| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/10/2008 09:16:09 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by benee:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you'd be surprised that the skill set among serious DPC people who do not earn their living shooting pictures is probably about the same as those who do.
As an example, of the Top 5 ribbon winners all time on this site, I think only one is a pro ( librodo) |
I agree, talent is not necessarily the main distinction of a professional photographer - I think it's more a combination of consistent quality and business/marketing sense. |
Talent is involved in all the things you just mentioned. The only difference I see is a pro pursues photography as a career and the amateur doesn't. Both are fully capable of producing consistent quality, high quality, etc.
Message edited by author 2008-09-10 21:27:24.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2008 09:23:16 PM · #27 |
100% of my income is derrived from my photography business. But I suck. :)
I don't think DPC's challenges are biased toward ams or pros. The ribbon winners have historically been mostly ams... not pros. Pros tend to choose a specialty, with makes shooting for 'random' challenges difficult. Their only real advantage is when a challenge comes up that hits their specialty. Well, they might have an advantage from sheer amount of practice, but I still don't think it crosses all areas. I, for example, absolutely SUCK at anything landscape related.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2008 10:03:14 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by idnic:
100% of my income is derrived from my photography business. But I suck. :)
I don't think DPC's challenges are biased toward ams or pros. The ribbon winners have historically been mostly ams... not pros. Pros tend to choose a specialty, with makes shooting for 'random' challenges difficult. Their only real advantage is when a challenge comes up that hits their specialty. Well, they might have an advantage from sheer amount of practice, but I still don't think it crosses all areas. I, for example, absolutely SUCK at anything landscape related. |
If you suck (which we know you don't) at photography in any area then I would have to be classified as having no nohow and/or knowledge of photography.
Message edited by author 2008-09-10 22:42:18. |
|
|
|
09/10/2008 10:36:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by idnic:
100% of my income is derrived from my photography business. But I suck. :) |
Right.. and I am Tom Cruise:-)
Jokes apart, your work is scintillating.
Message edited by author 2008-09-10 22:36:59.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 08:20:07 AM · #30 |
LOL Thanks for the replies, guys. Sorry I missed them before, been a crazy few days. But... that's how it goes when you're out there hustling! :D
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 08:30:58 AM · #31 |
| I,m new here so i like the pro,s and the amatuers i,m learning so much its great .....and thats what its all about i,d say is learning |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:03:39 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by benee:
I agree, talent is not necessarily the main distinction of a professional photographer - I think it's more a combination of consistent quality and business/marketing sense. |
That is most true. Another distinction is an amateur takes pictures to please themselves. A pro takes pictures to please the client.
To make a living at photography takes a hell of a lot more than the ability to take nice pictures. Some ribbon entries have been PS'd for a long time, or there were 300 tries over 4 hours to get 'the' shot. I can't make a living if I take that long to make a photograph.
If I want to make $30,000 a year and sell an 8x10 for $25, ignoring taxes and overhear and all that stuff that can't really be ignored, I need to sell 1200 photos in a year, or 24 a week, every week of the year. Adding in overhead, taxes and advertising, etc would add maybe 50% to that total - so I've got an hour per image to work with.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 10:07:49.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:07:26 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by benee:
I agree, talent is not necessarily the main distinction of a professional photographer - I think it's more a combination of consistent quality and business/marketing sense. |
That is most true. Another distinction is an amateur takes pictures to please themselves. A pro takes pictures to please the client. |
The real pros do both. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:08:05 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by idnic:
100% of my income is derrived from my photography business. But I suck. :) |
Right there with you Cindi :)
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:13:08 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The real pros do both. |
I suppose but I find it hard enough to please HS seniors day to day. The 'in' crowd likes (as in will buy) images with more PP than the 'regular kids' - parents included in that generalization. "regular" kids want straight photos. This is based on some 20 seniors this year that I've shot from 9 different schools from fairly urban to very rural.
And beleive me, the pics I like/love are often the first ones they toss out during the view and choose, and what sells fairly well is the goofy pic that one would never enter into a competition or put in their portfolio.
Often everyone agrees on what is good, but just as often they don't.
I can't see how being a bigger, better pro would change that, other than if becker or vincent laforet or annie leibowitz told you to buy this image as it's great you probably would even if you disagreed.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 10:48:27 AM · #36 |
pros do it for money
Pros do it for the money, amateurs for the love of it. Pros create products which they need to sell. Amateurs create affections to move, educate or stimulate us, and they do this free of charge and sans economic motive. Hobbyists do more or less the same but without the existential seriousness and degree of involvement of an amateur.
A professional has a competitive advantage in certain genres (stock photography, weddings, product photography etc.), many of which remain popular despite the abuse these expose, the distribution they attract or the purpose they serve. He has the advantage, because his skill consists of giving his clients what they want, when they want it. He is at a disadvantage in a context which involves heart and mind, because these tend to be the first to be corrupted by the very nature of professional attributes and functions.
The hobbyist, by comparison, dabbles and has no more than luck or serendipity on his side. No equipment can make up for his comparative lack of true commitment and involvement. At best, he will create good work without much bite, but likely also works without the defect of gravity, which can be found in the works of amateurs who have lost their muse.
The serious amateur is the only one we can rely on to give us what we need, if we're intent to live consciously and with gusto in a world afflicted with professionals and hobbyists. His works represent our collective conscience.
[Z.Z. 2005] |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:07:16 AM · #37 |
Zeus,
Yes, I get paid as a pro- no, I'm not doing it for the money, or I would have a different job. I have it a bit differently because I am a staff photog, so I create my prints how I want, not on what would sell, but I am sure that the pros that create to sell agree with me- its not just about the money. Its the love of it that got us here and keep us here.
Just because we make a living at it, doesnt mean we are sellouts, or have been corrupted. I LIVE my art every day. If anything I feel less corrupt, and more at ease an in touch with myself.
For being so zen and worldly in your post, you sure come across as close minded on this one. Sorry buddy. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 01:02:01 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. It would lead to too many questions of what counts as a pro... |
True. It would be hard to identify based on just the profile. I would imagine one who makes even part of their living with photography would be a Pro. But I agree it will open too many questions:-)
On the one hand, being in the same pool as Pros gives one so much to learn. On the other, there could be an added advantage of skills for the pros in the challenges.
I think DPC is a great platform.. a great mix of people from all walks for careers. Wondering if just sometimes it would make more sense to have challenges specific to skill set, example: exclusive challenge for people with a non-SLR, or exclusive only to people with a certain type of lens and body.
P.S. With all due respect, this is -not- an attempt to try to change anything on DPC, just some honest questions. Please ignore this thread if you find it annoying:-) |
I'm not sure why boxing people into certain categories of challenges would help.
That would defeat/stifle the following ideas.
1) Diversify, try different techniques
2) Variety helps define your style, increases skills, by trying
3) Confidence gained by beating some more advanced Pros
Photography is judged by end-results ONLY, not Who, not How, not Where, not Skills, not Equipment. Some of those tnings matter, but I believe Everyone should have the freedom to enter and try anything.
I say NO to your question.
That would be like having running marthons only for people with Nike shoes.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 02:31:41 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. It would lead to too many questions of what counts as a pro... |
Not really.....either you have a registered/licensed photography business, or you don't.
What being a professional does not do is to require any specific level of talent or quality.
Which if you've ever been brutaluized by a school photography package you already know! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 02:56:38 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. It would lead to too many questions of what counts as a pro... |
True. It would be hard to identify based on just the profile. I would imagine one who makes even part of their living with photography would be a Pro. But I agree it will open too many questions:-)
On the one hand, being in the same pool as Pros gives one so much to learn. On the other, there could be an added advantage of skills for the pros in the challenges.
I think DPC is a great platform.. a great mix of people from all walks for careers. Wondering if just sometimes it would make more sense to have challenges specific to skill set, example: exclusive challenge for people with a non-SLR, or exclusive only to people with a certain type of lens and body.
P.S. With all due respect, this is -not- an attempt to try to change anything on DPC, just some honest questions. Please ignore this thread if you find it annoying:-) |
I'm not sure why boxing people into certain categories of challenges would help.
That would defeat/stifle the following ideas.
1) Diversify, try different techniques
2) Variety helps define your style, increases skills, by trying
3) Confidence gained by beating some more advanced Pros
Photography is judged by end-results ONLY, not Who, not How, not Where, not Skills, not Equipment. Some of those tnings matter, but I believe Everyone should have the freedom to enter and try anything.
I say NO to your question.
That would be like having running marthons only for people with Nike shoes. |
Great input, and very convincing too. I specially love the last quote you made in the end.:-)
However, one can also argue that it would be like having running marathons for those who dont have great sport shoes. It might be unfair in having them compete against the ones that have better shoes.
Also, the idea I was trying to portray is that sporadic challenges specific to amateurs may not hurt... same goes for pros.
I guess it depends on what we focus on: if it is for a challenge, where people's skills will be judged, I stand by what I suggested. But if it is just for a learning display of pictures, perhaps having diversity is ok. May be DPC is evolving to a hybrid platform.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 15:06:17.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:55:40 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by benee:
I agree, talent is not necessarily the main distinction of a professional photographer - I think it's more a combination of consistent quality and business/marketing sense. |
That is most true. Another distinction is an amateur takes pictures to please themselves. A pro takes pictures to please the client.
To make a living at photography takes a hell of a lot more than the ability to take nice pictures. Some ribbon entries have been PS'd for a long time, or there were 300 tries over 4 hours to get 'the' shot. I can't make a living if I take that long to make a photograph.If I want to make $30,000 a year and sell an 8x10 for $25, ignoring taxes and overhear and all that stuff that can't really be ignored, I need to sell 1200 photos in a year, or 24 a week, every week of the year. Adding in overhead, taxes and advertising, etc would add maybe 50% to that total - so I've got an hour per image to work with. |
Don't be fooled into thinking that just because someone tries to ribbon and takes 4 hours or 300 tries to get "the shot" that they are incapable of producing something much quicker for a singular client. DPC is like the mega client, it is comprised of a far greater number of people that you have to impress in order to "sell" your product to the client, hence why more work to get the shot is sometimes required. In the real world and by that I mean your typical pro portrait photographer the bar is much lower in that you only need to impress a fewer number of people each time. That makes it far easier to focus your time and effort to meeting just that need. No need to spend 4 hours or 300 tries to accomplish that.
Now add the business side of things you're absolutely right. If you're having to do that all yourself that's going to effect your time and how successful you become regardless of how good you are. This is probably why most amateurs or hobbyists choose not to go professional as well as not wanting to tailor their work to suit the client's needs/wants.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 15:59:00.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 03:57:35 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by justamistere:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. It would lead to too many questions of what counts as a pro... |
True. It would be hard to identify based on just the profile. I would imagine one who makes even part of their living with photography would be a Pro. But I agree it will open too many questions:-)
On the one hand, being in the same pool as Pros gives one so much to learn. On the other, there could be an added advantage of skills for the pros in the challenges.
I think DPC is a great platform.. a great mix of people from all walks for careers. Wondering if just sometimes it would make more sense to have challenges specific to skill set, example: exclusive challenge for people with a non-SLR, or exclusive only to people with a certain type of lens and body.
P.S. With all due respect, this is -not- an attempt to try to change anything on DPC, just some honest questions. Please ignore this thread if you find it annoying:-) |
I'm not sure why boxing people into certain categories of challenges would help.
That would defeat/stifle the following ideas.
1) Diversify, try different techniques
2) Variety helps define your style, increases skills, by trying
3) Confidence gained by beating some more advanced Pros
Photography is judged by end-results ONLY, not Who, not How, not Where, not Skills, not Equipment. Some of those tnings matter, but I believe Everyone should have the freedom to enter and try anything.
I say NO to your question.
That would be like having running marthons only for people with Nike shoes. |
Great input, and very convincing too. I specially love the last quote you made in the end.:-)
However, one can also argue that it would be like having running marathons for those who dont have great sport shoes. It might be unfair in having them compete against the ones that have better shoes.
Also, the idea I was trying to portray is that sporadic challenges specific to amateurs may not hurt... same goes for pros.
I guess it depends on what we focus on: if it is for a challenge, where people's skills will be judged, I stand by what I suggested. But if it is just for a learning display of pictures, perhaps having diversity is ok. May be DPC is evolving to a hybrid platform. |
I think this would end up being a retread of the very controversial "Master's Challenges" |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 01:23:14 PM EDT.
