images posted by "pros" ...
Therefore, strictly-speaking, the dividing line between amateur and pro has to do with income, not talent. Naturally, income is generally the result of talent and skill, but not always. I have read books on macrophotography (that generated income) with work in there I would have thrown away.
As an amateur (meaning I do it because I love it) I do a lot of free work for which a pro would charge. For instance, I do street photography for the Colorado Springs Downtown Partnership's web site and publications, and for a new organization in Manitou Springs that's in the process of building an advanced web for the city. I'd be stealing work from the pros if either outfit could afford to pay for the kind of work I do, but they can't. I spend a lot of hours on the street. If I were charging on an hourly basis it'd break their banks. And I've never heard of a pro willing to do that kind of work. The pro would start out with a shooting script -- one that would include certain buildings, shops, people in posed situations, etc. But since I don't work from a script -- just wander and keep my eyes open -- I come up with the unexpected, which is exactly what they're looking for. I guess my point is that when you come right down to it, it's pretty hard to defend the kind of categories we've both been making.
I would disagree with you Russ.
I think the difference you have just described has to do with love and passion versus a lack thereof.
You clearly have a passion for street photography that you need to express (love to express). There are many professionals who donate their time/works for free, in all manner of ways, in all manner of different industries ... simply because they are giving by nature and enjoy their work. Though they may (at times) work for free, they are still true professionals, by definition, because their income/expenses are paid for by their works also. Just because you enjoy doing something extra, or give some of your time/efforts away, doesn't mean you still aren't a true professional, provided the sum and substance of your income comes from that same vocation also.
The type of person you describe, who wouldn't do anything for free, or who wouldn't devote some of his time/efforts for his own personal enjoyment, I would describe as "loveless," or "soul-less." Such a person might be a professional also, in that his income is generated by his photography, but his motives are 100% for profit and nothing else.
So I don't think these distictions confuse the definition of professional, versus semi-pro, versus amateur at all ... I think they distinguish people who are willing to give of themselves, just for the love of it (or of others), versus those who will not.
Jack
.
-
I think the distinction between "pro" and "amateur" is pretty basic.
Jack
The word "professional" used to imply competence, but, when people tell me my work is "very professional"... I feel insulted... partly because I see a great deal of work by professionals that I do not think is competent, and partly because what they mean is "good for an amateur"
-
The type of person you describe, who wouldn't do anything for free, or who wouldn't devote some of his time/efforts for his own personal enjoyment, I would describe as "loveless," or "soul-less." Such a person might be a professional also, in that his income is generated by his photography, but his motives are 100% for profit and nothing else.
Jack, I'm sorry my description came over that way. I didn't intend to imply that a pro "wouldn't" donate free time. Until a few months ago my office was in a building where I had two pro friends down the hall, both of whom occasionally donated their time and work for good causes. I intended to imply that most pros couldn't afford to do the kind of street photography I do because they have to make a living. For both my friends, that's a real problem at the moment with the economy the way it is, even though both have exceptionally fine reputations in the community. I'm a retired Air Force colonel who, until a couple years ago was gainfully employed in software engineering. I neither need to, nor try to make a living at photography, and that's the difference.
-
Yes RSL, they did hire me. Selling yourself is one of the facets of making a living as a photographer.
As for the rest of your story, I've seen that too, in many fields. I used to have a website design business, and about 30% of my work came from clients who used a friend or college student to make their website. They did it for free after all. Many times I had to recreate the site from scratch because the student didn't make a website that was what the client wanted, they made a website that was designed around their class curriculum. Recreating the website would usually add $1,000 to the project (finding original images, determining fonts, etc.) and I made sure the client knew this.
Have Fun,
Jeff
-
A pro knows his equipment, how to get the image he wants, and how to get that image every time.
So you're saying the professional takes no discard shots and only needs to press his finger once to get perfection? I think that is a bit of an overstatement.
It's pretty much this simple: the professional gets paid for his work; the non-professional doesn't.
Jack
/
-
...when people tell me my work is "very professional"... I feel insulted... partly because what they mean is "good for an amateur"
Still laughing over that one. Made my day.
-
The word "professional" used to imply competence, but, when people tell me my work is "very professional"... I feel insulted... partly because I see a great deal of work by professionals that I do not think is competent, and partly because what they mean is "good for an amateur"
Feelings and facts are two different things.
Direct meanings and implied meanings are also.
The direct meaning of "professional" is that the man earns his living (i.e., gets paid) for his photography; the implied meaning is that he has enough skill to do so. As we all know, some amateurs have better photographic skills (and take nicer photos) than some professionals ... but, if they're not getting paid, they're still amateurs.
The implied meaning is what causes the confusion; but the direct meaning of professional is simply "paid." Another example is, there are many people who can cook exquisite meals ... but only the paid chef is the professional cook.
Jack
.
-
Jack, I'm sorry my description came over that way. I didn't intend to imply that a pro "wouldn't" donate free time. Until a few months ago my office was in a building where I had two pro friends down the hall, both of whom occasionally donated their time and work for good causes. I intended to imply that most pros couldn't afford to do the kind of street photography I do because they have to make a living. For both my friends, that's a real problem at the moment with the economy the way it is, even though both have exceptionally fine reputations in the community. I'm a retired Air Force colonel who, until a couple years ago was gainfully employed in software engineering. I neither need to, nor try to make a living at photography, and that's the difference.
Well, I am sorry if I mistook your meaning.
As I said to Dick, a professional anything is simply one who earns their living doing "that" thing. The confusion lies in the implication that such a person has supreme competence in their vocational field versus a non-paid fancier of that same trade (who might be highly-skilled). Just because a person is a "paid professional" doesn't mean he is any more skilled than an equally-experienced avid fancier, who (for whatever reason) doesn't earn his living that way, but who through his own interests in that subject has his own acquired skills/talents in it.
As another example, I remember training in jiu-jitsu ~18 years ago back in California, when the UFC first came out. There were a couple of "professional" NHB fighters who trained there ... who were routinely submitted by "amateur" (non-paid) brown and black belts. The professional fighters were good, and trained in other discplines besides jiu-jitsu (such as boxing, muay thai, etc.) ... and they earned their living by entering real fights ... but this does not mean that they didn't routinely get their @$$es handed to them by non-professional, un-paid fighters, who (though they didn't fight for money) were damned good at what they did because they did it every single say for fun.
This same analogy could apply to photography ...
Regarding the amount of time one can put into recreation, aside from the time he puts into his vocation, this is a whole other subject. But I guess that would be a personal matter and option. Like you, I couldn't spend the amount of time I do taking nature photography, if I didn't have another income source established. If I had to eat based on my photography alone, I would starve, which makes me an amateur/semi-pro at this point.
Jack
.
-
Nass, I'm not sure what you take as the difference is between an "amateur" and a "professional," but let me assure you that there's nothing a professional can do that an amateur can't do. You're assuming that "professional" implies good photography. What it actually implies is paying photography. Sometimes that's very good photography since most pros are experienced folks, but sometimes it's pretty bad. Walk down your main street and look in your local photographers' windows to see what I mean. Experience often leads to technical competence but it doesn't necessarily lead to an ability to look and see.
Well said....technical ability does not translate to artistic eye.
-
So you're saying the professional takes no discard shots and only needs to press his finger once to get perfection? I think that is a bit of an overstatement.
Nope, I'm saying when the day is done, the professional has the image(s) he needs to have, because he knows how to get them, every time.
It's pretty much this simple: the professional gets paid for his work; the non-professional doesn't.
I don't look at a photographer's bank account to see if they're a professional, I look at their images. To have a successful photography business is 75% business skills, and 25% photography skills. I've seen photographers with amazing photography skills that couldn't run a successful business if you put a gun to their head. And I've seen mediocre photographs with successful businesses. It isn't fair, just the way it is.
Have Fun,
Jeff
-
I don't look at a photographer's bank account to see if they're a professional, I look at their images.
Have you ever tried a blind test with lots of images and pick the professionals from the amateurs?
I believe that will fail, just like judging someone's IQ or education level from their passport picture.
-
I don't look at a photographer's bank account to see if they're a professional, I look at their images.
Jeff
What does it take to produce a good Image?
I would suggest (not necessarily in this order)...
Having equipment suitable (or ideal) for the task
Technical competence in using the equipment
Artistic skill
Man management /people skills (for pictures including people)
Being in the right place at the right time with the right equipment
¿Any other suggestions?
-
For the pro:
The hability to handle pressure
The sense of responsability
A correct understanding of the client's need, the evolutions of medias and their implications
Understanding the balance between personal artistic orientation and the assignment involved
Dialog habilities
A high sense of self-marketing
Being ready to sacrifice familly obligations (at least at the beginning), or being involved with the right person...
For the amateur:
none of these things
Good points... convalescing, and not having had much experience of Medium Format Digital View Camera Photography, I will do some speculative landscapes etc. and portfolio work before I get into high-pressure situations.
...and I agree that there is a difference between having you own artistic ability and understanding what the client wants (artistically or commercially).
-
Nope, I'm saying when the day is done, the professional has the image(s) he needs to have, because he knows how to get them, every time.
You're being absurd. If you want to invent your own definition of "professional," then be my guest. Yet even your invented definition is absurd.
When the day is done, no one gets everything he wants, "every time." Why don't you make it even more absurd and just say the pro is the one who only has to push his finger once to get it perfect, "every time?" I mean, why should it take an entire day of shooting before the pro gets "exactly what he wants," every time?
You see, the trouble with your definition is I know of world class photographers that had to make 2, 3, and 4 trips to remote locations (where each trip took weeks), only to come back empty-handed from getting exactly what they wanted. Only through repeated persistence did these photographers finally get a perfect photograph of the specific rare, wild animal they sought. Another photographer comes to mind who had to had to spend months at a single location, until he finally captured the precise image he wanted. So these captures didn't happen from either the first finger-click, nor did they happen when the "day" was done: these captures took months and years to finally materialize. And the photographers to whom I am referring are a lot more widely-known professionals than yourself.
So, no, it's your definition of professional that's absurd, every time. No one gets everything he wants when the day is done, every time. Often it takes even the most consummate professional dozens of "days," and hundreds of "times," before he gets exactly what he wants. Furthermore, there are plenty of amateurs who show this kind of dedication also, and return again and again with dauntless persistence, until they get the image they want, which can be as good (or better) than a professional's. The only difference between the professional and the amateur isn't in the skill, nor is it in the dedication; the only difference is one sells his images while the other does not.
Again, it's as simple as this: a professional photographer generates a livable income from his images; the amateur does not. There really is nothing to debate: that is the definition of a professional.
I don't look at a photographer's bank account to see if they're a professional, I look at their images. To have a successful photography business is 75% business skills, and 25% photography skills. I've seen photographers with amazing photography skills that couldn't run a successful business if you put a gun to their head. And I've seen mediocre photographs with successful businesses. It isn't fair, just the way it is.
Have Fun,
Jeff
Have you been drinking Jeff? Because you just contradicted yourself.
The fact is, you can't tell a thing about someone's profession by looking at their images. Didn't you say you just sold your first photo the other day, and now you're saying you can just "look at photos" and determine whether anyone else is a "professional" or not. Again, this is absurd.
Out of one side of your mouth, you said you "look at the images" to determine if someone is professional or not. Out of the other side of your mouth, you admitted you've seen amazing photograpy skills from people who couldn't run a successful business. Thus it's not the image quality, it's the business (steady income) that defines the professional.
In the end, to run a successful photography business IS to be the professional. Not to run a photography business is NOT to be the professional. Regardless of image quality.
As I have said all along.
Jack
.
-
Quality is quality.
A photo of my granddaughter as an example:
My daughter took her daughter to a pro studio for portrait the results (in my opinion) were really bad. It didn't even look like the one year old that is my grandchild.
Another shot taken by my daughter (not a pro and with a point and shoot) which is one of the best images of her child I have seen yet.
If you want paying customers to seek you out, become the best you can be. Create images that stand out (not a cookie cutter or run of the mill that everyone (including some pros) else is creating.
This goes for Landscape and stock photography also. If you create images that stands out you would certainly have better odds of success.
Honestly there are a lot of very good non-professional landscape photographers around.
-
Quality is quality.
Another shot taken by my daughter (not a pro and with a point and shoot) which is one of the best images of her child I have seen yet.
...reminds me of a photo (on the wall) of my brother-in-law.
He is shy and difficult to photograph... I handed the camera to my 9-year-niece and said:
"When Daddy looks hansom, press the button"
If you look closely, there is some camera shake, and I did take some of the weight of the 555 ELD + Macro-planar 120...