The new "Professional "Photographer.
Glort
Registered Users Posts: 1,015 Major grins
1
0
Glort
Registered Users Posts: 1,015 Major grins
Comments
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
If you were indeed at the distance you say, 1/2 length shot at 200mm, you were well within the range where fill flash from an external speedlight/speedlite would have been useful for that situation. Here is an image, a 5x7 portrait crop from the landscape original, shot at 200mm or very close to 200mm. (This image is from 2007.) Without the fill flash the shadows would have been very noticeable and much more objectionable.
Canon 1D MKII with Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and Sigma 500 DG Super flash* (direct fill). I think that the ISO was 800 and 1/250th @ f2.8. (Edit: It looks like it was probably ISO 400.)
*(The Sigma 500 DG Super is rated at GN:50 Meters/164 ft at ISO 100 and longest zoom of 105mm.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
With respect to fill flash. As you know if done properly most people can't tell fill is used. I for one use fill on portature as much as possible.
i've wondered the exact opposite. and here are my arguments...
1. We've dumbed down the populace to where hardly anyone even KNOWS what good portraiture is.
2. We've made SLRs cheap enough that every other mom on the planet has one with a 35-80 zoom, and is now a "professional photographer"..
3. the collective "professional" knowledge base is somewhere between zilch and nothing.. (doing kid shots for my son's soccer team, I pulled out my flash (outdoors bright harsh sunny day), snapped a diffuser dome on my nikon flash, and one other guy with an SLR snorted at me "why are you doing that?")..
4. due to the plethora of cheap SLRs and junk lenses, there are many folks happy to shoot your wedding for $225....So how is the $2500-3500/wedding guy going to make it competing??
Totally disagree. Anyone who gives a rat's about photos knows a good portrait when they see one. The reaction is subconscious. Sure, there are some people who do not care about photos at all, but they wouldn't be hiring a pro or buying photos anyway.
These people are great customers. They care about photos, they know that good photos deserve to be printed larger than 4x6", they appreciate finer details that most people don't notice, and they appreciate photos that are better than theirs. Many of them likely will never get good enough to serve as their own pro photographer. Some will. Maybe they'll do their kid's senior portrait, maybe a friend's or two, but they're not going to do their kid's wedding or entire sports leagues.
There is no shortage of professional knowledge.
Well, which diffuser was it? A Sto-fen isn't big enough to have any effect outdoors.
Anyone paying $225 for their wedding photos was never going to hire a $2500 pro anyway.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I've had that conversation with lots of people; I cannot count the number of times that I've been told, "Oh, my phone takes GREAT pictures!" Yeah? Not as great as my $250 P&S. Certainly not as good as my SLR "Well, they're good enough for me. Besides, those big, expensive cameras are too complicated, anyway!"
With the explosion of cheap, good-quality consumer SLRs, I thought pro photography was doomed - not because anyone can take pics as well as a pro, but because everyone who buys an SLR thinks they can. However, over the last few years, I think the improvements in phone cameras may have kicked the consumer SLR trend to the wayside, and perhaps pros will have a bit of a comeback, because nobody using a phone cam can get decent wedding reception pics, or retirement party pics, or even graduation pics, in a darkened venue.
Can you explain why folks that charge north of $5,000 are doing well and the $200 guys are always in the news as having failed the family? A lot of those folks are also nearly begging for work.
Sure, there are a lot willing to do something for nearly nothing and maybe some people are OK with that. I would almost argue that you don't want that customer to begin with.
First of all, the people doing weddings "on the cheap" are hobbyists. They're not relying on the income to feed their families. They want to make some extra cash and support their hobby. More often than not, these people stop their endeavors after a couple years because the novelty wears off. Unfortunately there are plenty of people to take their place. 10 years ago the difference between what a person could get from a competent photographer and a hobbyist were HUGE. It's now a lot easier to get useable shots. And, with computer software and RAW files, it is so much easier to correct photographer mistakes.
Now, those charging north of $5k for a wedding will always have business because they have a different market. The level of photographer that is getting hit hardest are those that are in the $2-3k per wedding market. Now, you're no longer dealing with couples on a $25k budget you're dealing with people on an $8k budget for the whole wedding.
Sports and photojournalism is no different. Papers across the country have been asking writers to carry cameras and take their own photos - because the results are "good enough". And the days of a freelance shooter getting $500 to shoot a game are long gone for the most part.
Just look at photos by hobbyists on this site. Compare those photos to professional work from the "average pro" of 15 years ago - the results are fairly impressive. Still nothing compared to the high end pros. But the pros that were just "competent" - yep. And, for a lot of people, competent is good enough.
As far as the 2-3k market goes, there are probably a lot more people servicing that market than either the $200 or $5k plus market.
Photography just seems to have taken a giant crap in the print market overall. That goes hand in hand with their declining sales, etc. etc..
I disagree. If you earn the majority of your living wage from it, you're a professional in my opinion. There's a huge difference between the two. I don't consider the mass of people making $2,000 a year shooting on the side to be "professional photographers". When you earn $24,000+ per year doing something then I think you're a professional. If someone pays me $50 to help them paint their house, that doesn't make me a professional painter. If they buy me a $50 dinner for helping them build a deck that doesn't make me a professional carpenter. If you're not earning a living wage from it, you're not a professional.
Doing something to help your friends and having your them offer compensation is one thing. Accepting compensation for a something you set the rate for and establish a contractual relationship is what makes you a professional in my opinion.
You can ask any of my 500+ Little League customers whether or not I am a professional. Especially after I took a year off and the league hired a "real" professional, and then they asked me to come back and do it again.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The reason I believe the difference is important is when we discuss requirements and behavior of the "segment" of the population we want to label as "professional photographer".
For example within the context of "Business Model" discussions - just because a given business model can generate $10,000 in income per year doesn't mean it can generate $24,000
When we talk about motivating factors for an individual, there is a huge difference between that person relying on the $10,000 as supplemental income and the person relying on the income to pay their mortgage, put food on the table and clothe their kids.
I get that you want to say your behavior and results are just as good as any full-time professional photographer in your market. But, you don't have to rely on your photography to pay your mortgage. You are not influenced in the same way as someone who does. Your requirements are different from theirs.
Like you, I ran a side business in sports photography. I had plenty of happy customers and I behaved in a professional manner and produced results consistent with what I considered to be a high level of quality. But, that is not, IMO, the same thing as having my photography be my primary source of income. So, I was still a very different class of individual than the people who were full time. My business models, my motivators etc were different from theirs. I didn't need $40,000 in photography related income. Sorry if it bruises your ego that I make that distinction. I just think for purposes of most of the discussions here around BUSINESS there is an enormous difference between the two types of photographer.
Sometimes good enough and convenience truly is all that one needs. There is nothing evil about this.
The best will always thrive. The mediocre will have to move on to something new.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
For good or bad, prints are a seen as a thing of the past. Digital frames, smart phones, computers, tablets and so forth are the 21st century version of prints.
I at first wrote up a big long reply but decided to just excerpt and post this from it instead -- as long as I am required to pay taxes and fees as a professional, then I am one.
You're required to pay taxes on income over I believe $400 a year? If you want to tell yourself you're a professional because you made $400 on your photography, that's your prerogative. If you think that makes you the same as the guy bringing in $45,000 and feeding his family from it, you are not. Again, I can appreciate my take on it bruises egos. And photographers certainly tend to have big egos.
Again, the only place it comes into play is when discussing business. Let's say an enthusiast starts selling some work and makes $4,000 selling some work. Now, they have $6,000 in equipment (the hobbyist thinks - well i have it any way so it isn't a business cost - again the difference between the hobbyist and the business man). Now tack on th einsurance and liability costs the professional also carries - so there's a few hundred dollars a year. Now, let's tack on expenses - car mileage, meals - whatever. OOOH, and let's not forget the computer and software - i know, you've got one anyway so it doesn't count - except for a business it does. Then whatever other equipment based upon your business. NOW, after you deduct from your $4000-5000 however much you're counting towards the equipment in that given year and your expenses you have your salary. Now you divide that by the hours you invested. Now, with the money left over can you pay your mortgage, feed your family, clothe them, etc.
This has zero, nada, zilch to do with ability as a photographer. It's not about ability or even behavior. We will have to agree to disagree - I just don't see the individual making $500 a year in the same category as the one living off their income from photography. And their outlook, experience, business model, and business advice are going to be completely different. And I think it's important for people reading advice to understand the difference.
I am not trying to say your definition is wrong and mine is right - just explaining where I am coming from - and, again, I come from having been an enthusiast running a side business making between $5k - $10k a year from photography.
But, I also have a full-time job in Business/IT. And I wouldn't consider a kid making $700 on the side doing web design to be an IT professional.
Edit - I just read this:
OK, cool.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
but, by the definition being thrown around here if you go into a casino, pull the lever on a slot machine and win a $1000 jackpot and sign the tax form - congratulations, you are now a professional gambler!
But, back to photography, to your point there are photographers who make ZERO from their photography that produce better work than a lot of full time pros or enthusiasts with side jobs. it doesn't make them professionals it just makes them better photographers. Like any other entrepreneurial endeavor, professional success depends a lot more on business related attributes than actual skill. Skill level usually just has to be "good enough" - then business acumen will trump skill.
The beauty of sites like this is - you can post your photographs for people to look at. Photographers here will judge you based upon your work product, not what you call yourself.
The days of people wanting prints for their album are disappearing. Photographers and indeed the industry needs to figure out how to deliver digital images. The demand is there. Those who want to continue with the print business need to get highly organised which is, incidentally, the first thing in my mind when I hear the word "professional".
most photos are viewed 3 inches tall, which doesn't require much quality.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Typical of new technology it sweeps in and seems to overtake past technologies. But also typical is the wave recedes and equilibrium is found. We have not found that equilibrium yet and that is what causes the anxiety among the pro photo community, and rightly so at this point.
I think the iphone boom is similar to the point and shoot boom of earlier years. At first everyone is taking pictures of every meal and posting it online as if we care, and not thinking about professional portraits. Then they start to realize they like photos of their friends and family and even of themselves, and that their iphone photos suck. They are now comfortable in front of the camera and are used to seeing pictures, and decide they want good ones taken. Rather than destroying a market the iphone could actually be opening up more people to the thought of having nice portraits done--and paying for it.
As I said I think we are still early on this timeline, but it is starting to happen a bit now. The challenge now is that at the same time as they are opening up to having better quality photos taken, the industry is putting out incredible cameras for cheap and making people think they are good. Double whammy, but again I think this will shake out. People will realize Uncle Bob with a good camera is no better than an iphone, so maybe we should hire the pro to do it right.
High quality photos (like the incredible dancer pictures on your site!!) will always win out in the end. I just hate seeing the turmoil as we go through the stages and how it affects people's livelihoods. Just look at all the photojournalists in Chicage that were told a reporter with an iphone can replace them! Again, I think they will be proven wrong and hopefully go out of business or hire back real photojournalists but in the meantime it disrupts lives.
Interesting thread, would be nice to jump forward 10 years and see what we all would say then.
The wifi in the 6D has been a mind expander for me. After two weeks with a 6D I can no longer imagine life without using my Ipad to chimp photos and upload immediately to FB or (yes) even Smugmug. The camera is good enough that I can use Jpeg M format for very decent images OOC, so skipping the whole RAW process for the majority of what I do and making everything much quicker and easier. When most people are indeed viewing photos on a smart phone screen it makes sense to adapt - also in the kind of images I take. I am experimenting with JPEG S to make it even simpler.
A few days ago I read a whinge from a guy who had taken his dslr to a halloween party. People were all over him for the pics and upset by him saying it would take him several days to run everything through photoshop. It needs be NOW to make money and, to those who think quality must necessarily suffer, it also has to look GREAT. On my 6D I am busy rediscovering how the in-camera JPEG side of the dial actually works.
NFC, totally, but I'm trying to imagine how that on-the-spot deal goes down. You'd be giving them at least an "S" sized jpeg, which can be used to print a passable 8x12", and as many as they want. So you'd have to charge at least the same price as your 4x6" print, which is probably $5 or more. I can imagine people being put off by that. I could see myself doing this as a freebie, but only for people who have prepaid for a package. In-cam watermarking sure would be nice!
For those of us with dinosaur 5D3s, would an Eye-Fi card do the trick?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The one problem with the "kodak moment" is that the person taking the shot is not in the picture. It is the moment that counts. A professional should have the talent to take the shot that they know they could not take themselves - look at some of your sports images. It is not about the sharpness in the corners for the person who buys it; it is about that moment that will never return, in full flight, arms outstretched, and the ball on the fingertips.
The feeling about that moment should determine the value of the image. It may be many times more the cost of an 8x12.
My impression is that the FB/smart phone generation are a lot more eager to hire a pro for the really important moments - weddings, christenings, etc - than my generation were. They see that good images are important and they should no more think of doing it themselves than laying their underfloor heating or painting their exterior woodwork or fixing their own car - all things my generation would have outsourced reluctantly even if we could have afforded it.
The digital world is going to differentiate itself. The smart phone image is an "S" but you may also want the image on your high def TV or whatever Apple comes up with. So you can sell the "S" and then the "L" perhaps
PS Jack, I guess the remark about Eye Fi is a gentle reminder that you Pro's got there a long time time ahead of me regarding wifi and cameras. I would hope so. In marketing this is what we call "Time to Knowledge" and some would argue this is the biggest success factor in technology related businesses. Wifi was not on my shopping list when I bought the 6D, not even "remotely". Now I would not buy another camera without it.
I believe as most do that there will always be a market for true professionals using quality equipment.
I just think there will be less of them and they will corner more of their individual markets.
It is the middle class of professional (as judged by what they charge...we all know that the person who creates the best photographs does not necessarily make the most money) that I see disappearing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
See, I disagree on two fronts. First, Uncle Bob with nice gear is a WHOLE LOT better than an iphone. These and other forums are chalk full of some very good photographers. Most of whom shoot for free or such low prices it's why I differentiate them from full time pros. 20 years ago, you weren't having hobbyists create sports images like this:
Now, they do. And when you have Uncle Bob creating images like these for birthday parties, spending $400 on a pro just isn't in the budget:
Or before prom photos:
Heck, even senior portraits - you have part-timers making huge inroads - they don't charge rates that would allow them to live off their photography. But they're really rather good. My one niece' photos were fantastic - taken for $100. No way a photographer could live off those rates. But the results were more than "good enough" to make it worth-while over the $800 packages being charged by local studios.
For weddings and family portraits I think there is still good demand. And school portraits and sports Team and Individual there is always good demand.
But I disagree that Uncle Bob is no better than Iphone. Most of the people on photography forums are Uncle Bob - not full time pros.
There will ALWAYS be a high end market for consumers that really do perceive a difference. But for the average consumer - if Uncle Bob can provide images like the above for free, it's tough to sell them on spending $500-800 to get better results.
People who can afford to hire a wedding photographer are not doing it for fine art, speaking generally. They want to be sure the person turns up a bit early so as not to make anyone nervous, has spare batteries, spare camera - heck, maybe even a reserve shooter. He or she is above all TOTALLY RELIABLE and preferably rather boring so as not to miss the classic shots like the ring because they are doing candids of Aunt Muriel nipping whisky from the flask in her handbag.
This kind of professionalism has nothing to do with the kit. It means you stand in the location where you can take the standard shots by instinct or training. Uncle Bob stands next to people he likes and hopes for the best.