Noogy: Strange article. Who is on Google+ among enthusiasts and pros here in DPR? None of my friends who are into photography are on Google+ and since Facebook upgraded its photo capabilities that now allows high-def viewing/sharing of images, FB definitely beats Google+ hands down. How much did Google pay for this article?
The same can be said of Google Richard. If you asked me to name my top ten untrustworthy companies, Google would be top. I would only ever use their services with fictional data, making it a no-go zone for social interraction.
skytripper: Yes, those "poor photographers" will have to "make do" with the iPad mini's 163 ppi screen. Whatever did they all do when all they had were Mac and PC screens, most of which still have resolutions of less than 100ppi?
It doesn't matter how high the resolution is, all that increasing the resolution does, is mean you have to magnify the image more, to resolve a single pixel for precision work. 1024x768 is perfectly adequate to do precision editing (or creating, as I do as a professional artist), I did it for long enough on a 17 inch PC monitor, so it is perfectly adequate on a 7inch display. But nobody in their right mind, would do precision editing on a tablet, unless it was something as "precise" as a Cintiq for example... especially a "professional" photographer.
tom trinko: the numbers in the response are very odd.
1) 15k taxes on 50k income is a 30% average tax rate that seems high2) It appears that the photographer lives in the same place she processes her photos so unless she would otherwise live in a box under an overpass she really can't count that $72003) unless she only uses the car for business she really can't count the full $7200 car expense 4) i suspect the fraction of the time the photographer shoots weddings vs the time she wears those shoes is pretty small.5) I have no idea why she pays 2500 a year for high speed internet. I'd suspect something more like 50-100 a month6) the equipment cost is reasonable but when you add it up it's $11,300. Amortized over 24 weddings/year and 5 years that's $94/wedding.
On the other hand she is effectively charging ~$100/hr which is what you pay an automechanic who has a much higher overhead.
As a potential father of 3 brides I can assure you I won't pay $3k/wedding for photographers.
Why do you assume someone doing it part time, either hates it, or is bad at it? How do you know they don't rely on wedding shoots for their main income, and just do weddings for the love of the occasion at weekends?
People do actually do things for the passion, not just for the greed. I should know, I spent many years in the games industry, working for nothing at times... not because I was bad, but because the job satisfaction, was greater than the financial rewards.
That's where all the arguments fall over, because you presume cheap = bad. When in fact, there is plenty of evidence, that expensive does not always equal good. Paying a photographer $10,000, doesn't guarantee you to get one 10 times better than one charging $1,000. But you might get a $10,000 photographer, who thinks they're 10 times better... but isn't.