Reading mode: Light Dark

Licensing Photographers in Michigan

Go to last post
... unless you can tell me of any wedding that has been shot with a SINGLE roll of film! Because I'd get suspicious about the 38th shot on a roll of 36 (or many fewer on medium format.)
Ken
Hotwood said:
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...
--

'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
 
No good true Mid-Western 'Merican would EVER use the word "Faux" :-).

Now, this brings up the idea of licensing pretentious people, which I could certainly get behind. You want to be on the licensing board for that one?
Ken Phillips said:
Tony Donaldson said:
Kel Tookay said:
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
Click to expand...
I know people like that, we all do, though few would put an e after
the word artist. Maybe some midwesterners that think it's still fun
to use faux French. Also know a few photographers that have no
vision AND no technical knowledge. I hear Manfrotto is developing a
convertible light stand/boom/gallows for just such lynchings.

BTW, did you hear the one about the gay henchman?

You could always tell his victims because they were so well hung.
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
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
 
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:
Wayne Larmon said:
Perhaps Karl can resume this line of argument.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry Wayne ... I don't understand the question. Could you
rephrase?
Click to expand...
Follow back a bit higher to the post with "Constitutional" as the subject. I responded to your answer about why you thought that this law was unconstitutional, and then Hotwood responded to me.

We had several exchanges until I realized that I was arguing your point. So I figured that you are much more qualified than I am to explain to Hotwood why the law has constitutional problems.

Wayne Larmon
 
I'm at times pretentious, so I could be on either side of the board. I've been called worse ;-)

As for midwesterners not using "faux", I've been using it since before I moved to L.A. 16 years ago. I was raised in the big, flat state full of corn and beans, the place where the Simpsons call home.

And artiste is still a terrible word to use for artist.
 
Bill I think I have explained most of this in my past posts if you choose not to listen that is your decision to do so.

All I can say is there is a very good chance licensing will be coming to Michigan for photographers, and if Michigan adopts it I can bet other states will soon follow. If you do not feel you can pass a written exam on photography then you should start studying now.

I do not think this licensing will effect landscape photographers or photographers for gallery work or even stock. But if weddings, portraits or commercial work you may need to get ready for testing.
Bill Dewey said:
Bill Dewey said:
Bill Dewey said:
There are more than enough laws on the books to deal with a broken
contract. I question the credibility of the story, and I'm sure
the lawyers here can provide much better info, but it his sister
had a contract with the photographer, which spelled out how to
handle these disasters, then it would not have been an issue. Use
the laws we already have, we don't need more that provide
absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Broken contract and sueing do not give this bride her wedding photos.
Click to expand...
And how does your "license" give the bride her wedding photos?
Unfortunately, and here we are in TOTAL agreement, that day and
moment are gone. Even a reshoot is a very poor second. Certainly
better than nothing, and in both cases you cited an ethical
business would have done that, the reshoot, no questions asked.
Bill Dewey said:
Bill Dewey said:
I am still waiting for your answer as to how any of this licensing
ensures that a) the photographer shows up (the beginning issue) and
b) that the dolt behind the camera remembers to put film in.
Click to expand...
If a photographer runs the risk of no longer being able to work in
his profession because his license gets pulled he will be more
careful about his showing up to a wedding.
Click to expand...
Again, please show me where this type of licensing is currently
working. For a contractor to get his licensed pulled takes years.
How about doctors and lawyers? Malpractice insurance for both is
very high, and yet we still have problems. Here is another one for
you, teachers. Explain to me, as I keep asking, how your licensing
of photographers will somehow work better. Threat of "not working"
only works if the punishment happens, and other licensing boards do
not display this. By the way, if this is good enough for
photographers, then how about the caterer, the florist, the folks
providing tuxes/dresses, the DJ? What is special about the
photographer? And are you limiting this to weddings?

Here is another one for you, although you may not consider these
folks "professional". Have you had the opportunity to here the
parents of soccer teams complain about the poor quality of team and
individual pictures? They got the pictures, but the quality
stinks. How does your licensing help in this situation?

Please understand that I am in TOTAL agreement with you that the
consumer needs recourse, and that that recourse should not be
costly nor burdensome. My disagreement is that the notion of
"licensing" seems like such a panacea, until you try to get down to
the nitty-gritty of how it will work. I have asked some very
specific questions here, each of them things that can, do and will
happen in the future as they have in the past. The simple question
is, how will your notion of licensing address these? I am most
interested to hear how you would plan to handle the different
photographic venues that have been noted throughout this thread.
There are very real differences between handling weddings and
school photos, both technically and business wise. How will this
license somehow better enforced than that for other groups of
professionals, doctors, lawyers and the building trades in
particular. Perhaps you have thought these through, if so perhaps
your elucidation of them will help to sway my position.

Seriously, I am looking forward to your answers.

SNIP
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
Click to expand...
 
"Bo" and "Gus", man, Tony, even I wouldn't have come up with that one, shame on you!

I was 5 yrs, the first, in Mass, then 10 years in Detroit, then 26 in LA and now in Washington, North of Seattle.

And I feel comfortable in saying that in all of those places, I haven't heard much worse than "Bo" and "Gus"...

My stomache still hurts.......
Tony Donaldson said:
I'm at times pretentious, so I could be on either side of the
board. I've been called worse ;-)

As for midwesterners not using "faux", I've been using it since
before I moved to L.A. 16 years ago. I was raised in the big, flat
state full of corn and beans, the place where the Simpsons call
home.

And artiste is still a terrible word to use for artist.
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
 
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...
While they're at it, they should license artists, musicians, salesmen, hookers and - why not just license everyone? Just another tax grab. Until they can prove that a person's safety or well being is compromised by a bad photo, or that having a license will insure that photos are good (sure doesn't work for M.D.'s or CPA's or Electricians) they are just wacking it....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
Actually, I have read every one of your posts, I apologize if I your answers are too subtle for my feeble mind. Can you point me to the answer of how this will work, enforcement wise, different than other licensing, such as doctors, lawyers and contractors? That should be a good start. Speaking of "choosing to not listen", why do you find it so difficult to answer the simple questions I posted in the message to which you are replying? Could it be that you have no direct answers?

From your last paragraph, are you saying then, and I have asked this before, that this would only affect some subset of photographers? I could almost understand this if you had grouped all "photographers hired by contract", but you seem to only be looking at a very narrow group, and you still have no addressed the issue of a disagreement over the subjective quality of the product delivered. Per your statements, a wedding photographer who does not show up for the wedding would be subject to fines/sanctions/penalties, but what about one where the bride and groom feel that the photo's are not quality work? Would this then go before some sort of arbitration board or would this automatically constiture a reshoot? This is another example of a question asked multiple times for which you have not supplied a direct answer. If these are issues that you haven't worked out yet, in the manner of licensing, then simply say so, but at least give us an answer.

Please point me to where you have answered these questions directly, if you can, and if they are direct answers, you will have a public apology.

By the way, if Michigan does pass this, I'll be happy to put a bet down that most other states won't pass it.

I have no problem with passing such a test, I just don't understand, and you have not explained, how the threat of losing a license will somehow make photographers a more ethical bunch than other groups that are licensed. History shows us how difficult this is in other professions, I'm simply asking how your plan solves this for this one industry. This, yet again, is one question that I have asked numerous times in this thread, to which you have yet to post a direct answer. If you somehow believe that "the government will ensure this happens in a fair manner", then I truly despair that folks with that mentality become a majority. If they ever do, that will be the day I emigrate, as this will no longer be a country of free men, in a gender neutral sense.

I am also curious why this is photographers only, since the issue you cite are wedding related, should you not be lobbying, or perhaps you are, for all of the vendors that can screw up that special day? See, there is yet another example of a question I have asked before that you still have not answered.
Hotwood said:
Bill I think I have explained most of this in my past posts if you
choose not to listen that is your decision to do so.
All I can say is there is a very good chance licensing will be
coming to Michigan for photographers, and if Michigan adopts it I
can bet other states will soon follow. If you do not feel you can
pass a written exam on photography then you should start studying
now.
I do not think this licensing will effect landscape photographers
or photographers for gallery work or even stock. But if weddings,
portraits or commercial work you may need to get ready for testing.
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
 
My gosh, Lin, that is exactly what I have been saying in my responses to Mr. Hotwood and his politician friends, and to which I have gotten absolutely no answers, although he quite thinks he has answered me. Maybe he will like you better, and he actually will answer your question.

Now, as to licensing hookers, that would be one heck of an objective tests, and salesman, as Tony Soprano would say "Fughedaboudit"....
Lin Evans said:
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...
While they're at it, they should license artists, musicians,
salesmen, hookers and - why not just license everyone? Just
another tax grab. Until they can prove that a person's safety or
well being is compromised by a bad photo, or that having a license
will insure that photos are good (sure doesn't work for M.D.'s or
CPA's or Electricians) they are just wacking it....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
 
Bill,

Sorry. Sometimes the midwesterner in me comes out with some really bad ones. Ask my friends (or my poor wife). Wave the white flag if you must, just dont put on the white hood. ;-)

I'm much happier here in sunny SoCal, where we have a circus for a gubernatorial race (know why they call it that? Because we have to decide which goober to vote for). We can enjoy the show, unlike Michigan, where some crazed passive-aggressives are going after ridiculous laws to regulate artists. I guess we'd have to complete some compulsory images at each event. Though some creativity would be allowed, not too much, we'd still have to make the required types of images for set rates.

In that world David LaChapelle and Annie L would be licensed and working for the same wages as a weekend kids' sports shooter, and required to shoot many of the same images the same way, "to code", and probably have to take an exam every 2-3 years to be recertified.
 
... but my pretense is, sadly, faux.
Ken
Bill Dewey said:
Now, this brings up the idea of licensing pretentious people, which
I could certainly get behind. You want to be on the licensing
board for that one?
Ken Phillips said:
Tony Donaldson said:
Kel Tookay said:
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
Click to expand...
I know people like that, we all do, though few would put an e after
the word artist. Maybe some midwesterners that think it's still fun
to use faux French. Also know a few photographers that have no
vision AND no technical knowledge. I hear Manfrotto is developing a
convertible light stand/boom/gallows for just such lynchings.

BTW, did you hear the one about the gay henchman?

You could always tell his victims because they were so well hung.
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
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
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
 
Good points, Tony, and yes, that was a "stinker". I love them, as folks can tell from my love of the Spider Robinson Callahan's books, which are full of bad puns.

As the "the race", one of our local talk shows does some rather humorous parody songs: http://www.kiroradio.com/daveross_songs.jsp

Listen to "76 Unknowns".

You have really nailed what my issues are as to licensing. The sad part is that I can't get this guy to understand that I agree with the consumer having recourse, and he refuses, which does not surpise me at all, to give any evidence as to why licensing will help. More of "the Government must protect the consumer". I don't know about you, but my folks were big on the "personal responsibility" thing. And lest folks think I have no clue on the subject, it took me over 1 year, in SoCal no less, to get a home remodel complete after the builder, bonded/licensed/regulated, flaked out. Luckily I am a relatively smart fellow and I had all my money in escrow. That is how well a licensed and regulated industry works for, and to protect, the consumer. Got my house finished, after living with it for a year. I guess, if you project this to the Michigan situation, a bride will be glad to get her photos taken on her 1st wedding anniversary.

Take care, keep up the bad puns, I love it when I can clear a room :-).
Tony Donaldson said:
Bill,

Sorry. Sometimes the midwesterner in me comes out with some really
bad ones. Ask my friends (or my poor wife). Wave the white flag if
you must, just dont put on the white hood. ;-)

I'm much happier here in sunny SoCal, where we have a circus for a
gubernatorial race (know why they call it that? Because we have to
decide which goober to vote for). We can enjoy the show, unlike
Michigan, where some crazed passive-aggressives are going after
ridiculous laws to regulate artists. I guess we'd have to complete
some compulsory images at each event. Though some creativity would
be allowed, not too much, we'd still have to make the required
types of images for set rates.

In that world David LaChapelle and Annie L would be licensed and
working for the same wages as a weekend kids' sports shooter, and
required to shoot many of the same images the same way, "to code",
and probably have to take an exam every 2-3 years to be recertified.
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
 
Paul Chaplo said:
Sounds like the lawmaker didnt practice his trade (assuming a
law background as standard equipment ;-)
Click to expand...
Paul:

Much of the problem with state legislatures spending time on rubbish like this, when real problems need to be faced, is that the law is not the trade of numerous members. Being a lawmaker is the only position, of which I am aware, where people who have no background, in the area, are selected to do the job. How often are those who have no experience in the law, no understanding of how to read or interpret a law, no realization of how laws are implemented and enforced, and have shown no inclination to ever learn any of these talents, elected to write the laws that others must read, interpret, implement and enforce.

The same people who would never have surgery performed by one who has not been to medical school, would never hire someone who has never seen a hammer to do their home repairs, and would never even think of even having their hair cut by someone who had never done it before, will vote for the election, as lawmakers, who will write the laws that control all of our lives, candidates who have never read a law, and, most likely, do not know how to even find the law.

These very same people will be the first to complain that the laws, written by these law making neophytes, are incomprehensible.

Clif
 
Bill, it is obvious you have much more time on your hands than I have judging from the length of your posts. I simply to not have the time to go into major dialog on this matter since I do have a studio to run and clients to serve. sorry
Bill Dewey said:
From your last paragraph, are you saying then, and I have asked
this before, that this would only affect some subset of
photographers? I could almost understand this if you had grouped
all "photographers hired by contract", but you seem to only be
looking at a very narrow group, and you still have no addressed the
issue of a disagreement over the subjective quality of the product
delivered. Per your statements, a wedding photographer who does
not show up for the wedding would be subject to
fines/sanctions/penalties, but what about one where the bride and
groom feel that the photo's are not quality work? Would this then
go before some sort of arbitration board or would this
automatically constiture a reshoot? This is another example of a
question asked multiple times for which you have not supplied a
direct answer. If these are issues that you haven't worked out
yet, in the manner of licensing, then simply say so, but at least
give us an answer.

Please point me to where you have answered these questions
directly, if you can, and if they are direct answers, you will have
a public apology.

By the way, if Michigan does pass this, I'll be happy to put a bet
down that most other states won't pass it.

I have no problem with passing such a test, I just don't
understand, and you have not explained, how the threat of losing a
license will somehow make photographers a more ethical bunch than
other groups that are licensed. History shows us how difficult
this is in other professions, I'm simply asking how your plan
solves this for this one industry. This, yet again, is one
question that I have asked numerous times in this thread, to which
you have yet to post a direct answer. If you somehow believe that
"the government will ensure this happens in a fair manner", then I
truly despair that folks with that mentality become a majority. If
they ever do, that will be the day I emigrate, as this will no
longer be a country of free men, in a gender neutral sense.

I am also curious why this is photographers only, since the issue
you cite are wedding related, should you not be lobbying, or
perhaps you are, for all of the vendors that can screw up that
special day? See, there is yet another example of a question I
have asked before that you still have not answered.
Hotwood said:
Bill I think I have explained most of this in my past posts if you
choose not to listen that is your decision to do so.
All I can say is there is a very good chance licensing will be
coming to Michigan for photographers, and if Michigan adopts it I
can bet other states will soon follow. If you do not feel you can
pass a written exam on photography then you should start studying
now.
I do not think this licensing will effect landscape photographers
or photographers for gallery work or even stock. But if weddings,
portraits or commercial work you may need to get ready for testing.
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
Click to expand...
 
... to tell you that I believe that you are foolish inviting government intervention in ANY part of your life ... because it NEVER helps. EVER. The government is there ONLY to serve us ... not get in the way. It's already in the way, and you want more.
Ken
Hotwood said:
Bill Dewey said:
From your last paragraph, are you saying then, and I have asked
this before, that this would only affect some subset of
photographers? I could almost understand this if you had grouped
all "photographers hired by contract", but you seem to only be
looking at a very narrow group, and you still have no addressed the
issue of a disagreement over the subjective quality of the product
delivered. Per your statements, a wedding photographer who does
not show up for the wedding would be subject to
fines/sanctions/penalties, but what about one where the bride and
groom feel that the photo's are not quality work? Would this then
go before some sort of arbitration board or would this
automatically constiture a reshoot? This is another example of a
question asked multiple times for which you have not supplied a
direct answer. If these are issues that you haven't worked out
yet, in the manner of licensing, then simply say so, but at least
give us an answer.

Please point me to where you have answered these questions
directly, if you can, and if they are direct answers, you will have
a public apology.

By the way, if Michigan does pass this, I'll be happy to put a bet
down that most other states won't pass it.

I have no problem with passing such a test, I just don't
understand, and you have not explained, how the threat of losing a
license will somehow make photographers a more ethical bunch than
other groups that are licensed. History shows us how difficult
this is in other professions, I'm simply asking how your plan
solves this for this one industry. This, yet again, is one
question that I have asked numerous times in this thread, to which
you have yet to post a direct answer. If you somehow believe that
"the government will ensure this happens in a fair manner", then I
truly despair that folks with that mentality become a majority. If
they ever do, that will be the day I emigrate, as this will no
longer be a country of free men, in a gender neutral sense.

I am also curious why this is photographers only, since the issue
you cite are wedding related, should you not be lobbying, or
perhaps you are, for all of the vendors that can screw up that
special day? See, there is yet another example of a question I
have asked before that you still have not answered.
Hotwood said:
Bill I think I have explained most of this in my past posts if you
choose not to listen that is your decision to do so.
All I can say is there is a very good chance licensing will be
coming to Michigan for photographers, and if Michigan adopts it I
can bet other states will soon follow. If you do not feel you can
pass a written exam on photography then you should start studying
now.
I do not think this licensing will effect landscape photographers
or photographers for gallery work or even stock. But if weddings,
portraits or commercial work you may need to get ready for testing.
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
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
 
Bill Dewey said:
My gosh, Lin, that is exactly what I have been saying in my
responses to Mr. Hotwood and his politician friends, and to which I
have gotten absolutely no answers, although he quite thinks he has
answered me. Maybe he will like you better, and he actually will
answer your question.

Now, as to licensing hookers, that would be one heck of an
objective tests, and salesman, as Tony Soprano would say
"Fughedaboudit"....
Click to expand...
Hi Bill,

Yep, they should include politicians in the licensing - maybe that would wake them up. It's a really dumb world we've created. Europe went through this phase years ago and is now changing for the better. We've been about 100 years behind in the same process, so the pendulum swings and we head into the "license" everything and everyone and production grinds to a halt with so much red tape that we choke on it and such.

My wife was just reading the paper to me while I'm getting ready for a trip and she told me that China has just rescinded a long time law which made it necessary to get permission from one's "boss" to get married. Go figure! Definitely a "dumb and dumber" world we have.

best regards,

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
I think politicians should be licensed.
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top