Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: EduPerez on July 29, 2013, 07:54:49 am
-
"The problem for an amateur is that he/she has no reason to take a photograph" - Terence Donovan.
Sorry, but I could not disagree more: just because someone does not have a monetary incentive to take a photograph, it does not means he/she has no reason to do it; an amateur can put as much passion in his photography than a professional photographer.
Just my humble amateur opinion.
-
An elitist statement imo. Someone who has risen above the "masses" and takes upon himself a sense of superiority. After all he must have been a mere amateur himself at sometime?
-
Yes, that comment by Donovan was lower than most of Ken Rockwell's worst blunders.
-
Oops! It looks like some people's reading skills are lacking. This is what Alain wrote.
I like this quote because it points out one of the differences between amateurs and professionals. In the context of this discussion being a professional is not about making a living from your photography. It is about being able to explain the reasons why you photograph. If you know why you photograph, if you can give reasons why you do, you are a professional. It’s as simple as that
-
Yes, that comment by Donovan was lower than most of Ken Rockwell's worst blunders.
Careful, Eric, that happens to be Rob's favorite quote too ;)
-
Still is Slobodan, and despite attempted political incantations being aimed at its virtue, it is quite accurate, IMO.
Of course, it's well known in West of Scotland, Red Clyde circles that anyone who escapes its physical grime and the ethos of mental greyness is a mother to eff all mothers, but there you go; Donovan was none the less correct.
I believe that what Donovan's words are expressing is this: a professional photographer starts his working day with a list of shots he must do. Therefore, the reasons that compel him to think photographic thoughts and produce actual images are all predefined and the steps follow as night doth day. Or vice versa, depending where you choose to start your countdown.
The amateur, on the other hand (he implies), is blessed with an urge, but not with a plan; he has to figure that one out each time the urge strikes. His task is the more difficult one, if anything, and worthy of respect when he produces something outstanding.
Nowhere does Donovan state that an amateur can't take a photograph, is incompetent to so do, nor does he in any way decry the amateur standing. To read that as being what he said, for his words to be considered an elitist stance, is testament to a vison skewed by class hatred where everything a very successful man does has to be wrong. You see what killed British industry?
Rob C
-
As an amateur, it seems to me that my problem is not that I have no reason to take a photograph, but that I have too many reasons to take a photograph, and the reason may change during the taking. The reason for taking a photograph may be to remember the moment, to commemorate the moment, to show the over-all structure of location, to show the relationship between two elements of the location, to show an element in an interesting and unique way, because I can, to see what it looks like in a photograph, ...
Alan
-
In the context Alain gives, I think Donovan's quote is right on.
Why do I photograph? Because it heightens & sharpens my senses. The results--in terms of film frames, files on a card or prints--are secondary. Being there, with a crisper awareness of being there, is primary. Life isn't about artifacts but rather experiences.
I've sometimes considered signing up for one of Michael's Antarctic or Icelandic expeditions. I certainly intend to visit both locales before my atoms get redistributed. ;) But the possibility of ending up on a longish trek dominated by trophy hunters rather than experience seekers would be disheartening and thus has so far dissuaded me. (This is no knock on Michael or LuLa...I know and support what they're about.)
-Dave-
-
OK, folks, I was perhaps a bit hasty. But the misuse of the word "professional" by both Donovan and Briot is highly offensive, IMHO. And I am a great fan of Briot's photography and of most of what he writes, including much of the rest of the current essay.
I agree that it is useful for a photographer to ask him or herself why she or he is driven to photograph, but having a pat answer to that question is hardly the characteristic that distinguishes an amateur (one who loves the work) from a professional (one who does it for a living). If it did, we wouldn't see so much pretentious and impenetrable trash foisted off on the public in the form of "Artist's statements." [/rant]
-
Oops! It looks like some people's reading skills are lacking. This is what Alain wrote.
[...]
Well, I must admit that, as I grow older, my capacity to pay full attention to some articles goes down; call it "attention deficit disorder", call it "bullshit intolerance syndrome". But I am afraid that this not the case here: I used the title from Alain's article just to contextualize why I was bringing Terence's quote into the table; by no means was I commenting on Alain's article, much less endorsing his definition of "professional photographer".
-
... much less endorsing his definition of "professional photographer".
His definition, with all due respect to him, is the lamest spin I've heard recently. If all it takes is to find a reason for photographing to be considered a "professional," anybody and his mother could (and does) find it. Just check the Alain's long laundry list of reasons at the end of the article, and you would surely find one to fit you. Presto, everyone is a professional photographer (which would make Marissa Mayer quite right, ultimately)!
-
His definition, with all due respect to him, is the lamest spin I've heard recently. If all it takes is to find a reason for photographing to be considered a "professional," anybody and his mother could (and does) find it. Just check the Alain's long laundry list of reasons at the end of the article, and you would surely find one to fit you. Presto, everyone is a professional photographer (which would make Marissa Mayer quite right, ultimately)!
Hey, everybody! I just thought of a reason I might want to do open-heart surgery! So now I'm a "professional" open-heart surgeon, right? ;D
Thanks, Slobodan.
-
Professional? I'll take 'amateur' all day long.
amateur (n.) Archaic, 1784, "one who has a taste for (something)," from French amateur "lover of," from Latin amatorem (nominative amator) "lover," agent noun from amatus, past participle of amare "to love"
-
For me, a "professional" photographer is a guy who takes orders, in one way or another. There are lots of other kinds of photographers, and I'm one of them. In fact, I wouldn't want to be a professional photographer -- for all but a few dozen people in the world, it's a tedious, uncreative, unreliable, low-paid job. A professional photographer is the guy who takes direction from the assistant principal at the grade school while shooting class photographs. So if you're taking direction from an assistant principal, just how high up the status/salary/job satisfaction pole could you be? A professional is a guy who shoots scenic photographs that will sell to people who will thumb-tack them above the couch, and offers them in 22 different sizes, and printed Wile-U-Wate.
Some other designations besides "amateur" (I would consider amateurs to be knowledgeable photographers who shoot for their own pleasure, at nobody else's direction except perhaps the wife and kids, which is far, far preferable to being a "professional") include such things as "artist" or "technician" or "journalist." A photographic artist is really looking for the soul of things, shoots at nobody's command, may or may not make a lot of money without changing his/her status as an artist, and often makes his/her primary economic living doing something else, such as working as a teacher. I would be much more interested in this person's ideas than in the ideas of a "professional." A journalist might be considered a specific subspecies of "professional," but I never heard a journalist call himself a "professional," although I have heard a guy referred to as a "real pro," which is different than "professional" photographer. A "real pro" is a guy who is willing and ready to stick his face into any kind of situation, and is used to designate all kinds of people wiling to do that -- reporters, soldiers, etc. I consider myself an odd kind of technician -- I'm not much interested in photography per se, but use it to support my painting habit -- I take pictures of little bits and piece of situations in which drawing is not appropriate, from which I create paintings. So, I don't want to be a professional photographer, and I never wanted to be one, and don't understand why people seem to chase after that designation. Artist or journalist would be okay, and technician is just fine. For me, wanting to be a "professional" that would be like wanting to be a professional postal clerk. Nothing against postal clerks (my father was one), but it just doesn't seem especially interesting in any way at all.
-
Hey, everybody! I just thought of a reason I might want to do open-heart surgery! So now I'm a "professional" open-heart surgeon, right? ;D
Thanks, Slobodan.
There seems to be a slight flaw in your logic here, Eric. ;D
It's understood that the first requirement in order to be considered a photographer, whether professional or amateur, is to actually take photos. ;)
-
Of course, if one wishes to interpret any quote in a perfectly literal and logical manner, in accordance with its precise wording, then sometimes the quote does not make sense, or may simply appear wrong.
What springs to mind is Ansel Adams' famous quote, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
Regarding Terence Donovan's quote, "The problem for an amateur is that he/she has no reason to take a photograph", a literal interpretation just doesn't make sense.
It's difficult to imagine how anyone, professional or amateur, could take a photo without a reason, with the possible exception of an accidental shot. This is something I occasionally do when trekking. When the track is a bit rough, I might grab the body of one or both cameras around my neck, to stop them swaying or crashing into each other, and in the process accidentally trip the shutter, usually resulting in a semi-abstract, fuzzy image which is surely worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. ;)
-
There seems to be a slight flaw in your logic here, Eric. ;D
It's understood that the first requirement in order to be considered a photographer, whether professional or amateur, is to actually take photos. ;)
You mean my Artist Statement isn't sufficient? How about if I buy a fancy certificate from an on-line school? :-\
-
Regarding Terence Donovan's quote, "The problem for an amateur is that he/she has no reason to take a photograph", a literal interpretation just doesn't make sense.
I understand what Ansel was saying pretty well, but I can't come up with any defensible reading (or meaningful paraphrase) for T Donovan's quote. To me it makes no sense, taken either literally or metaphorically. It's about as clear as "The problem with a Microwave is that he/she cannot run as fast as a Prontor shutter." ??? :o
-
I understand what Ansel was saying pretty well, but I can't come up with any defensible reading (or meaningful paraphrase) for T Donovan's quote. To me it makes no sense, taken either literally or metaphorically. It's about as clear as "The problem with a Microwave is that he/she cannot run as fast as a Prontor shutter." ??? :o
I see. How about I modify the quote just a little, by adding a couple of four letter words.
"The problem for an amateur is that he/she may have no good reason to take a photograph."
Is that better? ;D
-
Why do I photograph? Because it heightens & sharpens my senses. The results--in terms of film frames, files on a card or prints--are secondary. Being there, with a crisper awareness of being there, is primary. Life isn't about artifacts but rather experiences.
Well put, Dave.
-
Quote Rob Reply#5
Still is Slobodan, and despite attempted political incantations being aimed at its virtue, it is quite accurate, IMO.
Of course, it's well known in West of Scotland, Red Clyde circles that anyone who escapes its physical grime and the ethos of mental greyness is a mother to eff all mothers, but there you go; Donovan was none the less correct.
Unquote
Congratulations Rob. As early as post 5 you have tried to turn the post into a political one despite there not being anything there that is political. The statement by Donovan could have been taken out of context but as it stands it could be construed as offensive to the bulk of photographers. As I stated previously Donovan must have been a mere amateur once. So what was it that motivated him when he was one?
-
Heysoos, this site is becoming depressing.
First we have threads where political madness takes over from common sense, and now we define photographic professionalism by the level/status of a school or wedding photographer. The creative aspect of professional photography, where it becomes the difference between the snapper making or not making big bucks, fails to enter the discussion, and the least competent of amateurs in now raised to fourth member of the previous Trinity.
If anything, for anyone to become pro demands as much - if not more - amateurism (love) of, and devotion to, the medium than it requires of the non-pro: the pro has to make his living from it, devote his entire life to it, which is a damned sight harder than working in a bank, a shipyard, restaurant kitchen or some friggin' school.
Citing 'art' photographers as professional photgraphers, including the farce of artists' statements as part of the baggage of professional photography shows me one thing: some here haven't the slightest idea of what a professional snapper is. Those people flogging silly self-portraits or huge, blank apartment-block images are not professional photographers - they are 'artists' using photography as their chosen medium of self-expression and adventure into public gullibility.
Donovan wasn't mistaken; nothing written against his belief here has shown me otherwise, only that his words fail to be understood and are simply being used as ammunition to attack any professional who might actually be doing his thing very succesfully, enjoying it, and with a definable purpose. Donovan had no reason to fear, dislike or disapprove of the amateur; they couldn't begin to touch his world. But it sure looks as if some of them are nonetheless only too happy to attack him simply for the hell of it.
I read no love of photography here; I read a lot of bitterness and lack of self-belief. It's the photographic moral equivalent of having or not having a Rolex or a lizard skin camera, and when you don't, you attack those who do " 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me."
Rob C
-
Assuming Donovan's quote is true and not taken out of context then it looks as if he is the one "attacking" the amateurs who he was previously one? It has often been said that there are amateurs that are better - a subjective phrase - than some of the "professionals" plying their trade. As to the rest of the above post/rant then I won't comment other than to state it must be rather sad to be a retired professional no longer a professional but back in the amateur ranks. :(
-
After having read the article, I still find the dictionary definition of "professional" to fit reality better than the one proposed by Alan.
-
I wonder why so many amateurs want to compare themselves with professionals. Isn't that crazy talk at all? I don't know the reason why a pro takes a picture and to be honest, that doesn't bother me. And I don't see any reason why I should ponder on the reason why I make pictures. Hey, I'm a free man and I may do what ever I like. So if somebody asks me why I do photograph then I usually answer with George Mallory's well known retort to the question "Why do you climb Mt Everest?" - "Because it's there." I'm fine with that.
-
And I don't see any reason why I should ponder on the reason why I make pictures.
Alain's point is that if you understand the why you can improve on your skills.
But that, of course, might simply lead to the follow-on question "if I'm happy with what I'm doing, why would I want to improve?"
-
Alain's point is that if you understand the why you can improve on your skills.
But that, of course, might simply lead to the follow-on question "if I'm happy with what I'm doing, why would I want to improve?"
I've read that article but I don't agree on Alain's statement. Of course I want to improve on everything I do but I strongly believe that I will improve much more by exercising than by pondering. For me photography is a sensual experience and I don't want to disturb this precious feeling by thinking too much. ;)
Harald
-
From the Oxford Online Dictionary (http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/professional):
professional adj. 1. [only before noun] connected with a job that needs special training or skill, especially one that needs a high level of education; 2. (of people) having a job which needs special training and a high level of education; 3. showing that somebody is well trained and extremely skilled; 4. suitable or appropriate for somebody working in a particular profession; 5. doing something as a paid job rather than as a hobby; 6. (of sport) done as a paid job rather than as a hobby.
Opposite: amateur.
amateur n. 1. a person who takes part in a sport or other activity for enjoyment, not as a job; 2. (usually disapproving) a person who is not skilled.
-------------------------------------------
From the MacMillian Online Dictionary (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/professional):
professional adj. 1. relating to work that needs special skills and qualifications, a. showing a high level of skill or training, b. behaving in a correct way at work and doing your job well; 2. relating to a profession and its rules, standards, and arrangements, a. working in a profession; 3. relating to your work or career; 4. playing a sport or doing an activity as a job rather than for enjoyment.
-------------------------------------------
From the Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional):
professional adj. 1. a: of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession; b: engaged in one of the learned professions; c (1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace.
2. a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer>; b: having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier>; c: engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>.
3. following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a professional patriot>.
-------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional):
Professional
A professional is a person who is engaged in a certain activity, or occupation, for gain or compensation as means of livelihood; such as a permanent career, not as an amateur or pastime. The traditional professions were doctors, engineers, lawyers, architects and commissioned military officers. Today, the term is applied to nurses, accountants, educators, scientists, technology experts, social workers, artists, librarians (information professionals) and many more.
The term is also used in sports to differentiate amateur players from those who are paid—hence "professional footballer" and "professional golfer". Many companies include the word professional in their store name to imply the quality of their workmanship or service.
In some cultures, the term is used as shorthand to describe a particular social stratum of well-educated, salaried workers who enjoy considerable work autonomy and are commonly engaged in creative and intellectually challenging work.
Due to the personal and confidential nature of many professional services, and thus the necessity to place a great deal of trust in them, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations.
Definition
The main criteria for professionals include the following:
1. Expert and specialized knowledge in field which one is practising professionally.
2. Excellent manual/practical and literary skills in relation to profession.
3. High quality work in (examples): creations, products, services, presentations, consultancy, primary/other research, administrative, marketing, photography or other work endeavours.
4. A high standard of professional ethics, behaviour and work activities while carrying out one's profession (as an employee, self-employed person, career, enterprise, business, company, or partnership/associate/colleague, etc.). The professional owes a higher duty to a client, often a privilege of confidentiality, as well as a duty not to abandon a genuine client just because he or she may not be able to pay or remunerate the professional. Often the professional is required to put the interest of the client ahead of his own interests.
5. Reasonable work morale and motivation. Having interest and desire to do a job well as holding positive attitude towards the profession are important elements in attaining a high level of professionalism.
6. Appropriate treatment of relationships with colleagues. Consideration should be shown to elderly, junior or inexperienced colleagues, as well as those with special needs. An example must be set to perpetuate the attitude of one's business without doing it harm.
7. A professional is an expert who is a master in a specific field.
Criticisms
Although professional training appears to be ideologically neutral, it may be biased towards those with higher class backgrounds and a formal education. They are more likely to have conservative political opinions and are unlikely to challenge the orthodoxy of the profession. In his 2000 book, Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System that Shapes Their Lives, Jeff Schmidt observes that qualified professionals are less creative and diverse in their opinions and habits than non-professionals, which he attributes to the subtle indoctrination and filtering which accompanies the process of professional training. His evidence is both qualitative and quantitative, including professional examinations, industry statistics and personal accounts of trainees and professionals. A study on journalistic professionalism argued that professionalism is a combination of two factors, secondary socialization of journalists in the workplace and the fetishization of journalistic norms and standards. In this way, undesirable traits in new employees can be weeded out, and remaining employees are free to cynically criticize their professional norms as long as they keep working and following them. The latter concept adapted from philosopher Slavoj Žižek and his concept of ideology.
The etymology and historical meaning of the term professional seems to indicate an individual whose philosophy and habits have been conditioned by a professor. So, a professional is the follower of a professor. Plumbers are therefore not considered professionals. While they certainly make a living doing what they do, with a particular expertise, and with a certain expectation of manners, plumbers do not acquire their skills through a professor, or even through a professional professor. They learn from private firms that distribute the knowledge, or they learn from friendly association with a master plumber.
-
I see. How about I modify the quote just a little, by adding a couple of four letter words.
"The problem for an amateur is that he/she may have no good reason to take a photograph."
Is that better? ;D
That makes sense only if the only "good" reason for taking a photograph is to sell it for money (which reason would make him/her a "professional.")
Taking the quote loosely, as you seem to prefer (i.e., in the sense of "what he meant to say" rather than "what he said"), the same problem could apply to professionals as well, and certainly is in no way limited to those who "love to photograph" (i.e., amateurs -- and that's a pretty good reason, IMHO.)
But as I suggested earlier, I find the quote offensive, but Alain certainly makes some other very good points in the essay. I might loosely summarize them by saying, "If you want to improve your photography, increasing the clarity of your understanding of your own motives can be very helpful."
I can agree with that wholeheartedly.
-
But as I suggested earlier, I find the quote offensive, but Alain certainly makes some other very good points in the essay. I might loosely summarize them by saying, "If you want to improve your photography, increasing the clarity of your understanding of your own motives can be very helpful."
I can agree with that wholeheartedly.
Eric,
As I perceive you as one of the more reasonable and clear-headed members of the forum, I ask you this: are you objecting/referring to the brief sentence that Donovan is reputed to have articulated, or do you refer to its use in the Briot article (which I have not read and don’t intend reading)? Donovan’s words must be allowed to stand alone or, failing that, are simply being used by others as argument for its own sake, and retaliatory exception to that must be offered to the new user, not to Donovan.
I have attempted, vainly, to spell out to another person on this circuit that Donovan’s words offer neither threat nor implied threat to the ability or worth of the amateur; he speaks simply of the difficulty faced by the amateur when it comes to making an image, not technical difficulty, but motivational difficulty. The difficulty springs from the problem that total freedom of choice offers everyone, pro or am, for the same reason: remove the client’s requirement, and you are on your own, facing too many routes without a compass. That, my friend, was the single biggest obstacle in the production of sellable stock photography: what the hell do I shoot? I can do everything, technically, that I want to do, but apply it to what? As the majority of professional photographers of the day did not often work off their own bat but to assignment of some sort, they would not face the uncertainty of the next step after loading a camera, and thus be automatically excluded from the quotation; that there were indeed exceptions doesn’t change the rule.
I honestly find it impossible to read anything malicious into Donovan’s words.
As remarked earlier, it is only Donovan’s quotation that concerns me – Alain can write whatever he chooses to write, and that should not influence the Donovan script. When I quote Donovan’s words, as I do, it has never been done as a put-down of the amateur. There are indeed wonderful amateur snappers out there who never think about money and photography as having a connection, but simply produce stunning images.
Those who attempt to create a false war between pros and amateurs of Donovan’s era – a mainly pre-digital era - are either pretty uninformed – most likely – or just incapable of rational thought, the latter also pretty likely in some cases.
I repeat: I can find absolutely no malice or slur towards any amateur in that Donovan quotation.
Rob C
-
Assuming Donovan's quote is true and not taken out of context then it looks as if he is the one "attacking" the amateurs who he was previously one? It has often been said that there are amateurs that are better - a subjective phrase - than some of the "professionals" plying their trade. As to the rest of the above post/rant then I won't comment other than to state it must be rather sad to be a retired professional no longer a professional but back in the amateur ranks. :(
1. stamp, you still can't read, or if you can, understanding what you read without clouding the gist of it with your personal prejudices renders the task impossible for you.
2. You make retirement sound sad; in many ways it is, but it's still preferrable to have had a damned good run at something than never to have raced at all. Obviously, this you must take on trust.
Rob C
-
... one of the more reasonable and clear-headed members of the forum...
Rob, as another one of the kind (I hope, although not everyone would agree), and your forum friend, I must finally say this:
I, like many others, find the Donovan quote, and your interpretation and defense of it over the years, condescending. dismissive, and offensive. That you find us either "uninformed" or "just incapable of rational thought" is equally so.
... The difficulty springs from the problem that total freedom of choice offers everyone, pro or am, for the same reason: remove the client’s requirement, and you are on your own, facing too many routes without a compass. That, my friend, was the single biggest obstacle in the production of sellable stock photography: what the hell do I shoot?...
That, indeed, is sad. That you need someone else to tell you what to shoot. That you have no inner source of desire and need to photograph, like we, lowly amateurs, do. That, in itself, to reverse the table, is the single source of disdain most amateurs feel for most pros. Those pros that are ultimately successful (and adored by amateurs) are so precisely because they have risen through the ranks of amateurs, because they always had that inner need to photograph. They just found someone to pay for it, rather than the other way around.
-
Rob, as another one of the kind (I hope, although not everyone would agree), and your forum friend, I must finally say this:
I, like many others, find the Donovan quote, and your interpretation and defense of it over the years, condescending. dismissive, and offensive. That you find us either "uninformed" or "just incapable of rational thought" is equally so.That, indeed, is sad. That you need someone else to tell you what to shoot. That you have no inner source of desire and need to photograph, like we, lowly amateurs, do. That, in itself, to reverse the table, is the single source of disdain most amateurs feel for most pros. Those pros that are ultimately successful (and adored by amateurs) are so precisely because they have risen through the ranks of amateurs, because they always had that inner need to photograph. They just found someone to pay for it, rather than the other way around.
Jesus, Slobodan, you still don’t understand my point, refuse to so do, or I’m apparently incapable of expressing it well enough. I have certainly attempted to make it clear and unambiguous!
“That you find us either "uninformed" or "just incapable of rational thought" is equally so.”
The above, I had thought obvious, held no connection to you but to another, particular person in this thread to whom I find myself incapable of ever responding again: whipping the fog is also a waste of time.
But forget him, and let’s move on.
In my own case, I don’t need someone to tell me what to shoot, I need someone to tell me what to shoot that they are willing to pay me to shoot. Not the same thing.
Do I have any great desire to make images without contract? No.
Do I have any great desire to make them on assignment? Yes.
You don’t see a difference? The desire to fulfil a brief is ever there; the desire to waste time shooting stuff that has no business legs has long bored the hell out of me – if it ever existed. That was basically the problem with stock that wasn’t about girls: I just didn’t feel motivated to shoot couples, babies, dogs, pretty little kittens (though we had over twenty-plus at any one time), plates of spaghetti, glasses of champagne (rather did we drink it), fruit on the branch or vine, monuments, mountains nor miracles.
From the beginning it was a desire to get into the glamorous world of advertising imagery and fashion; the calendars followed when the fashion business in Scotland went the way of the dodo, a blessing in disguise, as it turned out, but a great apprenticeship nonetheless. So in effect, I got pretty much exactly what I’d hoped I’d get; from trips for British Vogue to calendars in the Bahamas. The only glitch was that it couldn’t fly for ever. It seldom does, and there really are no substitutes for the real thing.
To be as simplistic as I can be: I am technically able to shoot anything that pleases me; in order to do that I need a client to make it financially viable and personally exciting enough to be worth the hassle. Think the infamous supermodel quotation about getting out of bed. They weren’t crazy.
Rob C
-
Eric,
As I perceive you as one of the more reasonable and clear-headed members of the forum, I ask you this: are you objecting/referring to the brief sentence that Donovan is reputed to have articulated, or do you refer to its use in the Briot article (which I have not read and don’t intend reading)? Donovan’s words must be allowed to stand alone or, failing that, are simply being used by others as argument for its own sake, and retaliatory exception to that must be offered to the new user, not to Donovan.
I have attempted, vainly, to spell out to another person on this circuit that Donovan’s words offer neither threat nor implied threat to the ability or worth of the amateur; he speaks simply of the difficulty faced by the amateur when it comes to making an image, not technical difficulty, but motivational difficulty. The difficulty springs from the problem that total freedom of choice offers everyone, pro or am, for the same reason: remove the client’s requirement, and you are on your own, facing too many routes without a compass. That, my friend, was the single biggest obstacle in the production of sellable stock photography: what the hell do I shoot? I can do everything, technically, that I want to do, but apply it to what? As the majority of professional photographers of the day did not often work off their own bat but to assignment of some sort, they would not face the uncertainty of the next step after loading a camera, and thus be automatically excluded from the quotation; that there were indeed exceptions doesn’t change the rule.
I honestly find it impossible to read anything malicious into Donovan’s words.
As remarked earlier, it is only Donovan’s quotation that concerns me – Alain can write whatever he chooses to write, and that should not influence the Donovan script. When I quote Donovan’s words, as I do, it has never been done as a put-down of the amateur. There are indeed wonderful amateur snappers out there who never think about money and photography as having a connection, but simply produce stunning images.
Those who attempt to create a false war between pros and amateurs of Donovan’s era – a mainly pre-digital era - are either pretty uninformed – most likely – or just incapable of rational thought, the latter also pretty likely in some cases.
I repeat: I can find absolutely no malice or slur towards any amateur in that Donovan quotation.
Rob C
To refresh, here is Donovan's quote, as presented by Alain: "The problem for an amateur is that he/she has no reason to take a photograph"
My objection is purely and simply to Donovan's assertion and not to anything else Alain has to say.
To parse my objection simply:
1. I am an amateur photographer (yes, I have been photographing for about sixty years, but I have never made my living from photography, so even though I have sold photographs in various forms from time to time over the years, I have never been a professional photographer.)
2. Given my first point, Donovan is telling me that for all of these sixty years, I have had "no reason" whatever to take a photograph.
3. I take offense at anybody who knows nothing about me at all (except, perhaps, that I am an amateur photographer -- which means I love photography) telling me that I have "no reason" for doing anything whatever (whether it be visiting the LL website, buying a Hassy Lunar camera, watching a Woody Allen movie on my TV, or taking a photograph).
Now if Donovan had said "The problem for some amateurs is that they have only the fuzziest notion of why they take photographs," then I would have no quarrel with him. The sweeping generalization implied by "the problem for an amateur..." is very off-putting, to me.
I also would not have objected if Donovan had said "There is an amateur that I know well who has no reason to take a photograph," mainly because I would be pretty certain that his amateur was not any of the hundreds of amateurs that I have met in my lifetime.
I hope that clarifies my position for you, Rob.
Eric M.
(Occasionally curmudgeonly old amateur geezer)
-
I should add that for those of us (i.e., most amateurs) who have the freedom to shoot whatever the heck we want, not bound by the wishes of any client, there are indeed a great many reasons to take photographs, and Alain provides a nice list of possible reasons to consider, if you are not comfortable in your own views.
I have never thought of photographers as being in any way like a trained dog, who just sits there with no idea what to do until a command comes from his/her "master" (client?). Even an untrained dog can find good, amateur amusements, such as chasing its own tail (for what reason? Because it's fun!).
;D
-
You don’t see a difference? The desire to fulfil a brief is ever there; the desire to waste time shooting stuff that has no business legs has long bored the hell out of me – if it ever existed.
Hi Rob,
The above seems to encapsulate your views, and I'm guessing that this is also what Donovan really meant in his quote about the amateur.
To put it another way, you seem to be saying that you have no great interest or motivation to do anything unless you are paid to do it. Isn't that a bit sad?
Now, I understand that the reality for most people is that they are compelled to do a job to earn a living, and that job may often not be particularly interesting, in fact, sometimes it may be completely boring.
You were lucky if you found a job as a photographer which you found challenging and rewarding. You can congratulate yourself that you've had an interesting and fulfilling career.
However, I believe there are some folks who like their job so much they would be prepared to do it for nothing.
In a sense, as an amateur photographer, I am my own client. I produce images to meet my own standards, and I'm often disappointed with the result. But I always enjoy the process and the challenge.
-
Hi Rob,
1. The above seems to encapsulate your views, and I'm guessing that this is also what Donovan really meant in his quote about the amateur.
2. To put it another way, you seem to be saying that you have no great interest or motivation to do anything unless you are paid to do it. Isn't that a bit sad?
1. I think you are correct; he could only truly see it from a professional careerist point of view: we are where we are.
2. For myself, as the relative simplicity of photography has rarely felt a challenge, the buzz (for myself, again), is as much, if not almost totally so, in the professional validation that getting hired gives. Possibly even greater than in the cheque at the end of the shoot - very long after the end of the shoot, usually!
When there's no challenge in the mechanical shooting, the buzz has to lie in beating your competitors to the prize.
As for it being sad, not at all. It's inconvenient because without clients not a lot's going to hapen, but not sad. Yes, I could shoot many other genres if I really felt obliged, but after tinkering with a few, they all fell by the wayside, mired in that gutter of substitutes. Like women, too, it has to be the one or forget it.
Retirement from some occupations is sad, though, because it pretty much precludes any further, desirable action. But like many aspects of earning a living, nothing remains constant for long for most of us, and of the great stars, I can think of Norman Parkinson and Richard Avedon as two who died in the saddle. There are and probably will be more, but their names escape me this hot, humid morn.
Thanks for having a clear grasp of where my mumbling was attempting to lead me.
Rob C
-
Well, I must admit that, as I grow older, my capacity to pay full attention to some articles goes down; call it "attention deficit disorder", call it "bullshit intolerance syndrome". But I am afraid that this not the case here: I used the title from Alain's article just to contextualize why I was bringing Terence's quote into the table; by no means was I commenting on Alain's article, much less endorsing his definition of "professional photographer".
I dont think this is connected with your age, but a general societal response to the invention of HTML.
-h
-
To refresh, here is Donovan's quote, as presented by Alain: "The problem for an amateur is that he/she has no reason to take a photograph"Eric M.
(Occasionally curmudgeonly old amateur geezer)
Ah! I think I see your difficulty.
AFAIK, the actual quotation was, rather, "the problem for an amateur is finding a reason to take a photograph."
That is something very else, and exactly where I currently fit. Semantics do count, greatly.
Rob C
-
Ah! I think I see your difficulty.
AFAIK, the actual quotation was, rather, "the problem for an amateur is finding a reason to take a photograph."
That is something very else, and exactly where I currently fit. Semantics do count, greatly.
Rob C
AFAIK the quote was taken from his last interview and I believe that Alain has cited it right. But I can remember as well the following sentence in which Terence justified his statement by his obesrvation that amateurs are focussed far too much on gear.
Harald
-
Harald, you may be right - I have no direct link to the moment of pronouncement.
However, I think that this, attributed to Berenice Abbott, might be saying much the same thing:
" the art is in selecting what is worthwhile to take the trouble about..."
Rob C
-
Harald, you may be right - I have no direct link to the moment of pronouncement.
However, I think that this, attributed to Berenice Abbott, might be saying much the same thing:
" the art is in selecting what is worthwhile to take the trouble about..."
Rob C
Rob, this is a very wise and almost universal statement. Unfortunately I tend to act against better knowledge :-\
Harald
-
Still is Slobodan, and despite attempted political incantations being aimed at its virtue, it is quite accurate, IMO....
...a vison skewed by class hatred where everything a very successful man does has to be wrong. You see what killed British industry?
Rob C
Prime ideological bu115h!t. What killed British industry was the decision that we didn't need it. That it could be substituted by activities such as the secondary insurance market, mercantile banking etc - in fact the parasitic speculation of all kinds which has subsequently almost destroyed the entire western economy. Minor idiocy on the part of some of the workforce was a fleabite by comparison.
Recall that a couple of days before the collapse of whichever "bank" initiated the last Wall St. crash, one of the "ratings agencies" renewed the status of whichever mafia family fell first (Bear Stearns?) despite - or so it's said - the fact that everyone in the know knew that this crew was holed below the waterline by exposure to the "sub-prime" mortgage scam on which the entire sector had been greedily feasting. The same cynical ratings entity is still in a position to impose penury upon entire nation states on the basis of its supposedly objective judgments despite the fact that it got it wrong about its neighbours on the same street. Or maybe there's another explanation for its behaviour.
Meanwhile the world's fastest growing economy has a communist government which cynically exploits the capitalist ethos to achieve what will surely be economic domination of the planet. The price will be horrendous.
As for Mr. Donovan's observation (didn't he write "Mellow Yellow"?) how do we explain all those people running really, really fast at the Olympics, none of whom are being pursued by a predatory carnivore?
Roy
-
Harald, you may be right - I have no direct link to the moment of pronouncement.
However, I think that this, attributed to Berenice Abbott, might be saying much the same thing:
" the art is in selecting what is worthwhile to take the trouble about..."
Rob C
I've found it, here you are: http://www.martynmoore.com/donovan.html (http://www.martynmoore.com/donovan.html)
-
I've found it, here you are: http://www.martynmoore.com/donovan.html (http://www.martynmoore.com/donovan.html)
Thanks for finding the source.
In the linked piece, I find the word "amateur" used three times, and each time Donovan is suggesting strongly that all amateurs are equipment junkies, or have some other "universal" amateur trait. What I get from the interview is that Donovan doesn't understand the first thing about amateurs. Yes, some are equipment junkies, and some aren't very good at what they do. But painting us all with the same brush is insulting.
-
As for Mr. Donovan's observation (didn't he write "Mellow Yellow"?) how do we explain all those people running really, really fast at the Olympics, none of whom are being pursued by a predatory carnivore?
Roy
That Donovan was a young Glaswegian with absolutely nothing to do with photography. However, he did date Sue Lyon for a while, so perhaps that helps your 'point' scratch some basis for itself...
The UK started its industrial decline way before the banks had anything to do with any crisis: it had roots as far back as the 50s (my start in engineering so I know and understand, from very personal experience, the tribal mindset very well); it was created by the near anarchy that existed in the engineering, printing and mining industries (to name but some of which I have some experiences), which resulted in shops so closed that they ultimately did just that. Voter apathy at union meetings, block votes and blatant personal threats did everything to create the perfect political climate for the dissolution not of any remaining monasteries, but of industry.
You create the climate of fear, the pointlessness of pouring more good money after bad, and the inevitable closure of an operation is guaranteed. Of course it never does the 'workers' any good, but anyone with at least one open eye saw that they were always but pawns to the greater plan, which was the bringing down of government and the destruction of the democratic system.
But the whole sorry history is all writtten and out there for you to discover, and so little remains for me to add.
Rob C
-
I've found it, here you are: http://www.martynmoore.com/donovan.html (http://www.martynmoore.com/donovan.html)
Thank you very much, Harald, for your effort and time; I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and now that I have, the 'quotation' seems even more innocent and based on the same reality that I have observed in real life, and not simply read about on the Internet; the two are not the same at all. On the Internet anyone can strike a pose; in reality you can see their eyes and hear them speak. They don't always say the same thing, eyes and mouths.
Clearly, acording to some points of view, TD should not have had an opinion of his own or, if he had, should have kept it secret. That's partly why we are in the universal mess that we are: few like to stand up and be counted, hoping instead that somebody else will do the required but unpopular task - whatever it might be. Quite why his views on the amateurs he'd met should so offend those he didn't is another of those sublime mysteries in life; at the most, I'd have imagined the offended ones would simply ignore him, especially now he's dead. Oh those sensitive teeth! Keep away from ice cream.
;-)
Rob C
-
"Do I have any great desire to make images without contract? No.
Do I have any great desire to make them on assignment? Yes."
To my earlier statement above, I would now like to add a new Donovan quotation that kind of fits my own mindset:
"As I got older I learned that in order to do something well, you've got to really want to do it."
This, in explanation of his cutting down of workload, convinces me that I was, and am right to think as I do, which is but an extension of the same thing as Donovan said. For me, no client still means no validity for doing anything much with the cameras.
Nothing to do with age, confidence nor interest; everything to do with knowing what one is capable of doing and feeling no threat that drives the need for constant reconfirmation. If it's something I want to do and somebody offers it to me - wonderful. If they don't I haven't wasted my days at the Photoshop computer, though I might have wasted almost the same hours on the Internet. Can't win it all.
;-)
Rob C
-
... Nothing to do with age, confidence nor interest; everything to do with knowing what one is capable of doing...
American attitude: Yes, I can (and will)!
Serbian attitude: I know I can (why bother then?)
Sounds like Serbs and (some) Scots have more in common that I thought? ;D
-
American attitude: Yes, I can (and will)!
Serbian attitude: I know I can (why bother then?)
Sounds like Serbs and (some) Scots have more in common that I thought? ;D
So there you go: some of us should be running the world instead, rather than chasing our tails doing a lot of nothing much!
8-)
Rob C
-
I doubt that there's anyone here who would disagree with that one.
Careful Keith: you might have just utter a famous last word, opening yet another can of crazy worms!
;-)
Rob C
-
"The problem for an amateur is that he/she has no reason to take a photograph" - Terence Donovan.
Sorry, but I could not disagree more: just because someone does not have a monetary incentive to take a photograph, it does not means he/she has no reason to do it; an amateur can put as much passion in his photography than a professional photographer.
Just my humble amateur opinion.
I agree, that quote is crazy. The non-pro photog is more dedicated than the pro that only shoots for $.
The non pro is a true lover of photography that will pay for the privilege of freezing time.
-
Why do I take photos?
Why do I like chocolate or ice cream...I just do.
Same with taking pix. I love freezing time.
http://www.artslant.com/ny/works/show/721151-the-lost-princess
-
Quote from a photo professional magazine. Photo Professional.
Obviously as a professional, you have to take a commercial view on how you use your time, and it is quite different to be shooting pictures that will earn you the money to pay the rent than it is producing images purely for your own pleasure. However I do believe that it's necessary to retain the sense of fun that comes from being behind a camera, and to be motivated and loving what you do.
Unquote. :)
-
For me, a "professional" photographer is a guy who takes orders, in one way or another. There are lots of other kinds of photographers, and I'm one of them. In fact, I wouldn't want to be a professional photographer -- for all but a few dozen people in the world, it's a tedious, uncreative, unreliable, low-paid job. A professional photographer is the guy who takes direction from the assistant principal at the grade school while shooting class photographs. So if you're taking direction from an assistant principal, just how high up the status/salary/job satisfaction pole could you be? A professional is a guy who shoots scenic photographs that will sell to people who will thumb-tack them above the couch, and offers them in 22 different sizes, and printed Wile-U-Wate.
Some other designations besides "amateur" (I would consider amateurs to be knowledgeable photographers who shoot for their own pleasure, at nobody else's direction except perhaps the wife and kids, which is far, far preferable to being a "professional") include such things as "artist" or "technician" or "journalist." A photographic artist is really looking for the soul of things, shoots at nobody's command, may or may not make a lot of money without changing his/her status as an artist, and often makes his/her primary economic living doing something else, such as working as a teacher. I would be much more interested in this person's ideas than in the ideas of a "professional." A journalist might be considered a specific subspecies of "professional," but I never heard a journalist call himself a "professional," although I have heard a guy referred to as a "real pro," which is different than "professional" photographer. A "real pro" is a guy who is willing and ready to stick his face into any kind of situation, and is used to designate all kinds of people wiling to do that -- reporters, soldiers, etc. I consider myself an odd kind of technician -- I'm not much interested in photography per se, but use it to support my painting habit -- I take pictures of little bits and piece of situations in which drawing is not appropriate, from which I create paintings. So, I don't want to be a professional photographer, and I never wanted to be one, and don't understand why people seem to chase after that designation. Artist or journalist would be okay, and technician is just fine. For me, wanting to be a "professional" that would be like wanting to be a professional postal clerk. Nothing against postal clerks (my father was one), but it just doesn't seem especially interesting in any way at all.
John, I think you perhaps have a very narrow view of professional photography. I make a living from photography and love it. And I rarely have to take orders from anyone. Yes, there are certain things I have to shoot, but it is invariably left up to me how I do it. Last year I was asked to photograph oil pressed from oats. They wanted 'interesting' pictures to illustrate technical notes. I was given complete freedom to do whatever I wanted. Same when I'm photographing a child. The parents let me do whatever I want. It is down to my own creativity (not claiming any great skill here). I know a lot of amateurs who would love the chance to be asked to photograph anything and be paid for it. Whether oil, children, weddings, whatever. It's totally my choice how I do it. The only restriction is, I have to come up with something that other people enjoy - and that gives me pleasure anyway. I want my pictures to communicate with other people. My customers all find me through word of mouth and so they obviously like my way of seeing things, otherwise they would go elsewhere.
I have never claimed to be an artist, and to be honest I don't really care much for the terms amateur and professional when applied to photography. Either you have talent and can produce the goods, or you don't. The 'professional' market in the UK is awash with wannabe photographers who's work is barely competent, and many who's work is total rubbish. And there are many amateurs who's work is superb. But at least it's a free market and photographers can do what they like and call themselves what they like. I'm far from being talented, but for 15 years I've scratched a living from photography, doing it my way, and in my spare time I'm just a 'Photographer'. I'm a photographer because almost my whole life is consumed by photography (I'm married to one as well), from 7am until often 9pm. Sometimes I go for a ride on my bicycle (Rob C bait).
Oh and by the way, not sure if you are a teacher or not, but I know a lot of teachers and they are buried beneath a mountain of bureaucracy and have almost no freedom in how they teach. Everything is dictated. Many of them relish the complete freedom I have in my work. They might not be so keen on losing their salaries, pensions and paid holidays though!
I can honestly say that 80 per cent of my work is so enjoyable I would do it for free if I didn't need the money.
Jim
-
John, I think you perhaps have a very narrow view of professional photography. I make a living from photography and love it. And I rarely have to take orders from anyone. Yes, there are certain things I have to shoot, but it is invariably left up to me how I do it. Last year I was asked to photograph oil pressed from oats. They wanted 'interesting' pictures to illustrate technical notes. I was given complete freedom to do whatever I wanted. Same when I'm photographing a child. The parents let me do whatever I want. It is down to my own creativity (not claiming any great skill here). I know a lot of amateurs who would love the chance to be asked to photograph anything and be paid for it. Whether oil, children, weddings, whatever. It's totally my choice how I do it. The only restriction is, I have to come up with something that other people enjoy - and that gives me pleasure anyway. I want my pictures to communicate with other people. My customers all find me through word of mouth and so they obviously like my way of seeing things, otherwise they would go elsewhere.
I have never claimed to be an artist, and to be honest I don't really care much for the terms amateur and professional when applied to photography. Either you have talent and can produce the goods, or you don't. The 'professional' market in the UK is awash with wannabe photographers who's work is barely competent, and many who's work is total rubbish. And there are many amateurs who's work is superb. But at least it's a free market and photographers can do what they like and call themselves what they like. I'm far from being talented, but for 15 years I've scratched a living from photography, doing it my way, and in my spare time I'm just a 'Photographer'. I'm a photographer because almost my whole life is consumed by photography (I'm married to one as well), from 7am until often 9pm. Sometimes I go for a ride on my bicycle (Rob C bait).
Oh and by the way, not sure if you are a teacher or not, but I know a lot of teachers and they are buried beneath a mountain of bureaucracy and have almost no freedom in how they teach. Everything is dictated. Many of them relish the complete freedom I have in my work. They might not be so keen on losing their salaries, pensions and paid holidays though!
I can honestly say that 80 per cent of my work is so enjoyable I would do it for free if I didn't need the money.
Jim
“I have never claimed to be an artist, and to be honest I don't really care much for the terms amateur and professional when applied to photography.
1. Either you have talent and can produce the goods, or you don't. The 'professional' market in the UK is awash with wannabe photographers who's work is barely competent, and many who's work is total rubbish. And there are many amateurs who's work is superb.
2. I'm a photographer because almost my whole life is consumed by photography (I'm married to one as well), from 7am until often 9pm. Sometimes I go for a ride on my bicycle (Rob C bait).
3. Oh and by the way, not sure if you are a teacher or not, but I know a lot of teachers and they are buried beneath a mountain of bureaucracy and have almost no freedom in how they teach. Everything is dictated. Many of them relish the complete freedom I have in my work. They might not be so keen on losing their salaries, pensions and paid holidays though!
4.I can honestly say that 80 per cent of my work is so enjoyable I would do it for free if I didn't need the money.”
Hi, Jim
Thanks for the plug, tempered with a modicum of temptation!
I’ve edited your post with numerals to make response in some sort of logical order using Microsoft Word, because I can never get down more than a sentence or so using the supplied box, and that blows my concentration away.
1. I agree 100% on that, which is why I despair at those who imagine that listening to the words of a guru will magic them into artists too. I could always make images good enough to support a pleasant lifestyle – or could when that was possible (in my circumstances and chosen field) and I sincerely do not recollect a learning curve. It was always there, and only required the other 50% of the recipe: the professional model. I have repeatedly declared my belief in, and appreciation of the wonderful amateur shooters whose work I have seen. Photography is one of the very few artistic things I can do; I have no musical talent whatsoever. That doesn’t mean that though I listen to music all day long, I am therefore a more true musician than the guys who actually play at the local bar on Sundays. But somehow, in photography there exist those who think it does indeed make them more close to the fountain than are the pros...
2. The first four years of my working life, as engineering apprentice, were spent figuring a way to find employment in photograph. Self-employment was a fantasy then. Ever after those four years I earned my living solely via professional photography: the first five or six or in an industrial unit, followed by setting up on my own after a year with another Glasgow studio. During my first year or so on my own I did passports, weddings, absolutely anything at all to keep the studio doors open and the dishes in chemicals. I rapidly reached a Damascene moment when I realised that I either remained a whore unto myself or gave up the stocking fillers and went for the real deal I’d always sought: fashion. It showed me that faith has muscle. I took the risk and am happy for that.
In my case, my wife was a working (when required) partner in the business; she hated it – couldn’t get to terms with the idiotic behaviour of clients and suppliers, many of whom had their finer moments when blind drunk at dinner somewhere.
I no longer have the strength to cycle anywhere, but have often considered the purchase of a Vespa because most of the magnificent natural areas in the mountains beside me allow no parking whatsoever.
3. I have two teachers in the family. One unfortunate aspect of the job is that it never ends when the school closes: it consumes almost as much ‘private’ time as does the part in the institutions. Salaries are not very good; future pensions are currently far from known. Much like self-employed photographers, then.
4. I can top your 80%. Would you challenge 99%? That’s why there is no amateur photography for me that grabs my heart. I lived for the work that I did, but it is only possible with budgets beyond my own, and of that 99%, a huge percentage of the buzz is in the act of winning the contract. The two are permanently married, for me.
So though you haven’t said so, others have, and I take this opportunity to refute for the last time the silly notion that an amateur is more in love with photography than a professional because he does it for nothing. That’s reasoning’s so skewed that it beggars belief that anyone can imagine another snapper putting life and living into the blessed job did he not love it. Love it more than anything else of which he was capable of doing for a living.
There are two basic choices in normal life:
a. a job that pays well, provides a good pension but forever keeps you someone else’s employee;
b. doing you own thing, making your own decisions, living or dying by them, the lot of the solo pro photographer, for one.
I fail to understand the concept of the former, earning his keep elsewhere, being thought the truer fan of photography. He risks nothing, other than his pride, but someone somewhere will always tell him he’s wonderful even when he most certainly is not. (Those +1 and Me too! concepts didn’t come from nowhere and for nothing! For a start, they allow people to avoid having to explain their views and invent fresh, platitudinous fibs.)
;-)
Rob C
-
For a moment, I thought RedwoodGuy is back. Phewww!
-
... the silly notion that an amateur is more in love with photography than a professional because he does it for nothing...
Which would mean the oldest profession in the world enjoys sex more than amateurs? ;)
-
Hey Rob, thanks for the well thought out reply, but you did realise that my post was referring to John Camp's slating of the professional photographer back on page one!
And the cycling reference was just a tease to you because I know how you feel about the lycra-clad hoards invading your peace over there. ;D
Best wishes
Jim
-
For a moment, I thought RedwoodGuy is back. Phewww!
Who's Redwood Guy?
-
Who's Redwood Guy?
A former member, known for, among other things, long posts :)
-
A former member, known for, among other things, long posts :)
Ah, well I cannot think what you mean by that..... :)
-
So, the only point of all this that I can understand is that the gum-smacking teenager, working minimum wage at the mall at Christmas time who knows only how to say "look here and smile" while pushing down on a buttom on the locked-down camera is superior to the expert photographer, who happens to be a president of a major corporation, but photographs out of the love of it and as an artistic release. The fact that this individual is known worldwide for his photographic and artistic skills is irrelevant. He's no pro, so he should just sit down and shut up.
Let's take Michael as an example: He is in the business of selling information, not necessarily photography. In fact, as a percentage of his entire household income, it's fair to say that he's not a professional photographer. Expert photographer? Well, that's another question. But moral superiority doesn't ride upon whether a person actually knows what he/she is doing, just that he/she is getting paid for it. So, Michael should just sit down and shut up.
As to the quote/reference/whatever from the photographer who only shoots for assignment or some such nonsense. I'd say that he isn't a photographer. He's a service-provider.
Do I believe that the unnamed company president or Michael should sit down and shut up? Of course not. But this moral superiority by SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO HAPPEN TO USE A CAMERA is pure nonsense. Besides, this "need to shoot" is described essentially as "need to earn money" totally throws real artists under the bus, because a real artist has a need to create whether anybody buys their product or not. Unfortunately, the narrow definition of pro/non-pro leaves no room for them. "Earn money or get out of my way--LOSER!"
Frankly, an argument could be made that the service providers who happen to use a camera really aren't photographers at all. They're just the same as anybody else who sells a service, whether it's dog walking, lawn mowing, or general handyman.
"I am a professional photographer!" said the man to the waitress. "That's fine and everything, but you still owe me $1.50 for that cup of coffee."
Ken -- Professional Geek
-
Ken -- Professional Geek
On the stength of your logic and argument - you are absolutey right in your self-classification.
Congratulations!
Rob C
-
On the stength of your logic and argument - you are absolutey right in your self-classification.
What a puerile response. How old are you ?
-
Nah. I took it as a compliment.
-
Aloha,
Perhaps the quote would be better like this;
"The problem with the amateur photographer is; he does not reason when he takes a photograph"
-
So, the only point of all this that I can understand is that the gum-smacking teenager, working minimum wage at the mall at Christmas time who knows only how to say "look here and smile" while pushing down on a buttom on the locked-down camera is superior to the expert photographer, who happens to be a president of a major corporation, but photographs out of the love of it and as an artistic release. The fact that this individual is known worldwide for his photographic and artistic skills is irrelevant. He's no pro, so he should just sit down and shut up.
I wouldn't see that as the only point of this thread. I think there are different interpretations of what the original quote means. Early on, there was a message running through the discussion that it meant something along the lines of:
The challenge for the amateur photographer is that all photographic possibilities are open to them.
That often isn't true of a professional, who while having diverse interests, generally becomes known or specializes in a specific area of photography (just as many people in other professions specialize).
The quote could easily be interpreted as a lament of a professional, not as an insult to amateurs; and certainly not a comment on the technical or artistic competence of amateurs.
Somehow the message that amateurs are in a difficult (or envious) position because they have no limits was lost along the way and a huge divide opened.
I think I'll stick with the early meaning and agree with it. The big problem for me now as an amateur (I used to investigate crime scenes, so shot professionally within that area - but no longer) is that I can go out and photograph anything that pricks my interest. Trying to become proficient at any one area then takes much longer.