| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2005 10:02:30 AM · #1 |
Just wondering what people that have been here some time have noticed. Do the average photography hobbyist win and fair well against the professional photographers here?
What I mean is people that have lets say a $500.00 camera and just take pictures here and their of the family. How do they compare with other people with $1,500 cameras and other people that basically have a full studio with 10 lights,5 expensive cameras,models they can call ect ect.
I figure a good idea with a poor camera is better then a poor idea with a good camera. Just wanted to get some input. I guess you have to judge your own capabilities. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 10:09:46 AM · #2 |
i don't mean to sound sarcastic, but i think neither.
I'd be more apt to guess it's the hobbyist with an 800 - 1000 dollar camera and an external flash that does the best.
but it's difficult to make such a generalization
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 10:10:24. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 10:12:07 AM · #3 |
This site is a great leveller, IMO you can see here that what seperates the winners is the quality of imagination, not quality of equipment. Also 640 pixels levels the playing field... DSLRs and megapixels don't have as much of an advantage at these resolutions. Many of the people who do well here started off with cheap equipment and progressed up after they started doing well... not because they felt they had to in order to do better.
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 10:12:37. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 10:13:23 AM · #4 |
Just was wondering. I see several links in members signature's to their personal sites. And some list the equipment they have.
To me a professional gets money ...so if people sell a print they are a professional. I am probrably wrong but just the way I look at it I suppose.
I also feel if your putiing $800-$1000 on a camera as a hobby your pretty serious about it. I mean nothing wrong with that and people spend more on cars as a hobby then that on parts alone. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 10:13:48 AM · #5 |
| It was also easier to see that prosumers had just as good a chance at winning before the cheap DSLRs came out. Now all the people who are serious about their photography can afford good equipment. This was a lot harder a couple of years ago. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 10:17:15 AM · #6 |
I agree with lowered prices and better equipment. I guess it depends on how much the individual person considers is alot or not alot on a hobby. I have spent $10,000 in computers this year but I just do it for myself. I don't resell them or anything like that.
I also wonder what the average price of most users cameras. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 10:21:19 AM · #7 |
If you look at the heavy hitters here I think you'll find that their images aren't ones that could only be created with high end dSLRs. They are images that can only be created by a talented photographer. They could swap their 20d for a Powershot and still have made the shot.
What high end gear does is allow a good photographer to be more consistent in improving their keepers to tossers ratio. This is usually done through faster / more accurate autofocus, quicker start up, lower shutter lag, and more rapid access to settings (ie - not having to navigate menus). In my case, the dSLR also was simply a more enjoyable tool in my hands. It was so well designed (intuitive, ergonomic) that I *wanted* to use it more.
But see for yourself... Pick an average digicam and look at its DPC camera page... I think in many cases you'll find that an average digicam has equally impressive images to the dSLRs. It's the photographer, not their gear.
Of course, niche excpetions exist. Low light event photographers need fast glass. Nature photographers need long glass to avoid spooking their subjects. But in general, give a low end camera to a great photographer and they will produce great images.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 10:36:45 AM · #8 |
I find myself somewhere in the middle.
I do not charge for my work, so I am not a pro. However, I do have good equipment, and several cameras. I also have been around film, and photography for almost 20 years.
You can tell who the pros are, especially when pix are staged, or if they are using a certain lighting set up, ie 3 point lighting.
I think the talent of some photogs is just that, talent. It does not matter if you have a $10 disposable camera, or a huge investment of thousands of dollars in camera gear.
What does matter is HOW you use the camera, and IF you know what the camera can do with in its peramaters, and If you have the eye to show what you are after.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 11:43:41 AM · #9 |
| I would have to disagree with your definition of a pro. Many amateurs might sell a print or two, that doesn't make them a pro. If your main source of income is from photography, then you are a pro. I have sold a copy of my Bridges entry, but I am nowhere near a pro, just barely an amateur. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 11:49:25 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by rjpat:
I would have to disagree with your definition of a pro. Many amateurs might sell a print or two, that doesn't make them a pro. If your main source of income is from photography, then you are a pro. I have sold a copy of my Bridges entry, but I am nowhere near a pro, just barely an amateur. |
I think pro is more of a middle ground. You don't need to make your primary living to be considered (reasonably) professional. It's more a standard of quality and etiquette.
In my mind, someone who even breaks even on their photography investment could be considered a pro, but I don't submit that as criteria; Only as a suggestion that there are some very professional levels between primary income and hobbyist.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 11:49:47 AM · #11 |
what ever you want to think.
just make sure the payment is under a $100. And if it was, don't let the IRS find out, because if they do, then you automatically become a PRO, what ever level that is.
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 11:55:08.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 11:59:40 AM · #12 |
| What about jjbeguin? An amateur without a dSRL with a whole lot of ribbons. jjbeguin |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:06:40 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
just make sure the payment is under a $100. And if it was, don't let the IRS find out, because if they do, then you automatically become a PRO, what ever level that is. |
I think that the individual payments are less likely to be audited than the complete package. If you are pulling in many payments adding up some magic threshold you'll probably be audited, while a few payments < $ 500 probably wouldn't be worth the IRS' time. Look at eBay and garage saling... Much can be done under the radar if its truly small time / hobbyist.
I can confidently say that if I were even close to breaking even on my photography investment I wouldn't hesitate to call it a business, report my earnings, and depreciate my assets. Being able to depreciate photography gear (to me) would be an incentive to keep it honest.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:07:56 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
What about jjbeguin? An amateur without a dSRL with a whole lot of ribbons. jjbeguin |
three things come to mind.
1= the equipment is irrelavent.
2= His stuff, and very nice stuff indeed, is up for sale. To me he is a pro. And frankly, I would purchase his stuff.
3= I don't think the IRS has jurisdiction in Europe.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:18:12 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
just make sure the payment is under a $100. And if it was, don't let the IRS find out, because if they do, then you automatically become a PRO, what ever level that is. |
I think that the individual payments are less likely to be audited than the complete package. If you are pulling in many payments adding up some magic threshold you'll probably be audited, while a few payments < $ 500 probably wouldn't be worth the IRS' time. Look at eBay and garage saling... Much can be done under the radar if its truly small time / hobbyist.
|
I have been self employed for 18 years. $100 is the minimum. every level of government wants their share of that $100.
However, you are correct. The IRS has too many other big cheeses to go after before they red flag you. BUT they could.
Here in Kalifornia there are people that make a living from garage sales, and the IRS has cracked down on these people.
Then again, I hire workers to work on my house. They get over $100 in what they do, but they don't advertise their abilities, and don't pay taxes, and barely speak english.
So whatever you want to think.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:34:27 PM · #16 |
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 free of any economic motives. Hobbyists do more or less the same but without the existential seriousness and degree of involvement of an amateur.
The pro has a competitive advantage in certain genres, many of which are popular ones (stock photography, weddings, product photography etc.). 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 the heart and mind, because these are the first to be corrupted by the economics and crudeness of his professional paradigms.
The hobbyist, by comparison, dabbles and has no more than luck on his side. No equipment can make up for his lack of true commitment and involvement. At best, he will create good work without much bite, but also without the defect of gravity, which can sometimes 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 (not want but need) to live consciously and with gusto in a world afflicted with professionals and hobbyists. His works represent our collective conscience.
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 12:36:59.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:40:40 PM · #17 |
For what it's worth, my prosumer eBay camera that is now over 5 years old has done well for me.
I'm sure that within it's limitations, it can compete against the better cameras & their users as I have managed so far here:
28th highest rated shot here (9th in the comments rankings too), and 7 of 15 highest rated shots on the site with an E-10.
Also coming close to making "the" list here on the site:
Top Favorite Photographers
# Photographer: 187 / # Photographs: 482 times
Hobbiest & an eBay special.
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 12:50:54. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:41:34 PM · #18 |
(double post)
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 12:42:06. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:49:28 PM · #19 |
I guess I fall into an interesting category around here. I am a professional photographer. I have won national awards, I have pictures in galleries, but look at my pictures on here and you would all think I'm crazy.
I work in a print portrait studio where we shoot sample pictures for other companies. I shoot people all day everyday. So on my days off I take the equipment that I can afford to own and just have fun.
I'ld say this is one of the sites that everyone has a fair chance. With the variety of challenges offered everyone is sure to find something they can excell in. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:51:32 PM · #20 |
BradP is your perfect example. You need not be a professional to win a contest. A professional, while having access to much technique, is not guaranteed a free ride. What is required is an exceptional eye and talent to make your images your sing.
I have been a professional all my life and note how BradP overshadows my stats. He is an exceptional talent. Consider, I have been in advertising and lately in shooting models portfolios, but DPC is a different game where technique alone will not guarantee you success.
The prize goes to the most creative and amazing images can be had with the most modest equipment. Any professional that joins DPC is in for a real surprise when he encounters the formidable competition of top ranking amateurs such as BradP, Scalvert, Smoke editor, Bobster lobster etc, etc. |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 12:52:46 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
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 free of any economic motives. Hobbyists do more or less the same but without the existential seriousness and degree of involvement of an amateur.
The pro has a competitive advantage in certain genres, many of which are popular ones (stock photography, weddings, product photography etc.). 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 the heart and mind, because these are the first to be corrupted by the economics and crudeness of his professional paradigms.
The hobbyist, by comparison, dabbles and has no more than luck on his side. No equipment can make up for his lack of true commitment and involvement. At best, he will create good work without much bite, but also without the defect of gravity, which can sometimes 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 (not want but need) to live consciously and with gusto in a world afflicted with professionals and hobbyists. His works represent our collective conscience. |
I respect what you're trying to say here, but I get the impression that you are implying that pros are inherently corrupted and do not follow their hearts as purely as an amateur. Forgive me if I'm wrong in that interpretation.
The reason I challenge this viewpoint as an "absolute" is the impression I obtained in reading books by Galen Rowell, Art Morris, and Art Wolf, and John Shaw. Their is an undeniable passion in their work, and it is not rooted entirely in a lust for money.
I believe strongly that a photographer who seeks the path of least resistance towards an end goal of income will be corrupted and fail to reach their potential. In contrast, I believe that a photographer who works to understand and achieve their passion can make a profession of it if they persevere and stay true to their goals.
I'm not saying its easy - if it were then everyone would do it. I'm saying that the condition of being professional doesn't corrupt an artist; the artist corrupts themself.
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 12:54:06.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 01:42:16 PM · #22 |
There are different levels of hobbyist and pro. These levels are by economics and interest, dedication, etc. While some ar truly born with great talent, most of us have to work at it.
Practice, practice, practice is the cliche'd mantra. Pros might have an advantage here.
This is where the the level of dedication comes in - pros obviously spend more time taking/editing/visualing photos compared to most amateurs. Some pros will make a decent living but have no more luck here than a noob. Just because you can take wedding pics and make a living at it (or as Gary Fong's website professes - charge $120,000 (no typo!) for one wedding) does not mean you will do any better here at Abandonded Buildings or Deja Vu.
Pros or experienced amateurs with studios have a technical advantage, as do dSLR owners. That does not mean they have a creative advantage.
I know 'hobbyists' in other hobbies that spend a fortune on their hobby - a $3500 bicycle is one example - and i know MANY amateur racers (car and motorcycle) that put what ANYONE here has spent on their photo hobby to shame. Spending has no bearing on being a pro or amateur.
How you define yourself perhaps is more telling - Are you an acountant that does photography as a hobby? Or a photographer that does accounting to pay the bills?
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 13:43:38.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 01:48:07 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I know 'hobbyists' in other hobbies that spend a fortune on their hobby - a $3500 bicycle is one example - and i know MANY amateur racers (car and motorcycle) that put what ANYONE here has spent on their photo hobby to shame. |
lol I own one of those bikes from when i raced... don't tempt me to trade it for a 1DII I just might :-P |
|
|
|
04/25/2005 01:56:21 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
...I respect what you're trying to say here, but I get the impression that you are implying that pros are inherently corrupted and do not follow their hearts as purely as an amateur. Forgive me if I'm wrong in that interpretation.
The reason I challenge this viewpoint as an "absolute" is the impression I obtained in reading books by Galen Rowell, Art Morris, and Art Wolf, and John Shaw. Their is an undeniable passion in their work, and it is not rooted entirely in a lust for money.
I believe strongly that a photographer who seeks the path of least resistance towards an end goal of income will be corrupted and fail to reach their potential. In contrast, I believe that a photographer who works to understand and achieve their passion can make a profession of it if they persevere and stay true to their goals.
I'm not saying its easy - if it were then everyone would do it. I'm saying that the condition of being professional doesn't corrupt an artist; the artist corrupts themself. |
I agree, by and large. Mine is not a moderate view. The reality I presented is also not an entirely literal reality. It is a perspective. As a fellow human being, I'm not critical of people or groups of them. I am critical of a process and a windfall direction with regards to the weather. It is the integrity and artistic utility of the work I'm looking at, not the integrity of the person behind the work, which is another matter. Like you, I do not believe in furthering any absolute viewpoints either.
But I cannot agree with your concluding sentence. To me, the condition of being a professional is precisely this, a condition. Conditions, by their very nature, do not come solely by invitation. Economic, social conditions frequently dictate not only our conduct and courses of action but can also prevent us from the pursuit of our natural interests and inclinations.
When you say "the artist corrupts himself", you would, effectively, invite him to become a bricklayer or a high-wire artist. Socio-economic conditions corrupt. An individual can only accept or resist such conditions. To do both is not a choice that would lead him to experiment or the sort of diligence one would expect from someone dedicated to the nature of his work as opposed to the business of it.
Message edited by author 2005-04-25 13:57:14.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2005 01:56:28 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I know 'hobbyists' in other hobbies that spend a fortune on their hobby - a $3500 bicycle is one example - and i know MANY amateur racers (car and motorcycle) that put what ANYONE here has spent on their photo hobby to shame. |
lol I own one of those bikes from when i raced... don't tempt me to trade it for a 1DII I just might :-P |
A close friend of mine just bought a $1200 bike, plus some accessories. He spends a couple of grand a year on his computers (for fun) and his camaro is in my driveway - with $4500 of engine and $2000 trannie...and tons more work to go (another 5 grand easy). He could have a 1Ds Mk2 or perhaps a 30D and lots of L glass...but he is satisfied photographically with a Nikon Coolpix 2200 (? 3 or 4 year old 2Mp).
To each their own.
|
|
