Reading mode: Light Dark

Digital ruining the market???

Go to last post
GodSpeaks said:
One thing that puzzles me. Before the dSLR became so common, how
many people would pay $1000 to $2500 for a Nikon F100 or an F5?
Not that many, would be my guess.

Yet today, many people who would not have paid $1000 for an F100
are plopping down $1000 plus for a high end point and shoot or a
dSLR.
Click to expand...
Sure many people before may have bought somewhat cheaper bodies - but don't you think a lot of those people were going for pro films at the time?

Since the advent of digital has moved the "film" into the body of the camera, it changes the dynamics of the situation as you gain better output capabilities with a more expensive body. Before even with a cheap body you could buy a good film and get similar results to a more expensive body (just with less automation and lower durability), now it's easier to be sold on an expensive body because it controls to a large extent the ceiling on what you will be able to produce.

I think people generally buy for the "ceiling" of a product - the absolute best that it is capabile of, even if the user themselves lacks the skills to ever reach this "ceiling" of capability.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
Summer Shoot:
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/sigmachangingseasonsiibyday
 
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Since the advent of digital has moved the "film" into the body of
the camera, it changes the dynamics of the situation as you gain
better output capabilities with a more expensive body. Before even
with a cheap body you could buy a good film and get similar results
to a more expensive body (just with less automation and lower
durability), now it's easier to be sold on an expensive body
because it controls to a large extent the ceiling on what you will
be able to produce.
Click to expand...
Nice point. Vericolor was Vericolor, whether it was in an F5 or an OM-1.
 
T B Gray said:
I'm sure the "pros" complained about the same thing when Kodak came
out with the (I think it was) Brownie!
Click to expand...
I was just reading a book called "The Devil and the White City" about the Chicago Worlds Fair in the late 1800's - one interesting side note was about the flood of people with a new kind of camera (I think it was brownies, might hvae been something else) to such a great extent that just about every hotel had a dedicated darkroom for guests!

They also spoke briefly of pros being worried at this influx of casual picture takers., much liks pros now are worried about the influx of digital cameras. But there will always be a place for people with the dedication to making truly great images as apposed to snapshots.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
Summer Shoot:
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/sigmachangingseasonsiibyday
 
I was an avid amateur before digital. Digital made it possible to turn my passion into my livlihood. I'm booked for the next four months worth of weekends shooting weddings. I'll net over $1000 per week and will never have to bother with a print. Add to that the night schedule of sporting events and the occasional portrait shoot, and I'll easily make over $75,000 this year. This equals what I was earning in my previous professiion, that I hated.

In short, the digital photographic revolution changed my life for the better.

I can empathize with the old pros who came up the old fashioned way, but the marketplace is full of darwinian skeletons who simply failed to adapt to their marketplace.

I believe a mediocre photographer who markets well, will be more financially successful than a good photographer who markets poorly.

I freely admit to being a better marketer than a photographer, but I'm striving to improve on both accounts. Meanwhile, the bank keeps cashing the checks.

I do miss the free weekends shooting whatever and whenever I choose. Alas, life is full of compromise, even in art. Maplethorpe is dead. Buy his new book, operators standing by.

Dennis
 
I was stationed in europe and alot of guys just stayed on the base with no real life and the spent thousands of dollars on stereo equiptment. They just had to have the latest and greatest toys. But none of them really knew any more about music than me. None that I know of played and instrument as well. Same rule applies here. People like taking bad snapshots, Then they see me with a 10D with a cool lens and they froth at the mouth when the realize that it is in the range of possibilities.

one guy I know emailed me shots of a night football game taken with a 300mm lens handheld "480mm on a 10D" and is puzzled and angry that his shots suck and mine are sooo much better.
I think this post is a justified rant.

Glenn
Snook said:
I posted this in a forum here but thought it would make an
interesting topic as it really upsets me what is going on now a
days!
This is not a negative post..just wanted to know what the real
photographers think about my view?

What it takes to produce beautiful shots... It takes a great deal
of knowledge and experience... You guys that want a camera to "do
it all" are just lost...
Get real... Photography is an art and takes time and experience to
perfect it...
Having a wonder camera that does it all is a joke...

I usually take 2-3 assistants on my jobs and have them hold
reflectors or scrims...that is just the way it is... Wanting a
camera to do it all for you is a cop out...
Get some experience first...

All these guys getting into photography b/c it is digital and easy
makes me sick...

I wish they would build a lock that you had to answer 10 difficult
photographic questions before you could use a camera of
professional level..
Kind of like a race car drivers permit.. or choeffer's
license...Not just anybody can drive an 18 wheeler these days,
right?
Why the heck can anybody just shoot with a prof. digital camera?
Yes I understand the occasional rich guy who buys the porsche
syndrome and thinks he is senna... But there are way more people
out there with these professional cameras that are more
dangerous...hahaha
Have you all seen some of the pictures that people are producing
with these high end cameras...AWFULLY scary stuff..
People buying a 4500$ camera and some 7500$ 1Ds and shooting their
dogs and cats and neighbors and the bird that came to their
feeder.. I mean come on now...
When will it stop?

All these weekend photographers buying professional level cameras
and then asking stupid simple questions in here makes me ill also...

Wake up... For a lot of people like me this is a way of living and
a way of life...Not a weekend hobby.

The digital era is just flooding the market with these kind of
photographers... really sad...

I would love to see any one of these weeknders do a "real" shoot
with a "real" client and shoot it all with Velvia and with
polaroid..like the good ole days... You would see 3/4 of these
people here running scared.. adn white in the face when they go
pick up there slide film in the lab and the "Highlights" are
blown...
I love my 1Ds but find the digital age ruining the market even more...
Now every tom, **** and harry think they are a professional..
Just my opinion!
Snook

Why do you think a lot of magazines say to the average joe who
calls.."we are not excepting digital"?
because they do not want to see every "john" that is shooting
it..But in fact they let their photographers who have been shooting
with them for a while shoot digital...
Like me!
Just my 0.02 cents!
Snook

--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
Click to expand...
 
Dennis:

There will be more stories like yours as time goes on. Digital has
make your life better.... cool. My story is the identical to yours, but
we work mostly the summer season through Oct.

Others should listen to the "no print" part of your story.

Do you have some quotes from clients or can you tell us
how the client is really setting the 'buyers market'. Does client
put this into perspective over what other photographers have
to offer? We do not ask, but they sure let us know and what
they want is the digital media, no question.....

Two digital photographers can render 800-1000 images per
six hour wedding. With 70% quality work that is enough for
any wedding album considering that the film photographer
probably has only several hundred images. For example, I still
use film on request and never get more that 10 rolls of MF
in six hours. Reloading time is down time and takes away from
chances at more pictures. We switch to mostly digital at the
reception.

Welcome to the "new model" club.....
DennisASA said:
I was an avid amateur before digital. Digital made it possible to
turn my passion into my livlihood. I'm booked for the next four
months worth of weekends shooting weddings. I'll net over $1000
per week and will never have to bother with a print. Add to that
the night schedule of sporting events and the occasional portrait
shoot, and I'll easily make over $75,000 this year. This equals
what I was earning in my previous professiion, that I hated.

In short, the digital photographic revolution changed my life for
the better.

I can empathize with the old pros who came up the old fashioned
way, but the marketplace is full of darwinian skeletons who simply
failed to adapt to their marketplace.

I believe a mediocre photographer who markets well, will be more
financially successful than a good photographer who markets poorly.

I freely admit to being a better marketer than a photographer, but
I'm striving to improve on both accounts. Meanwhile, the bank
keeps cashing the checks.

I do miss the free weekends shooting whatever and whenever I
choose. Alas, life is full of compromise, even in art.
Maplethorpe is dead. Buy his new book, operators standing by.

Dennis
Click to expand...
--
••• 'What ever'..... your probably right •••
 
Debbie F. said:
I am probably one of those people that you can't stand. I did buy
my digital camera because it was easier to learn with. I've always
had a passion for photography or shall I say "taking pictures".
Started college 10 yrs ago for it but didn't complete it. After
getting married and having 2 kids, I decided to persue my love for
photography. Pulled out my N65 and started taking classes. I
couldn't afford the film that I was wasting as I was learning.
Found myself not shooting that much. Not to mention I had to carry
around a tape recorder to tell myself what settings I was using to
know the effects of them once I got the film developed. I met
someone with a D1X and he showed me a few things, I fell in love.
Decided to take the plunge and buy my very first digital camera. I
realized that it would be wise for me to open a business so that I
could deduct the expensive equipment. Also, several of the groups
that I wanted to join so that I could learn more, required a tax ID
number. Well, in a business you have to also make money..... So, I
started shooting sports to make some money while I am still taking
classes and practicing with studio lights and outdoor portraits. I
am currently not advertising, only shooting for people who I know
and who don't have the money to pay some of the "pros" around here.
Isn't that basically what famous musicians did??? Played in bar
rooms until they felt they were good enough to make it big???
Well, just as there are so many bands that don't make it, I'm sure
there are alot of photographers that don't make it either.

my 2 cents!!! Have a nice day!!!
Debbie
willkelly wrote:
Click to expand...
Hold on now!

You couldn't afford to buy film to practice with, but you bought a camera that costs $3000 today and was $5000 when it came out? That doesn't add up. In order for that camera to pay for itself, you'd have to shoot the equivalent of 300 rolls of film (cost of film and developing at walmart). You might do that in a year if you shoot a lot, but few amateurs shoot anywhere near that much. Besides, if you couldn't afford $4 rolls of film and 46 processing, where'd you come up with $3000 or more all at once!

When I was a student at Indiana University I shot about 50 rolls a semester. That's a lot for a student when you take 4 classes at a time and need time to attend them, study for them, and process and print all that film. Buying film was very economical compared to a D1x (actually the D1x didn't exist then, but I never spent $3000 a year on film as a student in the late 90's).
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
Christopher Crawford said:
You couldn't afford to buy film to practice with, but you bought a
camera that costs $3000 today and was $5000 when it came out?
That doesn't add up. In order for that camera to pay for itself,
you'd have to shoot the equivalent of 300 rolls of film (cost of
film and developing at walmart). You might do that in a year if
you shoot a lot, but few amateurs shoot anywhere near that much.
Click to expand...
But with digital people really do shoot a lot more, since they don't have to restrain themselves or make prints of every shot.

With 300 rolls at 24exp a roll, that's just around 7000 pictures. I know I took well over 10k pictures in my first year of owning a DSLR, and from the sound of things that is not uncommon.

If you think about it this only makes sense - you learn from each phtoograph, and so therefore if the rate of learning is enhanced with a digital SLR so too must be the number of pictures taken - I don't think you can really reduce the same amount of photographic experience into a smaller number of pictures taken.

I don't feel like I would have taken many fewer pictures to learn what I have with my previous film DSLR than with my current digital. I know for sure that I have already saved the cost of the camera, just in what I used to spend on development much less with my increased rate of shooting.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
Summer Shoot:
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/sigmachangingseasonsiibyday
 
I am one of them too.

It is not like I can't spend $5000 for a film setup, it's like I am looking long term and I don't like the continual cost. $200/month in film. The inability to spend a few rolls just practicing shooting a candle.

In case of digital, the cost is reduced. Any additional money I spend will go towards more tools and not film processing. And all the money saved from not having a darkroom.

I once took 200 pictures of a burning candle, just to see what it is like.

So the cost looks better and we decided to jump in.
Christopher Crawford said:
Debbie F. said:
I am probably one of those people that you can't stand. I did buy
my digital camera because it was easier to learn with. I've always
had a passion for photography or shall I say "taking pictures".
Started college 10 yrs ago for it but didn't complete it. After
getting married and having 2 kids, I decided to persue my love for
photography. Pulled out my N65 and started taking classes. I
couldn't afford the film that I was wasting as I was learning.
Found myself not shooting that much. Not to mention I had to carry
around a tape recorder to tell myself what settings I was using to
know the effects of them once I got the film developed. I met
someone with a D1X and he showed me a few things, I fell in love.
Decided to take the plunge and buy my very first digital camera. I
realized that it would be wise for me to open a business so that I
could deduct the expensive equipment. Also, several of the groups
that I wanted to join so that I could learn more, required a tax ID
number. Well, in a business you have to also make money..... So, I
started shooting sports to make some money while I am still taking
classes and practicing with studio lights and outdoor portraits. I
am currently not advertising, only shooting for people who I know
and who don't have the money to pay some of the "pros" around here.
Isn't that basically what famous musicians did??? Played in bar
rooms until they felt they were good enough to make it big???
Well, just as there are so many bands that don't make it, I'm sure
there are alot of photographers that don't make it either.

my 2 cents!!! Have a nice day!!!
Debbie
willkelly wrote:
Click to expand...
Hold on now!

You couldn't afford to buy film to practice with, but you bought a
camera that costs $3000 today and was $5000 when it came out?
That doesn't add up. In order for that camera to pay for itself,
you'd have to shoot the equivalent of 300 rolls of film (cost of
film and developing at walmart). You might do that in a year if
you shoot a lot, but few amateurs shoot anywhere near that much.
Besides, if you couldn't afford $4 rolls of film and 46 processing,
where'd you come up with $3000 or more all at once!

When I was a student at Indiana University I shot about 50 rolls a
semester. That's a lot for a student when you take 4 classes at a
time and need time to attend them, study for them, and process and
print all that film. Buying film was very economical compared to a
D1x (actually the D1x didn't exist then, but I never spent $3000 a
year on film as a student in the late 90's).
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
Click to expand...
 
Snook said:
I posted this in a forum here but thought it would make an
interesting topic as it really upsets me what is going on now a
days!
This is not a negative post..just wanted to know what the real
photographers think about my view?

What it takes to produce beautiful shots... It takes a great deal
of knowledge and experience... You guys that want a camera to "do
it all" are just lost...
Get real... Photography is an art and takes time and experience to
perfect it...
Having a wonder camera that does it all is a joke...

I usually take 2-3 assistants on my jobs and have them hold
reflectors or scrims...that is just the way it is... Wanting a
camera to do it all for you is a cop out...
Get some experience first...

All these guys getting into photography b/c it is digital and easy
makes me sick...

I wish they would build a lock that you had to answer 10 difficult
photographic questions before you could use a camera of
professional level..
Kind of like a race car drivers permit.. or choeffer's
license...Not just anybody can drive an 18 wheeler these days,
right?
Why the heck can anybody just shoot with a prof. digital camera?
Yes I understand the occasional rich guy who buys the porsche
syndrome and thinks he is senna... But there are way more people
out there with these professional cameras that are more
dangerous...hahaha
Have you all seen some of the pictures that people are producing
with these high end cameras...AWFULLY scary stuff..
People buying a 4500$ camera and some 7500$ 1Ds and shooting their
dogs and cats and neighbors and the bird that came to their
feeder.. I mean come on now...
When will it stop?

All these weekend photographers buying professional level cameras
and then asking stupid simple questions in here makes me ill also...

Wake up... For a lot of people like me this is a way of living and
a way of life...Not a weekend hobby.

The digital era is just flooding the market with these kind of
photographers... really sad...

I would love to see any one of these weeknders do a "real" shoot
with a "real" client and shoot it all with Velvia and with
polaroid..like the good ole days... You would see 3/4 of these
people here running scared.. adn white in the face when they go
pick up there slide film in the lab and the "Highlights" are
blown...
I love my 1Ds but find the digital age ruining the market even more...
Now every tom, **** and harry think they are a professional..
Just my opinion!
Snook

Why do you think a lot of magazines say to the average joe who
calls.."we are not excepting digital"?
because they do not want to see every "john" that is shooting
it..But in fact they let their photographers who have been shooting
with them for a while shoot digital...
Like me!
Just my 0.02 cents!
Snook

--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
Click to expand...
--
RDKirk
'There's nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.' --Ansel Adams
 
For me I spent $900 on my digital SLR body. The rest of what I spent works on both film and digital bodies so that's a wash.

Say I spent $300 on a film body instead. That leaves $600 worth of photo processing -- we'll leave out for the moment the time and convenience etc. of digital.

I'm right about 15,000 exposures in my 9 months of owning the camera.

Know where I can buy 416 36 exposure rolls of film and have them processed for $600?

And, of course, we haven't begun to cover the lifetime of the camera -- just the first nine months.

Not to mention the time I'd spend scanning them into my computer anyway.

Lee
Christopher Crawford said:
Debbie F. said:
I am probably one of those people that you can't stand. I did buy
my digital camera because it was easier to learn with. I've always
had a passion for photography or shall I say "taking pictures".
Started college 10 yrs ago for it but didn't complete it. After
getting married and having 2 kids, I decided to persue my love for
photography. Pulled out my N65 and started taking classes. I
couldn't afford the film that I was wasting as I was learning.
Found myself not shooting that much. Not to mention I had to carry
around a tape recorder to tell myself what settings I was using to
know the effects of them once I got the film developed. I met
someone with a D1X and he showed me a few things, I fell in love.
Decided to take the plunge and buy my very first digital camera. I
realized that it would be wise for me to open a business so that I
could deduct the expensive equipment. Also, several of the groups
that I wanted to join so that I could learn more, required a tax ID
number. Well, in a business you have to also make money..... So, I
started shooting sports to make some money while I am still taking
classes and practicing with studio lights and outdoor portraits. I
am currently not advertising, only shooting for people who I know
and who don't have the money to pay some of the "pros" around here.
Isn't that basically what famous musicians did??? Played in bar
rooms until they felt they were good enough to make it big???
Well, just as there are so many bands that don't make it, I'm sure
there are alot of photographers that don't make it either.

my 2 cents!!! Have a nice day!!!
Debbie
willkelly wrote:
Click to expand...
Hold on now!

You couldn't afford to buy film to practice with, but you bought a
camera that costs $3000 today and was $5000 when it came out?
That doesn't add up. In order for that camera to pay for itself,
you'd have to shoot the equivalent of 300 rolls of film (cost of
film and developing at walmart). You might do that in a year if
you shoot a lot, but few amateurs shoot anywhere near that much.
Besides, if you couldn't afford $4 rolls of film and 46 processing,
where'd you come up with $3000 or more all at once!

When I was a student at Indiana University I shot about 50 rolls a
semester. That's a lot for a student when you take 4 classes at a
time and need time to attend them, study for them, and process and
print all that film. Buying film was very economical compared to a
D1x (actually the D1x didn't exist then, but I never spent $3000 a
year on film as a student in the late 90's).
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
Click to expand...
 
I actually, privately thought the beginning was with the autofocus, motor driven film cameras. Rapid fire w/o the thinking involved began before digital. Shoot enough pix and at least one is usable.

Digital just made it easier as you don't have any lab costs to think about.

I still have my M3 for fun and my 4x5's when I'm serious. The wet darkroom is still there but doesn't get much of a workout the past year or so.

Now having said that, I really admire digital for its advantages. I use cameras in software (entertainment) development. We shoot what we need and fold the pixels into texture maps. My life became unbelievably easier. And it saves ton of money.

My personal photography side is still based on seeing the shot, visualizing the final print in my head before tripping the shutter. To me the fun is seeing what ones saw in their head, come to life in the print. Maybe a little exposure adjusting to make up for the limited capabilities of the camera sensor and some sharpening. If I have to spend hours manipulating the image, I failed in my own mind. And I have some of the best CS guys in the country working with me. They don't touch my personal images.

I agree a whole generation of photogrqphers is missing an enormous amount of knowledge with the current state of the art.

The camera companies are making a killing. We'll except for Kodak which not too many years ago was one of the greatest american companies ever. I'm afraid no longer though. Their quality and corporate culture was truely a cut above. I don't see much happening there. Hopefully they can rise to the occasiobn again.

Rambling sorry
 
Well Snook, some of us can get published (paid, mind you) no matter what camera we use. I have and do. Even with a lowly Sony Mavica digicam. I don't need people to stand around and hold reflectors for me... I can get the shot with the light that's available ( even better now with my MK II... LOL ).

I shoot my cats, the kids, the birds at the feeder.... and a lot of other things you might see and not know who did it.

I hate reading that people like me make you ill when you read our posts... simple solution would be to skip them, I would think...
;-)
Snook said:
I posted this in a forum here but thought it would make an
interesting topic as it really upsets me what is going on now a
days!
This is not a negative post..just wanted to know what the real
photographers think about my view?

What it takes to produce beautiful shots... It takes a great deal
of knowledge and experience... You guys that want a camera to "do
it all" are just lost...
Get real... Photography is an art and takes time and experience to
perfect it...
Having a wonder camera that does it all is a joke...

I usually take 2-3 assistants on my jobs and have them hold
reflectors or scrims...that is just the way it is... Wanting a
camera to do it all for you is a cop out...
Get some experience first...

All these guys getting into photography b/c it is digital and easy
makes me sick...

I wish they would build a lock that you had to answer 10 difficult
photographic questions before you could use a camera of
professional level..
Kind of like a race car drivers permit.. or choeffer's
license...Not just anybody can drive an 18 wheeler these days,
right?
Why the heck can anybody just shoot with a prof. digital camera?
Yes I understand the occasional rich guy who buys the porsche
syndrome and thinks he is senna... But there are way more people
out there with these professional cameras that are more
dangerous...hahaha
Have you all seen some of the pictures that people are producing
with these high end cameras...AWFULLY scary stuff..
People buying a 4500$ camera and some 7500$ 1Ds and shooting their
dogs and cats and neighbors and the bird that came to their
feeder.. I mean come on now...
When will it stop?

All these weekend photographers buying professional level cameras
and then asking stupid simple questions in here makes me ill also...

Wake up... For a lot of people like me this is a way of living and
a way of life...Not a weekend hobby.

The digital era is just flooding the market with these kind of
photographers... really sad...

I would love to see any one of these weeknders do a "real" shoot
with a "real" client and shoot it all with Velvia and with
polaroid..like the good ole days... You would see 3/4 of these
people here running scared.. adn white in the face when they go
pick up there slide film in the lab and the "Highlights" are
blown...
I love my 1Ds but find the digital age ruining the market even more...
Now every tom, **** and harry think they are a professional..
Just my opinion!
Snook

Why do you think a lot of magazines say to the average joe who
calls.."we are not excepting digital"?
because they do not want to see every "john" that is shooting
it..But in fact they let their photographers who have been shooting
with them for a while shoot digital...
Like me!
Just my 0.02 cents!
Snook

--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
Click to expand...
--



http://www.caughtintimephotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/melaniekipp
 
LeeBase said:
For me I spent $900 on my digital SLR body. The rest of what I
spent works on both film and digital bodies so that's a wash.

Say I spent $300 on a film body instead. That leaves $600 worth of
photo processing -- we'll leave out for the moment the time and
convenience etc. of digital.

I'm right about 15,000 exposures in my 9 months of owning the camera.

Know where I can buy 416 36 exposure rolls of film and have them
processed for $600?

And, of course, we haven't begun to cover the lifetime of the
camera -- just the first nine months.

Not to mention the time I'd spend scanning them into my computer
anyway.

Lee
Click to expand...
Shooting 15,000 images in 9 months reminds me of A.D. Coleman's assessment of the career of Gary Winogrand. Winogrand was a famous photographer in the 70's and early 80's. He died in 1984. He walked the streets with a Leica equipped with a motor drive and shot huge quantities of black and white film by just pointing the camera diffeent directions and letting fly with the motor drive. He picked through his tens of thousands of exposures to pick out those that really were interesting and built a very unique body of work. Coleman's problem with Winogrand was that G.W. put no thought into his work at the time of exposure and often didn't remember what he'd shot. When Winogrand died he left more than 7000 rolls of 36 exposure film UNPROCESSED. These were the work of the last three years of his life; three years that winogrand never bothered to process or print. Coleman called him the "Monkey Cam"; an allusion to a feature on the Letterman show at the time when a monkey with a video camera strapped to his head would be let loose in the TV studio. Every once in a while Letterman would push a button to reveal what the monkey was looking at at the moment. totally random shots with no thought put into them; yet they were sometimes interesting.

That's what I think when I hear an amateur photographer say they shoot so many thousands of pictures in such short time. Pros often shoot that much or more, but they also have every day, all day, to do it. An amateur who works a regular fulltime job and practices photography as a hobby cannot possibly shoot that many images while putting the necessary time into each one to produce quality, even as a student of the art where most shots end up rejected as learning experiences. Digital gives you more time to shoot since you don't need time in the darkroom or at the scanner like you do with film. Yet, you still need time to set up each shot, determine correct exposure (note that shooting many shots at different settings and picking the good one is NOT setting proper exposure), find locations, think about composition and the structure of the image, and do the technical stuff associated with digital like raw conversions and other editing on the computer.

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
1, The skill of the craftsman is dying in many professions, I suppose one day we will all pay for substituting technology for human skill. (ironically I have made my living from computers for the last decade)

2. I am an enthusiastic amateur photographer who sells a few prints to cover the costs of his hobby. I take hundreds of shots to get anything decent. I have been asked to do weddings etc, I always turn them down saying they need a pro because of the consistency of quality,pros have skills I don't have and its too important to gamble on an amateur.

3. Its often the pros who let themselves down. My mother paid £300 for a picture of one of her grandchildren, its batch processed, badly sharpened on poor paper with a stock pose. Camera was obviously excellent.

The company I used to be a director of had some staff pictures taken for some promotional material, the photographer I am told just could not get hold of what they were saying and didnt seem interested in the result they were after, and did his standard stuff. Well framed,

obviously excellent equipment but a poor job. I ended up taking the pictures having recommended in the first place they go to a pro.

I was asked this week to take pictures at a childrens nursery, I was told there pro who comes in takes the same photos with the same everything every year. I explained about consistency of quality to them, he knows his job etc. They showed me the pictures they were consistently bland, good equipment though.

I watched a wedding photographer the other day taking pictures near a lake, he obviously knew his job well. As he was working the swans and cygnets started coming up the lake, so I went and told him they would come through in a 2 minutes thinking he may take advantage and use them as a backdrop. No response, when the swans appeared the bride and groom ran of at the suggestion of the guests to have there picture taken with the swans, with the guests camera. Fotunately for the pro there equipment was nothing like as good as his.

Alright this is my rant. I love the work of skilled professionals, but there are too many using there superior equipment and professional status to cover shoddy overpriced work. The advent of easily available (current fashion) high quality equipment is starting to catch them out, hopefully they won't take those who do an outstanding job down with them.

Tony
RDKirk said:
Snook said:
I posted this in a forum here but thought it would make an
interesting topic as it really upsets me what is going on now a
days!
This is not a negative post..just wanted to know what the real
photographers think about my view?

What it takes to produce beautiful shots... It takes a great deal
of knowledge and experience... You guys that want a camera to "do
it all" are just lost...
Get real... Photography is an art and takes time and experience to
perfect it...
Having a wonder camera that does it all is a joke...

I usually take 2-3 assistants on my jobs and have them hold
reflectors or scrims...that is just the way it is... Wanting a
camera to do it all for you is a cop out...
Get some experience first...

All these guys getting into photography b/c it is digital and easy
makes me sick...

I wish they would build a lock that you had to answer 10 difficult
photographic questions before you could use a camera of
professional level..
Kind of like a race car drivers permit.. or choeffer's
license...Not just anybody can drive an 18 wheeler these days,
right?
Why the heck can anybody just shoot with a prof. digital camera?
Yes I understand the occasional rich guy who buys the porsche
syndrome and thinks he is senna... But there are way more people
out there with these professional cameras that are more
dangerous...hahaha
Have you all seen some of the pictures that people are producing
with these high end cameras...AWFULLY scary stuff..
People buying a 4500$ camera and some 7500$ 1Ds and shooting their
dogs and cats and neighbors and the bird that came to their
feeder.. I mean come on now...
When will it stop?

All these weekend photographers buying professional level cameras
and then asking stupid simple questions in here makes me ill also...

Wake up... For a lot of people like me this is a way of living and
a way of life...Not a weekend hobby.

The digital era is just flooding the market with these kind of
photographers... really sad...

I would love to see any one of these weeknders do a "real" shoot
with a "real" client and shoot it all with Velvia and with
polaroid..like the good ole days... You would see 3/4 of these
people here running scared.. adn white in the face when they go
pick up there slide film in the lab and the "Highlights" are
blown...
I love my 1Ds but find the digital age ruining the market even more...
Now every tom, **** and harry think they are a professional..
Just my opinion!
Snook

Why do you think a lot of magazines say to the average joe who
calls.."we are not excepting digital"?
because they do not want to see every "john" that is shooting
it..But in fact they let their photographers who have been shooting
with them for a while shoot digital...
Like me!
Just my 0.02 cents!
Snook

--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
Click to expand...
--
RDKirk
'There's nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.'
--Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
 
Digital is the "market" dummy. And I bought a 1D Mark II to take pictures of my dog. I have no doubt they are much better than whatever your producing with your three assistants and your reflectors. Just my two cents.
Snook said:
I posted this in a forum here but thought it would make an
interesting topic as it really upsets me what is going on now a
days!
This is not a negative post..just wanted to know what the real
photographers think about my view?

What it takes to produce beautiful shots... It takes a great deal
of knowledge and experience... You guys that want a camera to "do
it all" are just lost...
Get real... Photography is an art and takes time and experience to
perfect it...
Having a wonder camera that does it all is a joke...

I usually take 2-3 assistants on my jobs and have them hold
reflectors or scrims...that is just the way it is... Wanting a
camera to do it all for you is a cop out...
Get some experience first...

All these guys getting into photography b/c it is digital and easy
makes me sick...

I wish they would build a lock that you had to answer 10 difficult
photographic questions before you could use a camera of
professional level..
Kind of like a race car drivers permit.. or choeffer's
license...Not just anybody can drive an 18 wheeler these days,
right?
Why the heck can anybody just shoot with a prof. digital camera?
Yes I understand the occasional rich guy who buys the porsche
syndrome and thinks he is senna... But there are way more people
out there with these professional cameras that are more
dangerous...hahaha
Have you all seen some of the pictures that people are producing
with these high end cameras...AWFULLY scary stuff..
People buying a 4500$ camera and some 7500$ 1Ds and shooting their
dogs and cats and neighbors and the bird that came to their
feeder.. I mean come on now...
When will it stop?

All these weekend photographers buying professional level cameras
and then asking stupid simple questions in here makes me ill also...

Wake up... For a lot of people like me this is a way of living and
a way of life...Not a weekend hobby.

The digital era is just flooding the market with these kind of
photographers... really sad...

I would love to see any one of these weeknders do a "real" shoot
with a "real" client and shoot it all with Velvia and with
polaroid..like the good ole days... You would see 3/4 of these
people here running scared.. adn white in the face when they go
pick up there slide film in the lab and the "Highlights" are
blown...
I love my 1Ds but find the digital age ruining the market even more...
Now every tom, **** and harry think they are a professional..
Just my opinion!
Snook

Why do you think a lot of magazines say to the average joe who
calls.."we are not excepting digital"?
because they do not want to see every "john" that is shooting
it..But in fact they let their photographers who have been shooting
with them for a while shoot digital...
Like me!
Just my 0.02 cents!
Snook

--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
Click to expand...
 
I learned a lot from slowing down. I did shoot primarily landscapes with a Fuji GSW690 and Technika 70. Film was more expensive, so I took more time to move around and find the the best scene and angle, using a handmeter and thinking more in terms of hyperfocal distance helped me more to create a picture not just take one.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Christopher Crawford said:
You couldn't afford to buy film to practice with, but you bought a
camera that costs $3000 today and was $5000 when it came out?
That doesn't add up. In order for that camera to pay for itself,
you'd have to shoot the equivalent of 300 rolls of film (cost of
film and developing at walmart). You might do that in a year if
you shoot a lot, but few amateurs shoot anywhere near that much.
Click to expand...
But with digital people really do shoot a lot more, since they
don't have to restrain themselves or make prints of every shot.

With 300 rolls at 24exp a roll, that's just around 7000 pictures.
I know I took well over 10k pictures in my first year of owning a
DSLR, and from the sound of things that is not uncommon.

If you think about it this only makes sense - you learn from each
phtoograph, and so therefore if the rate of learning is enhanced
with a digital SLR so too must be the number of pictures taken - I
don't think you can really reduce the same amount of photographic
experience into a smaller number of pictures taken.

I don't feel like I would have taken many fewer pictures to learn
what I have with my previous film DSLR than with my current
digital. I know for sure that I have already saved the cost of the
camera, just in what I used to spend on development much less with
my increased rate of shooting.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
Summer Shoot:
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/sigmachangingseasonsiibyday
Click to expand...
 
To be fair, and not to make excuses, but they're probably not the only ones who do the same job day-in-and-day-out and get stuck in a rut.

Or to put it another way, if you're reading this...

What totally new and exciting change did you make at work today?
 
Snook said:
I posted this in a forum here but thought it would make an
interesting topic as it really upsets me what is going on now a
days!
This is not a negative post..just wanted to know what the real
photographers think about my view?
Click to expand...
So many things wrong with this post that I hardly know where to begin!
Snook said:
What it takes to produce beautiful shots... It takes a great deal
of knowledge and experience... You guys that want a camera to "do
it all" are just lost...
Get real... Photography is an art and takes time and experience to
perfect it...
Having a wonder camera that does it all is a joke...
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific? What guys? The ones that post in these forums? Who?
Snook said:
I usually take 2-3 assistants on my jobs and have them hold
reflectors or scrims...that is just the way it is... Wanting a
camera to do it all for you is a cop out...
Get some experience first...
Click to expand...
You know that they make stands and holders for that. If you learn how to plan your shoot ahead then you'll find yourself needing less assistants to prop you up for your lack of understanding of the entire process.
Snook said:
All these guys getting into photography b/c it is digital and easy
makes me sick...
Click to expand...
Easier than what? What should they do? Buy a film camera so they can shoot less for the same amount of money?
Snook said:
I wish they would build a lock that you had to answer 10 difficult
photographic questions before you could use a camera of
professional level..
Kind of like a race car drivers permit.. or choeffer's
license...Not just anybody can drive an 18 wheeler these days,
right?
Click to expand...
How do you equate that with a race car drivers permit? What form of racing? Not every form of racing requires a special license. The 18 wheeler license comparison is ridiculous. Let me ruin your wedding album because I shoot it with a pro level DSLR that I don't really know how to use. Next let me kill some of your family members because I'm driving an 18 wheeler that I really don't know how to use. Do you realize how ridiculous it is for you to compare one to the other?
Snook said:
Why the heck can anybody just shoot with a prof. digital camera?
Yes I understand the occasional rich guy who buys the porsche
syndrome and thinks he is senna... But there are way more people
out there with these professional cameras that are more
dangerous...hahaha
Click to expand...
Anybody that can afford any camera can buy said camera and use it. Why is this so hard for you to make peace with? How is someone that overestimates their ability with a car and killing someone on a public road is less dangerous than someone with a DSLR that doesn't know how to use it?
Snook said:
Have you all seen some of the pictures that people are producing
with these high end cameras...AWFULLY scary stuff..
People buying a 4500$ camera and some 7500$ 1Ds and shooting their
dogs and cats and neighbors and the bird that came to their
feeder.. I mean come on now...
When will it stop?
Click to expand...
When you buy controlling interest in Canon, Nikon, ect. and dictate who can buy what. Actually not even then. Someone will sue you when you refuse to sell them a DSLR because they are not a "pro" in your mind and they will win because no judge in his right mind will ever go with your whole argument. If someone wants $10,000 worth of equipment to shoot their pets, neighbors, or whatever, why would you care? How does that harm you or even bother you?
Snook said:
All these weekend photographers buying professional level cameras
and then asking stupid simple questions in here makes me ill also...
Click to expand...
Don't answer them then. People go away if they are ignored.
Snook said:
Wake up... For a lot of people like me this is a way of living and
a way of life...Not a weekend hobby.
Click to expand...
Your point?
Snook said:
The digital era is just flooding the market with these kind of
photographers... really sad...

I would love to see any one of these weeknders do a "real" shoot
with a "real" client and shoot it all with Velvia and with
polaroid..like the good ole days... You would see 3/4 of these
people here running scared.. adn white in the face when they go
pick up there slide film in the lab and the "Highlights" are
blown...
Click to expand...
Why do that when digital is easier and cheaper?
Snook said:
I love my 1Ds but find the digital age ruining the market even more...
Now every tom, **** and harry think they are a professional..
Just my opinion!
Snook
Click to expand...
So now we can get better cameras for less money than ever before. Sounds like the market is ruined to me. Maybe it just seems ruined to you because the most rudimentary skills that were once the exclusive domain of the real "pro's" are more accessible than ever before. Sounds like you need to step up your game before some amateur eats your lunch.
Just my opinion!
Snook said:
Why do you think a lot of magazines say to the average joe who
calls.."we are not excepting digital"?
because they do not want to see every "john" that is shooting
it..But in fact they let their photographers who have been shooting
with them for a while shoot digital...
Like me!
Just my 0.02 cents!
Snook
Click to expand...
Short sightedness? Ignorance of the fact that they could probably get for free what they pay you for? What magazine do you shoot for? No offense but with your attitude I find it hard to believe you are a pro. Please prove me wrong. ;)
Snook said:
--
Canon 1Ds,Powerbook 17'---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
Click to expand...
Shooting RAW? You must be a pro! (Sarcasm)
 
glacierpete said:
I learned a lot from slowing down. I did shoot primarily landscapes
with a Fuji GSW690 and Technika 70. Film was more expensive, so I
took more time to move around and find the the best scene and
angle, using a handmeter and thinking more in terms of hyperfocal
distance helped me more to create a picture not just take one.
Click to expand...
amen brother

Folks are in to much of a hurry. Take 50 shots, pick one thats acceptable.

In my opinion, Wrong

Find a subject you want to explore, take one picture or two or three. Make it exceptional. Its a great exercise.

Force yourself to find the time of day for best light, color of light. Make it look three dimensional. Thats how I learned. I went to ton's of workshops in the late 60's early 70's. There is no way to rush it, the learning that is.

Now I sound like an old f$%t, but I'm not really. I just had guidance when I started with an old timer with a view camera and fast photography was just not in his vocabulary. Photography is in the head not in the film or sensor. The output is the print.

Digital cameras work slowly too.
 
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