|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/21/2002 01:33:18 AM · #26 |
So have you quit your day job at Motorola yet, Gordon?
If not, you can't claim yourself that you're a "professional" photographer.
While professionals take MORE photos, that's because it's their FULL time job. They get paid on assignments. For example, if you're on assignments for national geographic, they pay you to take the photgraphs. Then, when you submit your work, the editors pick the photos they are going to publish AND OWN the copyright to, the rest is returned to you. That's why they take a lot of photos, it's not necessarily to get the best shot, it's so that they get a variety of shots that they can then SELL.
The famous Galen Rowell's rainbow over Dalai Lama's palace was published in the National Geographic's book, but he also took several other shots that aren't published. he then can SELL the rights to his other shots (in fact, his limited edition prints were selling for over $18,000 a piece BEFORE he died, now htye're going to rise even higher).
Profesionals don't shoot 100's of photos on the same scene unless the original scene has merit. they don't randomly shoot like amateurs does. While it may be true that only a few slides out of hundreds will be published, it doens't mean the other slides aren't of professional quality (magazines can only publish so much). I think it's a mistake to tell people to shoot as much as they want and ****HOPE**** one shot looks good. You'll never learn anything doing that in any art form. Tell that to a violinist to just practice without knowing what they need to practice on and you get the same effect.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by goodtimecharlee:
[i]there are some excellent photographers on this site, but to call anyone an expert is pushing it in my opinion. i wouldn't call most professionals experts. there are so many different aspects of photography as well as different styles and areas of interest. most portrait photographers would not fair well as landscape photographers and vice versa. there is too much to learn. this is after all basically a amateur site, not that there is anything wrong with that. there is just a completely different level of photographers out there who truly are experts. we may occasionally produce images that look professional but the experts do it consistently and in much fewer shots than it would take most of us. also being a hobbyist photographer is much much different than having to make a living at it. you no longer have the final say on what you think is good. you have to answer to the person paying you which can give your creativity a sock in the throat at times. anyway i'm not trying to offend anyone i just don't want people to be mislead that we are a bunch of near proffessionals or experts on this site. i do have to say that setzler has a great start at someday becoming an expert. he is one of the few people that produce technically good shots that are very creative and also do well in the challenges.
The only thing I'd take you to task about is the idea that
experts or professionals do their good shots in much fewer
shots than 'we' do. This is almost exactly the opposite -
they take hundreds of shots to get one that is good - sometimes
thousands.
Most beginners, and especially with digital, could simply do better
by taking a whole lot more pictures, and being more selective about
which ones are good or not.
I think I typically take close to 200 shots per challenge - I wonder
how many other people take. and I mean 200 of the same thing,
not 200 completely different ideas.
My last holiday I think I took 500 shots, 20 of which I think are okay,
and maybe 1 or 2 are quite good.
I think Ansel Adam's is often quoted as saying he thought he took one
or two good pictures per year.
Shoot more - it's free!
[/i]
|
|
|
|
09/21/2002 08:56:30 AM · #27 |
While I hear what you're saying Pag - Im with Gordon on this. I personally take LOTS of photos for each challenge. Between each shot I check my last shot and tweak things to try and improve things. I sometimes also try the same shot from different angles and with different lights to see if something unexpectedly improves things. To me this is an important part of how I learn. I try things out in order to see what works and what doesn't. Like Gordon I regularly take 200 or more shots per challenge.
John |
|
|
|
09/21/2002 09:39:18 AM · #28 |
As a person who IS an ad/art director I CAN speak directly to this.
Gordon is correct and paganini is somewhat correct as well.
Many professionals take hundreds of shots often of very minor changes of the same event/object/subject. Small exposure differences, slight angle changes and minor compositional changes in order to give themselves as many variations to get that special combination and to give me (the guy who pays them) a chance to choose.
Ask a professional how an amatuer can improve. I did. I work with pros everyday and I have taken the opportunity to pick their brains.
At first they thought it was cute...Hahaha...the ad guy is gonna start to shoot...har har har... But some of the pros that had smaller egos said straight up...shoot a lot.....period. I had to take photography (along with painting, drawing, sculpture, graphic design, etc, etc, etc) 20 years ago as part of my degree in communication so I wasn't exactly starting from ground zero.
You can read books...good..it helps.
You can take classes...great..it gets you face to face with others in similar environments and some basic critique of your abilities.
But you cannot replace repetition. Once you get close to knowing the basics and if you have an eye (not a guarantee of that) then you will improve by seeing what all the little things you do different help to improve in your photos.
As one of the pros I work with said..."Who cares if you get everything perfect..at least you are shooting"
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/21/2002 9:37:46 AM. |
|
|
|
09/21/2002 09:40:03 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by paganini:
So have you quit your day job at Motorola yet, Gordon?
any day now...
If not, you can't claim yourself that you're a "professional" photographer.
I wasn't aware that I ever have.
While professionals take MORE photos, that's because it's their FULL time job. They get paid on assignments. For example, if you're on assignments for national geographic, they pay you to take the photgraphs. Then, when you submit your work, the editors pick the photos they are going to publish AND OWN the copyright to, the rest is returned to you. That's why they take a lot of photos, it's not necessarily to get the best shot, it's so that they get a variety of shots that they can then SELL.
The famous Galen Rowell's rainbow over Dalai Lama's palace was published in the National Geographic's book, but he also took several other shots that aren't published. he then can SELL the rights to his other shots (in fact, his limited edition prints were selling for over $18,000 a piece BEFORE he died, now htye're going to rise even higher).
Profesionals don't shoot 100's of photos on the same scene unless the original scene has merit. they don't randomly shoot like amateurs does. While it may be true that only a few slides out of hundreds will be published, it doens't mean the other slides aren't of professional quality (magazines can only publish so much). I think it's a mistake to tell people to shoot as much as they want and ****HOPE**** one shot looks good. You'll never learn anything doing that in any art form. Tell that to a violinist to just practice without knowing what they need to practice on and you get the same effect.
Of course you are right, randomly shooting stuff in the hope that
it would be good would be a dumb thing to do. Again I don't think
I've ever heard anyone suggest that.
All I'm suggesting is that the more pictures you take, the better you'll
get. Of course if you don't look at those pictures and try to learn
from them, you'll not get any better. Practising random stuff on
a violin without listening to what it sounds like would be equally
stupid. Did you have a point here ?
The fact remains, that if you read anything written by professional
photographers, they almost all say that they take massive amounts
more shots than typical non-pros - and not for the reasons you state.
It is so that they may get one or two good shots - I was merely
pointing out that most people could do better by not submitting the
first shot they take - experiment, try new things, learn how your
camera works, evaluate the impact of trying different things.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2002 09:59:37 AM · #30 |
|
|
|
09/21/2002 11:21:33 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]So have you quit your day job at Motorola yet, Gordon?
any day now...
If not, you can't claim yourself that you're a "professional" photographer.
I wasn't aware that I ever have.
While professionals take MORE photos, that's because it's their FULL time job. They get paid on assignments. For example, if you're on assignments for national geographic, they pay you to take the photgraphs. Then, when you submit your work, the editors pick the photos they are going to publish AND OWN the copyright to, the rest is returned to you. That's why they take a lot of photos, it's not necessarily to get the best shot, it's so that they get a variety of shots that they can then SELL.
The famous Galen Rowell's rainbow over Dalai Lama's palace was published in the National Geographic's book, but he also took several other shots that aren't published. he then can SELL the rights to his other shots (in fact, his limited edition prints were selling for over $18,000 a piece BEFORE he died, now htye're going to rise even higher).
Profesionals don't shoot 100's of photos on the same scene unless the original scene has merit. they don't randomly shoot like amateurs does. While it may be true that only a few slides out of hundreds will be published, it doens't mean the other slides aren't of professional quality (magazines can only publish so much). I think it's a mistake to tell people to shoot as much as they want and ****HOPE**** one shot looks good. You'll never learn anything doing that in any art form. Tell that to a violinist to just practice without knowing what they need to practice on and you get the same effect.
Of course you are right, randomly shooting stuff in the hope that
it would be good would be a dumb thing to do. Again I don't think
I've ever heard anyone suggest that.
All I'm suggesting is that the more pictures you take, the better you'll
get. Of course if you don't look at those pictures and try to learn
from them, you'll not get any better. Practising random stuff on
a violin without listening to what it sounds like would be equally
stupid. Did you have a point here ?
The fact remains, that if you read anything written by professional
photographers, they almost all say that they take massive amounts
more shots than typical non-pros - and not for the reasons you state.
It is so that they may get one or two good shots - I was merely
pointing out that most people could do better by not submitting the
first shot they take - experiment, try new things, learn how your
camera works, evaluate the impact of trying different things.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 10:31:44 AM  |
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: 09/23/2025 10:31:44 AM EDT.
|
