Photographers' day jobs!

Hi. Does anyone agree with me that being a good photographer or should I say taking a damn good photograph is 40% skill and 60% luck? What I mean is, a fantastic photographer might be unlucky enough to have to work a 12 hour day and NEVER (except for weekends, when he's not taking the wife shopping) get the chance to take a good photo. Sure theres a lot of skill in SEEING the photograph in the first place, but you still need to have the freetime to actually get the chance to be lucky enough to see it. I consider myself really lucky to work the hours I do (5.0am to midday) but then the way Consignia seems to be going, I might have even longer to shoot photographs! (By the way UK guys, I've got a double page spread in tomorrows What Digital Camera magazine so give it a look if you get the chance)

I believe there is a lot of luck involved but I dont think it is 60 %. My bet would be around 30%. But it still gives us amateurs a good chance of getting great shots. We just have to find the 30% and then practice. The last few month I would say that I have learned a lot!

Anders

Mark Lane said:

Hi. Does anyone agree with me that being a good photographer or
should I say taking a damn good photograph is 40% skill and 60%
luck? What I mean is, a fantastic photographer might be unlucky
enough to have to work a 12 hour day and NEVER (except for
weekends, when he's not taking the wife shopping) get the chance to
take a good photo. Sure theres a lot of skill in SEEING the
photograph in the first place, but you still need to have the
freetime to actually get the chance to be lucky enough to see it.
I consider myself really lucky to work the hours I do (5.0am to
midday) but then the way Consignia seems to be going, I might have
even longer to shoot photographs! (By the way UK guys, I've got a
double page spread in tomorrows What Digital Camera magazine so
give it a look if you get the chance)

Click to expand...

--Anders

Anders said:

I believe there is a lot of luck involved but I dont think it is 60
%. My bet would be around 30%. But it still gives us amateurs a
good chance of getting great shots. We just have to find the 30%
and then practice. The last few month I would say that I have
learned a lot!

Click to expand...

I think the percentage figure must be qualified as to what sort of photography you're doing. However in some instances I'd put the luck factor @ 95 or higher percent - especially with news type photography. I like shooting pictures of places. In Ireland (where I live) one's very very reliant on decent weather - though even in February there's quite decent enough weather - blue skies and so on to make some progress, problem of course is come the weekend it inevitably clouds over.

Michael
http://www.360sphere.com - if it's working...

Ansel Adams said soemthing along the lines: He felt lucky that God gave him the chance to be there to press the shutter...

Amen

Mark Lane said:

Hi. Does anyone agree with me that being a good photographer or
should I say taking a damn good photograph is 40% skill and 60%
luck? What I mean is, a fantastic photographer might be unlucky
enough to have to work a 12 hour day and NEVER (except for
weekends, when he's not taking the wife shopping) get the chance to
take a good photo. Sure theres a lot of skill in SEEING the
photograph in the first place, but you still need to have the
freetime to actually get the chance to be lucky enough to see it.
I consider myself really lucky to work the hours I do (5.0am to
midday) but then the way Consignia seems to be going, I might have
even longer to shoot photographs! (By the way UK guys, I've got a
double page spread in tomorrows What Digital Camera magazine so
give it a look if you get the chance)

Click to expand...

Mark Lane said:

Hi. Does anyone agree with me that being a good photographer or
should I say taking a damn good photograph is 40% skill and 60%
luck?

Click to expand...

OUCH! I'd better hope not.

I've been a working pro for almost two decades. I cannot afford to leave the high percentage to luck, I have to return with the goods, pretty much every time.

But there are two extremes to consider: The Picture Taker and the Picture Maker. I would agree the Picture Taker leaves a lot to chance, but the Picture Maker leaves almost nothing, like a studio situation.

So here's what you do. If you work 5am to midday, consider shots that only occur during the afternoon. If you are shooting landscapes, choose your views way ahead of time, and wait for the right day. Know the weather you need to pull off that shot, and allow some room for a happy accident. But time of day is the simplist of control. Don't waste your time trying to shoot angles that won't work at other times of day.

See? Your luck is improving already.

It's all about the light. If the light is not great, if it's noon on a sunny day, go shopping. But if it's the last hour (or the first) of the day, your "luck" will be much better. Improved by your skills.

p--www.paulmbowers.com

The harder I work, the luckier I get.

I did't say it first but I say it often.

--Dwain

I used to bulk load 76 exposures into one 35mm can. I would then shoot em' off at 3 frames/sec with my A1. On a good (bad) day I could shoot over 200 shots. See, I never thought I had the ability to sense just the right moment to release the shutter. The feeling was, "even a blind man points a shotgun at a fence full of birds he is bound to get one or two"

So I would print dozens of proof sheets, looking for the occasional keeper.

This was a bad approach. Out of 100 shots I may have printed 2 or three, and out of those, I usually kept none.

My sister, on the other hand, did not crop. A real purist, she filed her negative carrier. (let the world know the images were all full frame, we were young...)

She did not use a power winder, or a telephoto lens. 50mm on her leica, that was it. She moved herself to (or away from) the subject.

She is now a professional photo journalist, I repair non functional electronic devices.

Now, to the point: (to address your query)

You would think, considering that:

there is no film, 2 128mb smartmedia cards hold almost 200 hi-res images.

my darkroom uses no chemistry. I can shoot the same subject a dozen different ways, I have many, many options as to what the final print will look like. Things are easier than ever, (and still the same)

Here is the answer to your question, as far as I am concerned. I am not a perfectionist, yet, even on my very best prints, there always seems to be one (sometimes little) thing wrong (or at least not right) with them. You would think having the LCD to evaluate the captured image would help, but it doesnt. With me, luck is an enormous part of capturing a meaningful image. I have deleted thousands of images, and kept maybe a dozen. Still, I am happy with what I have kept.

sorry for going on

--rich'We learn by doing' - James T. Kirk http://www.pbase.com/iceninevt

Like in most things, the more experience you have, the lower the percentage of luck becomes in your photography. For those of us that have never grown beyond the rank of amateur, it brings to mind the old saying that, if you took an infinite number of monkeys, and sat them at an infinite number of typewriters, they would eventually type all of the world's great books. In photography, even we monkeys get lucky once in a while.

The question of the amount of luck involved in the taking of a photograph is similar to the question in golf as to the relative amounts of skill and luck involved in making a hole-in-one. The best answer that I ever heard to the hole-in-one query was by Sam Snead, when he responded that, "ts skill when you do it yourself, and luck when the other guy does it." This sounds like a pretty good attitude to take.

Mark,

Just wanted to say, "HI!"--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

CliffB said:

Like in most things, the more experience you have, the lower the
percentage of luck becomes in your photography. For those of us
that have never grown beyond the rank of amateur, it brings to mind
the old saying that, if you took an infinite number of monkeys, and
sat them at an infinite number of typewriters, they would
eventually type all of the world's great books. In photography,
even we monkeys get lucky once in a while.

Click to expand...

actually you could take your infinite number of monkeys at your infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time even, and NOT ONE of them would EVER write so much as a single coherent sentence in any existing or invented language

CliffB said:

The question of the amount of luck involved in the taking of a
photograph is similar to the question in golf as to the relative
amounts of skill and luck involved in making a hole-in-one. The
best answer that I ever heard to the hole-in-one query was by Sam
Snead, when he responded that, "ts skill when you do it
yourself, and luck when the other guy does it." This sounds like a
pretty good attitude to take.

Click to expand...

this is a TERRIBLE analogy! how can you possibly equate that to photography?

making a hole in one is essentially a fluke and almost never happens (statistically)

taking or making a good photograph is only similar if your typing monkeys are doing the shooting! or if your humans are only using a typing monkeys worth of thought, skill, vision, imagination, creativity, experience, timing etc.

now if you were talking about making good, great, useful or serviceable golf shots rather than specifically hole's in one, then you might be more in the ballpark or golf course with an analogy... in that case, one's skill, timing, thought, sensitivity, experience etc. would be the predominant factors... NOT LUCK!

as far as actual hole's on one go, obviously the more shots you have that go in the right relative direction and distance the better the odds of the "lucky" shot going in. i suppose that's similar to a "perfect" photo where all the elements come together magnificently including something you didn't have precise control over... the more well planned, and the better your skills and talents the more likely you'll be in position for it to happen and the better able to take advantage of whatever special "unplanned" part of it is happening

paul eluded to the difference between "taking" and "making" a photo. people have different definitions and interpretations of those things among people who even make such a distinction. what sort of photographs do you consider taken rather than made? and which types do you consider to be largely influenced by or the result of, luck? is it news or sports photos? the perfect street shot? luck can certainly play a part in those kinds of shots at times, but i think you'd be surprised how much of certain shots you consider lucky were largely the result of forethought, experience, reflexes, talent, instinct, imagination, interpersonal skills etc.

for example a street shot with uncanny composition, lighting, color (if in color), along with perfect timing and the "luck" of just the right person walking by or interaction happening... well the photog could have just have been walking by and happened to have his camera with him and handy, and saw something that caught his eye and reacted quickly enough and all the elements were right... even if that were the case he probably chose to have the camera with him for just that reason, that's "making" some of his luck right there, and he observed the scene and recognized something special about it... more credit to him, and he had the ability to take the shot in the time required... more credit...

but the fact is, that very likely what happened was that he staked out such a spot, he saw the potential in the scene, he knew the right time to be there and then he waited patiently and alertly for something good or interesting to happen in the scene/background that he had already lined up, and then used all that timing and perception along with the technical skills to make it happen

you can allow for luck and serendipity, and be open to it and able to take advantage of it. you can even prepare for it and do things to increase the odds of it happening. but if it's all you have or the only thing that contributes to your good photos then you need to learn, to practice, to work, and to think more

Aaron:

Don't take the world so seriously. Lighten up a little. I hope you don't always roll out of bed, so early on a Sunday morning, with so little humor. I'm sure that it's cold up there in Michigan; so, make yourself a nice warn breakfast, or pour a glass of whatever you like to drink, and relax a while in front of a fireplace.

By the way, the saying about the monkeys is one that has been around for many decades; so, I can't take either any credit or any blame for that one. I guess it was someone's view of the randomness or entropy of the universe in which we all live.

As to the Sam Snead quote, he was merely pointing out the need for one to have confidence in his abilities. When we are on a photo shoot, having confidence that we can attain our desired result (ie. the perfect photograph that we envision in our mind), the better our chances of achieving that goal. You don't have anything against self-confidence, do you?

Aaron, relax and enjoy the rest of the week-end.

I have a sudden craveing for bananas.........0000000! 000000000! 0000000!-- http://www.pbase.com/wbrosen/photoarthttp://www.pisite.com

oooooooooo?-- http://www.pbase.com/wbrosen/photoarthttp://www.pisite.com

cliff,

it's not a matter of having a problem with the two statements which weren't yours, (although the monkey thing is absurd and doesn't actually make a valid point about writing or anything else) i do have a strong disagreement with the implications in the way you related those things to photography however. and although i only responded specifically to your post, it was also a general response to the thread.

what sam snead said and what it might mean is completely different from what you said "The question of the amount of luck involved in the taking of a photograph is similar to the question in golf as to the relative amounts of skill and luck involved in making a hole-in-one.," that, along with the monkey business is saying that, taken literally, photography is practically all luck... and at the very least, largely luck

as far as having a sense of humor, i think i have a great one. in fact i recognize snead's comment as a joke, which i'm not sure you get. i think the fact that you find underlying seriousness in his joke and that it has the meaning you found in it a stretch. the other thing about having a sense of humor is that nobody seems to be joking about what i'm not laughing about (joke or not, funny or not, snead wasn't talking about photography), furthermore, these perceptions are serious, deep, and widespread, that photography is easy, something anyone can do, that it's not work, that it's luck, that it can't be art, that it doesn't have value, that no one should charge real money for it, etc. etc. (besides, i thought i made some funny remarks in my first post)

those widespread public perceptions cause real problems for people trying to have careers in photography. as well as being irritating and offensive to photographers who have put so much time, effort and money into doing what they do and what they have love, passion and respect for.

let's assume you're actually a judge like it says in your profile. if someone was making a joke about judges, implying that they made all their decisions based on bribes, flipping coins, their horoscope, sexual favors, and their own political beliefs. that they had no integrity, didn't care about justice and don't study or know the law..... you would probably laugh, just think it was absurd and not give it another thought... why? because you don't actually face those perceptions from the majority of people! you're position is respected by most people, you're held in a place of honor in society, and peoples opinions don't affect your livelihood!

it's not the same story for photography is it?

but the thing is, on top of all that, i STILL wasn't showing a lack of humor or freaking out, getting all upset over your comments.... i was simply countering misperceptions with sound, valid, and logical arguments. shouldn't a judge be able to understand that? i don't see why you assume i wasn't "light" enough just because i defend my position. if it has anything to do with some of the caps, it's the only form of emphasis the forum allows as far as i know, no italics, no underline, no bold..

btw, it wasn't early sunday, it was late saturday! (for me)...

Aaron:

I am not sure where you get the idea that there are "serious, deep and widespread" perceptions that photographers are not performing work, or that there work product isjust luck. I am sure some people feel that way, but I do not feel that this is the general public's perception. At least not any more than they might undervalue the work performed by those in any other profession. Most people have, at somepoint in their lives, used a camera, and realize the enormous difference between their sanpshots and the works of professionals. Those in the majority of professions, not just photographers, feel underappreciated, overworked and underpaid. The "Noone understands what I have to go through" sysndrome is widespread throughout our society. I don't think that it falls any heavier on photographers than on those who have made most other career choices. It can be difficult to deal with those who truly do not appreciate us; as it is also difficult to not overestimate our own importance in the scheme of things.

Life is a lot better when we when we are satisfied and confident in our own place in the world. At that point, we know that what others feel does not usually effect us anyway.

I don't think the average person with a camera compares himself to Ansel Adams any more or less than your average YMCA basketball player compares himself to Michael Jordan, or the average guy with a set of golf clubs compares himself to Tiger Woods.

We are just all more sensitive to things related to our own vocation or avocation. It's all too easy to dismiss barbs directed at professions other than our own. You mention how easy it would be for someone in my profession to dismiss criticism. As I said, I guess that is easier from someone not in the profession. When critisism is made about a judge, it is usually quite personal, not a genral statement against the profession. Also, unlike photographers, who are free to respond to comments about their work, when someone chooses to make comments about a judge (usually in a very public forum) the judge is legally precluded from respondeing in any fashion whatsoever. Try having a position where your are required to be a clay pidgeon, whose only allowed defense to any slings and arrows hurled at you is to stand there and hope they miss. Though free speech is a right accorded to photographers and most others, it is not a right granted to a judge if he is attacked. I am merely trying to point out that we can all view others as having an easier road to follow, but it is seldom the case.

All of us, in every profession or job, are the subject of unfounded perceptions, and also have many reasons to be proud of our accomplishments. With all things considered, it is likely that we all suffer an equal amount of misplaced perceptions about what we do; and, we all should enjoy the same amount of importance in life for what we do. It is when we pay too much attention to the naysayers and too little attention to our own knowledge of our accompishments, that life becomes burdensome. When we feel good about what we do, and consider the misperceptions of others for their true value (or lack thereof), life is a truly happy journey.

I fear we have drifted much too far from the subject of photography. Have a great day Aaron. I'm getting away from my profession today by taking a group of kids to the zoo. Besides, its a great place to take a camera.

I think that there is a lot of luck involed in photography. Just the other day I was taking a photo of a pretty flower. Only when I downloaded the photo to my computer did I realize that a bee had landed on the flower just as I took the photo! It turned out to be a really great photo that I couldn't have taken if I tried. Pure luck!

Mark Lane said:

Hi. Does anyone agree with me that being a good photographer or
should I say taking a damn good photograph is 40% skill and 60%
luck? What I mean is, a fantastic photographer might be unlucky
enough to have to work a 12 hour day and NEVER (except for
weekends, when he's not taking the wife shopping) get the chance to
take a good photo. Sure theres a lot of skill in SEEING the
photograph in the first place, but you still need to have the
freetime to actually get the chance to be lucky enough to see it.
I consider myself really lucky to work the hours I do (5.0am to
midday) but then the way Consignia seems to be going, I might have
even longer to shoot photographs! (By the way UK guys, I've got a
double page spread in tomorrows What Digital Camera magazine so
give it a look if you get the chance)

Click to expand...

I think the problem with photography is it is something which has an uncertain status. What I mean is for example is that if one looks through the work of contributors to this site there are undoubtedly some amateurs producing 'professional' grade work, ditto most amateur photography magazines. Another 'problem' is what some professional's feel to be rather wonderful and amazing isn't necessarily something the general public at large can see beauty in - for example there is a nameless fellow who shoots stones, rocks call them what you then assemble their textures into large mosaics, very clever problem is lots of the public at large (who are all philistines let's be honest) will sadly see no value whatsoever in the results.

These are only my thoughts and some may vehemently disagree with them, which they've every right to do.

Michael http://www.360sphere.com

CliffB said:

Aaron:

I am not sure where you get the idea that there are "serious, deep
and widespread" perceptions that photographers are not performing
work, or that there work product isjust luck. I am sure some
people feel that way, but I do not feel that this is the general
public's perception. At least not any more than they might
undervalue the work performed by those in any other profession.
Most people have, at somepoint in their lives, used a camera, and
realize the enormous difference between their sanpshots and the
works of professionals. Those in the majority of professions, not
just photographers, feel underappreciated, overworked and
underpaid. The "Noone understands what I have to go through"
sysndrome is widespread throughout our society. I don't think that
it falls any heavier on photographers than on those who have made
most other career choices. It can be difficult to deal with those
who truly do not appreciate us; as it is also difficult to not
overestimate our own importance in the scheme of things.

Life is a lot better when we when we are satisfied and confident in
our own place in the world. At that point, we know that what
others feel does not usually effect us anyway.

I don't think the average person with a camera compares himself to
Ansel Adams any more or less than your average YMCA basketball
player compares himself to Michael Jordan, or the average guy with
a set of golf clubs compares himself to Tiger Woods.

We are just all more sensitive to things related to our own
vocation or avocation. It's all too easy to dismiss barbs directed
at professions other than our own. You mention how easy it would
be for someone in my profession to dismiss criticism. As I said, I
guess that is easier from someone not in the profession. When
critisism is made about a judge, it is usually quite personal, not
a genral statement against the profession. Also, unlike
photographers, who are free to respond to comments about their
work, when someone chooses to make comments about a judge (usually
in a very public forum) the judge is legally precluded from
respondeing in any fashion whatsoever. Try having a position where
your are required to be a clay pidgeon, whose only allowed defense
to any slings and arrows hurled at you is to stand there and hope
they miss. Though free speech is a right accorded to photographers
and most others, it is not a right granted to a judge if he is
attacked. I am merely trying to point out that we can all view
others as having an easier road to follow, but it is seldom the
case.

All of us, in every profession or job, are the subject of unfounded
perceptions, and also have many reasons to be proud of our
accomplishments. With all things considered, it is likely that we
all suffer an equal amount of misplaced perceptions about what we
do; and, we all should enjoy the same amount of importance in life
for what we do. It is when we pay too much attention to the
naysayers and too little attention to our own knowledge of our
accompishments, that life becomes burdensome. When we feel good
about what we do, and consider the misperceptions of others for
their true value (or lack thereof), life is a truly happy journey.

I fear we have drifted much too far from the subject of
photography. Have a great day Aaron. I'm getting away from my
profession today by taking a group of kids to the zoo. Besides,
its a great place to take a camera.

Click to expand...

CliffB said:

Aaron:

I am not sure where you get the idea that there are "serious, deep
and widespread" perceptions that photographers are not performing
work, or that there work product isjust luck.

Click to expand...

I am sure some

CliffB said:

people feel that way, but I do not feel that this is the general
public's perception. At least not any more than they might
undervalue the work performed by those in any other profession.

Click to expand...

well, it's right here in this thread for one thing. and it's exactly what you yourself were saying! maybe you didn't mean to, but you did. and it falls off the lips of practically anyone who's confronted with fees they didn't expect or can't fathom, or from people who admire your work. "but you're just pushing a button!" "my nephew has a camera, he could do this for half that price" "wow, great picture! what kind of camera took that?" "wow you're good, what kind of camera do you use" "boy if i could only afford a pro camera i'd be great too!" "with these modern auto everything cameras ANYBODY can do it" "hey, i just got my brand new canikon supermegapixelpopper and a microdrive, now i'm a pro, how much do i charge?" etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad nausea

does anybody say, "hey, i just bought my new 100 page yellow legal pad, what's the best suit to wear in court?" or "hey, i just got my new wrench from sears, where's the best place to open my import auto repair shop?" "what??? you charge HOW much to replace that engine? my niece knows how a pulley works and she has a wrench too!" "never mind doc, my daughter watches ER every week and i'm sure she'd LOVE to do my brain surgery for free just for her resume!"

does anybody EVER say "hey, that was a great book/article you wrote! what kind of pen/typewriter/computer did you use?" or "what a great painting! what kind of brush did you use?"

sorry dude, this is reality, everybody with a camera thinks they're a photographer and most of them are happy to work for free just for the "glory" if they ever get the chance. and lots of people think that since they know how to use a camera too or they use the same equipment as a pro that it can't be that hard and we should be happy to get paid anything at all

CliffB said:

Most people have, at somepoint in their lives, used a camera, and
realize the enormous difference between their sanpshots and the
works of professionals.

Click to expand...

not really, there's a disconnect at some level, and especially if the work resulting or required isn't earth shaking, or it's not as beautiful as the best shots you or your friends have taken then they can't understand y it's worth real money. there's no understanding of what it takes to stay in biz, what it means to solve problems, arrive at solutions, manage a set or a production, deal with the clients, crew, permits, officials, travel, legal issues, insurance, guarantee the results, achieve a certain result through planning and design rather than just picking the best of a bunch that you happened to shoot willy nilly.

Those in the majority of professions, not

CliffB said:

just photographers, feel underappreciated, overworked and
underpaid.

Click to expand...

like i said before, even if it was true, like in a judges case, any possible perceptions/misperceptions DON'T affect your pay! but the perceived value and difficulty or lack thereof of photography DOES directly affect the pay.

don't forget it's you that keeps bringing up feelings and satisfaction etc., all i did was counter the positions being put forth by you and others about how much luck was involved in photography, it was an intellectual and logical debate or argument. you inferred and implied all sorts of things after that, that may or may not apply, but i've only been responding to what you've been saying. i'm not indicating any lack of self worth or appreciation or disproportionate dismay over other peoples opinions. i'm talking about the reality of misperception and how it directly affects the profession of photography

CliffB said:

I don't think the average person with a camera compares himself to
Ansel Adams any more or less than your average YMCA basketball
player compares himself to Michael Jordan, or the average guy with
a set of golf clubs compares himself to Tiger Woods.

Click to expand...

well, there you go mixing up hole's in one with the realistic truth again, they don't need to think they're adams, they just need to think either that they too can be a pro, or that anyone can be one, or that what average pros do is overrated. they not only know that they're not jordan, but they know they have no chance to sit the bench on an nba team and that neither does the average man on the street if he only had the right shoes and height

CliffB said:

We are just all more sensitive...

Click to expand...

too tired to answer the rest, i think i covered it all though... have fun at the zoo! been meaning to go to the detroit zoo for a while now, they seem to have a butterfly sanctuary and some funky yellow tree frogs that are either new or i never knew about... i have some great butterfly ideas if i could get special permission to try a couple of things!

Aaron:

It appears we cannot come to a meeting of the minds on what the real issue is here. I hope that I understand your feelings; however, I still think you are giving too much credence to the unknowledgable potential client. What I was trying to convey before was that such client's exist in every business. We just have a hard time understanding that they exist in businesses in which we are not personally involved.

Most of my life was spent as an attorney. I can assure that for every potential photographer's client who believes "your just pushing a button" or wants to know "what kind of camera did you use?", there is an attorney's client who, after the attorney has spent hundreds of hours preparing their case, and then won a very difficult trial, says, "My cause was just all along; therefore, I could have won the case without you; and, so I shouldn't have to pay your bill." There is the restaurant patron who demands exceptional service from the waitress/waiter, and leaves no tip. I am sure the camera salesperson or the automobile salesperson could tell us about insulting, inconsiderate and downright abusive customers. They exist in every profession that involves dealing with the public. The important thing is not to let them get to us.

That fellow you mentioned, who said, "Hey, I just got my new wrench at Sears, where's the best place to open my import auto repair shop?", can be seen all over the country. You can find him being sued at your local small claims court. He will be the the fellow sitting beside that other defendant who said "I have a hammer, I can do your home repairs."

There are three really important things in life: having a family that you love; having a job/profession that you enjoy; and, having a hobby that brings you pleasure. Those who can achieve these three have life knocked. Everything else is superfluous and merely excess baggage. You hit the important issue in your second post in this thread, when you describe photographers as doing "...what they have love, passion and respect for." That is what truly matters. Those who have "...love, passion and respect for" their profession, have life, at least, one-third knocked. Life is good when you feel this way about what you do.

Though they can be difficult to deal with, the unknowledgable or insulting client cannot cause us to lose that "love, passion and respect" for what we do, unless we let them. Don't let them get to you. Its obvious, from your posts, that you have a strong "love, passion and respect" for photography. You can make that passion grow and shine. Those who don't understand or appreciate what you do, can't stop you.

By the way, the zoo was wonderful. I spent the day teaching my 9 and 11 year old daughters some of the do's and dont's of photographing animals with their new digital cameras. Even for an amateur, such as myself, photography is such a pleasure, not only in the doing, but also in the joy of teaching those skills and pleasures to a child.

Let me jump back in here- Aaron, please take a DEEEEP breath. Aaron is a favorite poster of mine because he is among the few real pros on this forum that have an understanding of real business issues. And while I make no apologies for him (I do not know him) I do know he's being beaten up on another thread about copyright by some folks that don't know copyright from a hole in the ground, presumably where the hole -in-one idea was first hatched. OK?

I do think Aaron has reacted too strongly to a position about which we pros are a little sensitive.

I did not take umbrage with any of the comments, except to point out that in my experience, the original poster was not correct about the 40/60 statement. But it is a familiar issue.

I could not survive on a 60% luck basis, so the answer to the original posters question is no, not in my environment. Therin lies the rub. One must begin to control the environment in order to gain a higher percentage. The control can take many forms, including simple increase in attendance, that is, shoot more often, and your more likely to create a sucessful (to you) shot. You can be the luckiest guy in the world, but your chances for a hole in one will improve if you go to a golf sourse and play the game.

Creating good photographs is hopefully not simple random events. Something cool may happen, but you odds are improved for getting an image if you have a camera. That's why Jay Meisel will tell you to ALWAYS carry a camera. That slips the 60% down to something less, right? I might suggest that carrying that camera during the one hour prior to both sunrise and sunset will even further improve that 60% number.

So there are things that can improve the odds.

Picture Taker (PT) v. Picture Maker (PM).

I consider the tourist that walks through an old church with a point and shoot just at the right time to catch the light through a stained glass panel, raised his/her camera and clicks, a PT.

A PM is someone who wants an image of the same panel, but goes to the church weeks ahead of deadline (real or imagined) and determines the best time of day, and the best weather pattern for that panel, and waits until he has the time available during those exact circumstances, heads down the the church, sets up equipment, brackets exposures over a one hour period, then post-produces the image for final use. Hopefully, the PT tourist did not block the shot.

Anyway, the idea here is to demonstrate who is working in the 60% luck area, and who is operating around 10% or less.

And if you were a magazine editor in need of an image, who would you call for the shot?

And if you are the PT, that image warms your heart. BRAVO!

On a side note- I LOVE amateur photography and photographers. You folks do it because it makes you happy. You record your family, friends, pets and other things close to your HEARTS. PT or PM or anywhere in between, I applaud you.

GO HAVE FUN!

p

--www.paulmbowers.com