Licensing Photographers in Michigan

All this amounts to is a lawmaker trying to garner publicity and tax dollars from an already overtaxed self employed sector. Just about any photo student with an IQ over 75 could pass a tech test, but could they manage finaces, scheduling, PR, drunken people at a wedding, etc?

Who would be in charge and judge categories? Traditional, PJ, Faux PJ from snaphooters that never had to photograph a family member at a crash scene stricken with grief, clueless amatuers with their ruler photos looking to make a quick buck, etc.

Good luck....

Hotwood said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Hotwood said:

We are talking about photography not reporting that is getting a
little too far off the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

The subject at hand is constitutional protection and questioning if
there are reasons to override these constitutional protections. It
has already been clearly established that the news media can't be
regulated and licensed by the government, even though non-optimum
things happen when an news person is incompetent.

Click to expand...

Ok with your reasoning physicians, attorneys, auto repairman,
plumber ect.
should not need to be licensed as well.

Click to expand...

It is not my reasoning at all. The reasoning was Karl's:

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th
Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right".
Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking
pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under
the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the
State must have a compelling State interest. The State may
"license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a
"Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis".
What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?

Click to expand...

Perhaps Karl can resume this line of argument.

Wayne Larmon

Don Mason said:

I, for one , would welcome a stringent test for photographers. If a
pro is truly competent, why is the issue anything to worry about?

Click to expand...

Who cares about the test? It's the idea that a license would do anything other than raise money for the govt.
In the same vein, should the band and the florist be licensed?

--
-Kel 2K

Seriously, protecting the public from someone who doesn’t know how to use a light meter? Get serious. And if you are, that's the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard (not really the dumbest, the dumbest things as of recent are supporters of bush)

What if you're a quick PJ snap shooter for weddings? No real time to read a light meter for every shot. Even Herb Ritts said that's how he started (not wedding but P&S) and gets his spur of the moment shots.

Hotwood said:

I have run into a lot of selfproclaimed pro that did not know how
to use a light meter. Testing and licensing would help protect the
consumer from people like that. It dosen't matter what tool you use
just so long as you know how to use that tool.

Click to expand...

--
-Nicholas
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292037929

what about shut up. that's still a stupid idea.

lol.. i love lame insults

Hotwood said:

Dave Beaman said:

Speaking of a test. Would you have to know the developing time for
Tmax 400 using D-76 deluted 1-1? Shucks, do they still use D-76? I
used to know these figures but don't know now since it has been 6
years since I have been in a darkroom. How many of the new Photogs
have worked in a darkroom. is it even important anymore.

Will there be any questions about view cameras. I know nothing
about view cameras though I have been doing photography for 30
years.

Don't want regulation of any sort. We have too many wortless laws
anyway. MOst of the laws are made for just the same reason that was
stated at the begininging of this thread. Some blamed lawyer has
his/her knickers in a bunch and wants to make a law that is
completely unneccessary.

dave

Hotwood said:

The Michigan law makers are going to be taking a look at licensing
photographers in Michigan in the next few weeks. It seems the
photographer for one lawmaker did not show up to shoot a wedding.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
-Nicholas
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292037929

Egads said:

All this amounts to is a lawmaker trying to garner publicity and
tax dollars from an already overtaxed self employed sector. Just
about any photo student with an IQ over 75 could pass a tech test,
but could they manage finaces, scheduling, PR, drunken people at a
wedding, etc?

Who would be in charge and judge categories? Traditional, PJ, Faux
PJ from snaphooters that never had to photograph a family member
at a crash scene stricken with grief, clueless amatuers with their
ruler photos looking to make a quick buck, etc.

Good luck....

Click to expand...

I really hate to give you this reality check, but the majority of PPA members in good standing would fail an advanced tech test. Just work for a few months at a good pro lab, and this will be obvious.

If the photographer in question can't manage scheduling, PR, and the like, then the question is moot, since they wouldn't be in business very long anyway.

BTW Photojournalism is irrelevent, because they don't do work for hire for the general public.

How many of these professions (plumbers, electricians, nurses, doctors, etc..) are regulated by self-governing bodies vs. government regulation?

In BC, for example, the doctors are licensed by a self governing body called the College of Phsyicians and Surgeons, not the provincial government.

Many other professional groups follow a similar practice.

Some, of course, are regulated by the government.

Perhaps the groups that regulate themselves and are regulated by the government are in that situation because of safety issues (house/electricity/explsoive plumbing, medica, insurance, hairdressing with sharp pointy scissors and toxic chemicals around peoples heads and eyes, etc...).

Many other organizations exist for which people can join/participate if they'd like (Professional Photographers Association (?)) and can promote theirselves as members of such. This is one way of determining who have the necessary experience...

Personally I think the idea of a license for a photographer is ludicrous...there are no major safety issues involved (barring unforseen accidents with equipment -> that's what insurance is for). What's next, licensing video store clerks to ensure they know what videos to recommend? Book-store clerks to ensure they actually read the books they sell?

I'm babbling...and just realized that, but ah well.

David

Yes I am very serious if you do not know how to use the tools of your trade, you should not be working in that profession.

Masgrada said:

What if you're a quick PJ snap shooter for weddings? No real time
to read a light meter for every shot. Even Herb Ritts said that's
how he started (not wedding but P&S) and gets his spur of the
moment shots.

Hotwood said:

I have run into a lot of selfproclaimed pro that did not know how
to use a light meter. Testing and licensing would help protect the
consumer from people like that. It dosen't matter what tool you use
just so long as you know how to use that tool.

Click to expand...

--
-Nicholas
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292037929

Click to expand...

Well how do you think people get a degree in photography from a college.
Testing!

Egads said:

All this amounts to is a lawmaker trying to garner publicity and
tax dollars from an already overtaxed self employed sector. Just
about any photo student with an IQ over 75 could pass a tech test,
but could they manage finaces, scheduling, PR, drunken people at a
wedding, etc?

Who would be in charge and judge categories? Traditional, PJ, Faux
PJ from snaphooters that never had to photograph a family member
at a crash scene stricken with grief, clueless amatuers with their
ruler photos looking to make a quick buck, etc.

Good luck....

Click to expand...

Don Mason said:

Egads said:

All this amounts to is a lawmaker trying to garner publicity and
tax dollars from an already overtaxed self employed sector. Just
about any photo student with an IQ over 75 could pass a tech test,
but could they manage finaces, scheduling, PR, drunken people at a
wedding, etc?

Who would be in charge and judge categories? Traditional, PJ, Faux
PJ from snaphooters that never had to photograph a family member
at a crash scene stricken with grief, clueless amatuers with their
ruler photos looking to make a quick buck, etc.

Good luck....

Click to expand...

I really hate to give you this reality check, but the majority of
PPA members in good standing would fail an advanced tech test. Just
work for a few months at a good pro lab, and this will be obvious.

Click to expand...

I know that is the truth I worked in a pro lab for a few years as a custom and package printer and I had to try and save many a selfproclaimed pros behind.
Many were so badly exposed that the images could not be saved.

There was a very large number of the selfproclaimed pros that did not have any idea how to use a light meter and trust me it did show in the
photographers work.

I worked with my boss and we even offered free seminars to some of our worst photographer clients. We never told them why we invited them to the free classes, we just invited them. Most of these people knew very little about photography. When we would talk about a films "Aimpoint" most thought we were talking about focus or tooth paste.

Don Mason said:

If the photographer in question can't manage scheduling, PR, and
the like, then the question is moot, since they wouldn't be in
business very long anyway.

BTW Photojournalism is irrelevent, because they don't do work for
hire for the general public.

Click to expand...

Don Mason said:

Hotwood said:

Kel Tookay said:

Don Mason said:

Don Mason said:

Hotwood wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

snip

Don Mason said:

Acceptable is one thing but no images or severly over or under
exposed is quite another.

Click to expand...

...and for this you want a law.

Wow. Anything else?

Click to expand...

Wow??? Exposure is not an important thing to a photographer and the
people he or she are photographing?
Come come now we all know it is very important as well as proper
focus good color balance and a bunch of other things that a
photographer should be tested on.

Don Mason said:

--
-Kel 2K

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Hotwood,

I am somewhat surprised at all the negative responses to your
original post.

My field is commercial and advertising photography. The main
difference in my field, from a business standpoint, compared to a
wedding or portrait business is that most of my clients have had a
great deal of experience buying photographic services.
The general public on the other hand, has little experience. This
makes it far easier to get by on a much less developed skill set.

I have found over the years that most experienced and competent
pros have little fear of licensing becoming required. In fact, a
stringent licensing procedure would make the average business
climate far easier for those pros that have spent the time to
master the craft, especially the pros in the portrait and wedding
fields.

There are those that would argue that photography is an "artistic"
endeavor, but like any other true art form, nothing of real craft
can be created without first mastering the fundamentals. This being
so,a true photographic artist should have no fear whatsoever of a
comprehensive test to prove knowledge of the basic fundamental
technical issues of quality photography.

Although a license to legally run a photo business is no guarantee
of quality imagery, it would most certainly give the government
authority deny or revoke a license to those who prove to be grossly
incompetent. This would not only protect the public, but add more
prestige and validity to calling ones' self a professional
photographer.

I, for one , would welcome a stringent test for photographers. If a
pro is truly competent, why is the issue anything to worry about?

Just food for thought.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Don, thank you for putting it so eloquently.
This is precisely the point I was trying to get across.

Kel Tookay said:

Don Mason said:

I, for one , would welcome a stringent test for photographers. If a
pro is truly competent, why is the issue anything to worry about?

Click to expand...

Who cares about the test? It's the idea that a license would do
anything other than raise money for the govt.
In the same vein, should the band and the florist be licensed?

--
-Kel 2K

Click to expand...

"Who cares about the test?" you say??? I think a client would care to know if you were able to pass the test. After all they are trusting wedding memories to you. Something that is very unlikely to be repeated because the photographer fumbled the ball.

I think you are being extremely rude with that post.
This is something that has no place in a Pro Forum.

Masgrada said:

lol.. i love lame insults

Hotwood said:

Dave Beaman said:

Speaking of a test. Would you have to know the developing time for
Tmax 400 using D-76 deluted 1-1? Shucks, do they still use D-76? I
used to know these figures but don't know now since it has been 6
years since I have been in a darkroom. How many of the new Photogs
have worked in a darkroom. is it even important anymore.

Will there be any questions about view cameras. I know nothing
about view cameras though I have been doing photography for 30
years.

Don't want regulation of any sort. We have too many wortless laws
anyway. MOst of the laws are made for just the same reason that was
stated at the begininging of this thread. Some blamed lawyer has
his/her knickers in a bunch and wants to make a law that is
completely unneccessary.

dave

Hotwood said:

The Michigan law makers are going to be taking a look at licensing
photographers in Michigan in the next few weeks. It seems the
photographer for one lawmaker did not show up to shoot a wedding.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
-Nicholas
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292037929

Click to expand...

Hotwood said:

Don Mason said:

I really hate to give you this reality check, but the majority of
PPA members in good standing would fail an advanced tech test. Just
work for a few months at a good pro lab, and this will be obvious.

Click to expand...

I know that is the truth I worked in a pro lab for a few years as a
custom and package printer and I had to try and save many a
selfproclaimed pros behind.

Many were so badly exposed that the images could not be saved.

Click to expand...

I have a family member that currently works in a large city photo lab and she has told me much the same thing about wedding photographers. Maybe the lab techs should decide who gets the licenses.

Wayne Larmon

Shanta Prakash said:

The thread is really long.. so I am not going to attempt to read
all postings before I put in my two cents worth..

Here is a perspective..

The licencing at the outset seems silly but yet thought provoking..
If you need to do a major electrical repair in your house, they
suggest you see a licenced and insured electrician.. since it
involves people safety and what not..

if you need to manage your finances, they suggest you see a
certified financial analyst to be assured of good services..

the list can go on.. but the bottom line is, from a consumer
perspective, licencing and certifications are means to provide a
certain basic quality and professionalism with respect to the
service - which does not mean that the certified ones won't screw
up whcih again doesn't mean that those certifications are
worthless. in any profession, there will be some good certified
ones and some bad certified ones..

but the common thread in all these services that require licencing
and certification is that the outcome of the service is very
important to the consumer ..along those lines why is photography
not important.. a guy arranging a wedding photographer, as much as
he goes based on referrals from friends etc., is still hpoing and
praying that the professional he hired will do the job right.. why
can't he go one step further and ask for certifications and
licences?

Here are some of the cons as I see them:
1. The fundamental criteria will be very hard to establish and will
be subjective no matter which way you look at it, since photography
beyond all the technical aspects that go with it is fundamentally a
creative field; so many things will be subjective no matter what.

Click to expand...

Not that hard to establish fundamental criteria. Right now we have colleges that graduate people with two and four year degrees in photography. I am one of them. Certain fundamental criteria exists for these people to graduate.
A lot of that fundamental criteria is testing of knowledge.
It would seem many people are in fear of testing on this Forum.

I do not understand the fear, if you are well versed in photography and are good at what you do and are a working as a pro now you should have enough knowledge to pass a test, am I right?

Shanta Prakash said:

2. The politicians and the government offiicials may make the whole
process complex beyond recognition that the basic purpose and
spirit of licencing may be lost in the long run..

To sum it up: I can see why, but I still don't like it..

Licenced actor
Licenced artist
Licenced musician
Licenced photographer..
doesn't sound right.. does it?

Two cents worth finished!!

SP.

Hotwood said:

The Michigan law makers are going to be taking a look at licensing
photographers in Michigan in the next few weeks. It seems the
photographer for one lawmaker did not show up to shoot a wedding.

Click to expand...

--
When all else fails.... scream!!

Click to expand...

David Piercey said:

How many of these professions (plumbers, electricians, nurses,
doctors, etc..) are regulated by self-governing bodies vs.
government regulation?

In BC, for example, the doctors are licensed by a self governing
body called the College of Phsyicians and Surgeons, not the
provincial government.

Many other professional groups follow a similar practice.

Some, of course, are regulated by the government.

Perhaps the groups that regulate themselves and are regulated by
the government are in that situation because of safety issues
(house/electricity/explsoive plumbing, medica, insurance,
hairdressing with sharp pointy scissors and toxic chemicals around
peoples heads and eyes, etc...).

Many other organizations exist for which people can
join/participate if they'd like (Professional Photographers
Association (?)) and can promote theirselves as members of such.
This is one way of determining who have the necessary experience...

Personally I think the idea of a license for a photographer is
ludicrous...there are no major safety issues involved (barring
unforseen accidents with equipment -> that's what insurance is
for). What's next, licensing video store clerks to ensure they
know what videos to recommend? Book-store clerks to ensure they
actually read the books they sell?

Click to expand...

I can rent another video or buy another book. But I can only have photos of my wedding photos taken one time. So that is a big difference.

OK, once again, who sets the standards? Are they the same for wedding photographers, commercial photographers, fine-art photographers, event photographers, the grunge photographer who uses a p&s to shoot grunge concert shots that sell in that venue, etc., ad nauseum?

There have been comments that people get a degree in photography through "testing", absolutely true. I don't, for a moment, believe that the testing for the degree is the same across all schools. And, if that is such a good idea, then why not simply let the license be based on having a "photography degree"?

Let's go back to the beginning of this thread. The issue was a "photographer who didn't show up", not one who produced crappy pictures. A license fixes this? Nope, but suing the pants off the guy does, which is why you have contracts. If you want to test for a guy not showing up, I don't know what that has to do with light meters or f-stops.

Now, if you can come up with an objective test that can somehow fit all of the photographic venues as well as ensuring that the licensee will provide good service and good business practice, great, but I have yet to see anyone in this thread, and I have asked several times, for folks to come up with the "standards" to use. The closest I have seen is the "testing for a degree", and if you think that is good enough, then why would you need any other test for a license? Of course, how do then determine if the person with a degree in commercial or industrial photography has a clue in shooting your wedding? Maybe a test for each specialty, eh? Just another big push for an even bigger government agency.

And by the way, take a look at how licensing works in most industries, and how incredibly difficult it is to actually get a license pulled. This goes right from your friendly plumber, to your construction company, to your doctors and lawyers.

Hotwood said:

Don Mason said:

Hotwood said:

Kel Tookay said:

Hotwood said:

Hotwood said:

Hotwood wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

snip

Hotwood said:

Acceptable is one thing but no images or severly over or under
exposed is quite another.

Click to expand...

...and for this you want a law.

Wow. Anything else?

Click to expand...

Wow??? Exposure is not an important thing to a photographer and the
people he or she are photographing?
Come come now we all know it is very important as well as proper
focus good color balance and a bunch of other things that a
photographer should be tested on.

Hotwood said:

--
-Kel 2K

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Hotwood,

I am somewhat surprised at all the negative responses to your
original post.

My field is commercial and advertising photography. The main
difference in my field, from a business standpoint, compared to a
wedding or portrait business is that most of my clients have had a
great deal of experience buying photographic services.
The general public on the other hand, has little experience. This
makes it far easier to get by on a much less developed skill set.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SNIP

Hotwood said:

Hotwood said:

I, for one , would welcome a stringent test for photographers. If a
pro is truly competent, why is the issue anything to worry about?

Just food for thought.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

Don, thank you for putting it so eloquently.
This is precisely the point I was trying to get across.

Click to expand...

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

OK, once again, who sets the standards? Are they the same for wedding photographers, commercial photographers, fine-art photographers, event photographers, the grunge photographer who uses a p&s to shoot grunge concert shots that sell in that venue, etc., ad nauseum?

There have been comments that people get a degree in photography through "testing", absolutely true. I don't, for a moment, believe that the testing for the degree is the same across all schools. And, if that is such a good idea, then why not simply let the license be based on having a "photography degree"?

Let's go back to the beginning of this thread. The issue was a "photographer who didn't show up", not one who produced crappy pictures. A license fixes this? Nope, but suing the pants off the guy does, which is why you have contracts. If you want to test for a guy not showing up, I don't know what that has to do with light meters or f-stops.

Now, if you can come up with an objective test that can somehow fit all of the photographic venues as well as ensuring that the licensee will provide good service and good business practice, great, but I have yet to see anyone in this thread, and I have asked several times, for folks to come up with the "standards" to use. The closest I have seen is the "testing for a degree", and if you think that is good enough, then why would you need any other test for a license? Of course, how do then determine if the person with a degree in commercial or industrial photography has a clue in shooting your wedding? Maybe a test for each specialty, eh? Just another big push for an even bigger government agency.

And by the way, take a look at how licensing works in most industries, and how incredibly difficult it is to actually get a license pulled. This goes right from your friendly plumber, to your construction company, to your doctors and lawyers.

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

... who can see things that we cannot, get a shot while standing next to us that we miss ... and doesn't know an f/stop from an * ?
People like that exist.
Ken

Hotwood said:

Shanta Prakash said:

The thread is really long.. so I am not going to attempt to read
all postings before I put in my two cents worth..

Here is a perspective..

The licencing at the outset seems silly but yet thought provoking..
If you need to do a major electrical repair in your house, they
suggest you see a licenced and insured electrician.. since it
involves people safety and what not..

if you need to manage your finances, they suggest you see a
certified financial analyst to be assured of good services..

the list can go on.. but the bottom line is, from a consumer
perspective, licencing and certifications are means to provide a
certain basic quality and professionalism with respect to the
service - which does not mean that the certified ones won't screw
up whcih again doesn't mean that those certifications are
worthless. in any profession, there will be some good certified
ones and some bad certified ones..

but the common thread in all these services that require licencing
and certification is that the outcome of the service is very
important to the consumer ..along those lines why is photography
not important.. a guy arranging a wedding photographer, as much as
he goes based on referrals from friends etc., is still hpoing and
praying that the professional he hired will do the job right.. why
can't he go one step further and ask for certifications and
licences?

Here are some of the cons as I see them:
1. The fundamental criteria will be very hard to establish and will
be subjective no matter which way you look at it, since photography
beyond all the technical aspects that go with it is fundamentally a
creative field; so many things will be subjective no matter what.

Click to expand...

Not that hard to establish fundamental criteria. Right now we have
colleges that graduate people with two and four year degrees in
photography. I am one of them. Certain fundamental criteria exists
for these people to graduate.
A lot of that fundamental criteria is testing of knowledge.
It would seem many people are in fear of testing on this Forum.
I do not understand the fear, if you are well versed in photography
and are good at what you do and are a working as a pro now you
should have enough knowledge to pass a test, am I right?

Hotwood said:

2. The politicians and the government offiicials may make the whole
process complex beyond recognition that the basic purpose and
spirit of licencing may be lost in the long run..

To sum it up: I can see why, but I still don't like it..

Licenced actor
Licenced artist
Licenced musician
Licenced photographer..
doesn't sound right.. does it?

Two cents worth finished!!

SP.

Hotwood said:

The Michigan law makers are going to be taking a look at licensing
photographers in Michigan in the next few weeks. It seems the
photographer for one lawmaker did not show up to shoot a wedding.

Click to expand...

--
When all else fails.... scream!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

Ken Phillips said:

... who can see things that we cannot, get a shot while standing
next to us that we miss ... and doesn't know an f/stop from an * ?
People like that exist.
Ken

Click to expand...

Not for long, under Hotwoods dream. They would be hunted down and hung from the nearest camera stand by the Photo Police.
--
-Kel 2K