Sometimes the best photos are done by advanced enthusiasts

I think you've forgotten one thing that often differentiates a professional from even an highly advanced enthusiast. The professional will usually deliver under pressure, changed circumstances, difficult customers, just to name a few issues.

When you are under the pump, that's when the differences show up.

OzRay wrote:

I think you've forgotten one thing that often differentiates a professional from even an highly advanced enthusiast. The professional will usually deliver under pressure, changed circumstances, difficult customers, just to name a few issues.

When you are under the pump, that's when the differences show up.

Yes, that's correct. Enthusiasts don't have to deal with those stressers.

The pros have time constraints and the other stressers you mentioned.

I didn't intend to disrespect pros in any way. They do amazing things under pressure.

I am a 25 year pro (though I'm a newbie to m4/3). Time pressure is why I strive for a high level of adequacy done fast and reliably. Get in, get er done, get out, on to next job. I get that. I live that. Not everyone can do that.

However, I want to also pay some respect to knowledgeable amateurs who often make great photos and deserve recognition for that. It's true they probably aren't under much stress while they create, but they still deserve respect for knowing a lot and they often create beautiful photography.

I respect both pros and enthusiasts, and appreciate both for helping me adapt to m4/3.

Thank you for sharing your expertise, generosity, and time.

I agree with your comment overall when it comes to advanced amateurs/enthusiasts, which pretty much applies to most crafts and the like. They do in fact often produce works of art etc that exceeds the quality of noted professionals.

For example, many an amateur astronomer (I'm not one) has discovered amazing new stellar objects because they often have the time and the resources to do what professionals often don't, especially if the professional has to 'time share' their resources.

However, I'm sure that a professional can produce similar quality, if they are doing stuff for themselves, given that they can disengage themselves from their normal work mindset. The latter can be very difficult to do.

Charley123 wrote:

I'm posting this because I've had this thought many times and I just got a PM that made me think of this again.

Pro photographers aren't better photographers than enthusiasts. Pro just means I get paid to do it. It doesn't mean I'm better.

Sometimes the best photos are created by advanced enthusiasts who take more time to strive for perfection. Pros are usually in a hurry to produce and have to balance that against quality. So often pros results are highly adequate for the job's requirements, but certainly not perfection.

Knowledgeable enthusiasts often know as much (or more) than pros, and enthusiasts will often take the time to strive for perfection, even if it takes a lot of time to get it.

I was an enthusiast for several years before I was a pro. I created my best photos when I was an advanced enthusiast who was willing to spend as much time as necessary to achieve perfection. That was way back in the film days.

I have a great respect for enthusiasts, and especially for advanced enthusiasts who probably know as much about general photography as I do, and they certainly know more about computer post processing since I'm an old pro. Also, the advanced m4/3 enthusiasts know a lot more about m4/3 than I do. I'm a m4/3 newbie who's trying to learn and catch on. I think I'm making progress.

I welcome the opportunity to learn from enthusiasts and pros. I appreciate and respect you, and I appreciate the time you've spent to orient me to m4/3. I'm still a work in progress, but I think I'm starting to catch on to m4/3.

I'm going to be a practicing enthusiast with my new m4/3 gear the first half of this week learning how to use it and going on some practice shoots. At the end of this week I'll do my first pro shoot with m4/3. Fingers crossed...

A good photographer takes pictures that many other people consider good.  That's about it.   Whether the person taking the picture is paid or not doesn't matter.

However, if I know nothing about two people except that one makes a living doing something other than photography and the other is making a living (not just making extra on the side) providing Photography services, then I would bet that a random group of people will judge that pictures from the Professional photographers will be on average have higher scores than those pictures taken by the non-Professional.

OzRay wrote:

I agree with your comment overall when it comes to advanced amateurs/enthusiasts, which pretty much applies to most crafts and the like. They do in fact often produce works of art etc that exceeds the quality of noted professionals.

For example, many an amateur astronomer (I'm not one) has discovered amazing new stellar objects because they often have the time and the resources to do what professionals often don't, especially if the professional has to 'time share' their resources.

However, I'm sure that a professional can produce similar quality, if they are doing stuff for themselves, given that they can disengage themselves from their normal work mindset. The latter can be very difficult to do.

Yes, a pro can produce similar artistic results if the pro still has a love for it and is working on his own time (off duty). All pros used to be enthusiasts in the past.

It's hard to keep the love for it when it's a job. I'm endeavoring to regain my enthusiast mindset I used to have when younger. I want to be an artistic enthusiast when not working, but still be a practicle reliable pro when working.

I want to feel more love and enthusiasm for photography like I did when I was a young enthusiast. I did some amazing things then that I've never done as a pro.

Part of it has to do with customer expectations of reliability. A pro is expected to always deliver results, which means one must play it safe and go for the sure things, and not take chances trying to be to artistic.

When I was a young enthusiast I was free to do whatever I wanted. I could spend as much time as I wanted on a project, and I could attempt artistic endeavors that may or may not turn out. I could take chances. If it succeeded, I made beautiful art. If it failed, I made nothing worthwhile, but no big deal since no one was depending on me for results.

As I pro I learned to take less chances and go for the sure things that always turns out. That produces reliable repeatable results, but isn't very artistic.

As an enthusiast I used to love to use slow shutter speeds to capture motion blur in a still photo, but that is an art, and it doesn't always turn out well. As a pro I can't take those chances. Likewise as an enthusiast I love night photography, which created some great art but also some failures (especially in the film days).

Amateurs have more freedom to compose and take chances. I envy them.

I'm old enough to be nearing retirement and I'm wanting to reconnect with my amateur enthusiast roots that I had when I was young so I can enjoy photography as an art again, and not just a paycheck.

One thing I love about OMD cameras is they look like the old school film cameras I used back in the day. They make me nostalgic.

Kszchopstix wrote:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

That make a lot of sense.

I used to be a level 5 amateur, but eventually became a level 7 artist, then dropped down to level 6 whore, and eventually hit rock bottom as a level 3 professional where I've been for a long time.

As I'm nearing retirement, I'm trying to become a level 7 artist again, or at least a good level 5 amateur again.

Charley123 wrote:

OzRay wrote:

I agree with your comment overall when it comes to advanced amateurs/enthusiasts, which pretty much applies to most crafts and the like. They do in fact often produce works of art etc that exceeds the quality of noted professionals.

For example, many an amateur astronomer (I'm not one) has discovered amazing new stellar objects because they often have the time and the resources to do what professionals often don't, especially if the professional has to 'time share' their resources.

However, I'm sure that a professional can produce similar quality, if they are doing stuff for themselves, given that they can disengage themselves from their normal work mindset. The latter can be very difficult to do.

Yes, a pro can produce similar artistic results if the pro still has a love for it and is working on his own time (off duty). All pros used to be enthusiasts in the past.

It's hard to keep the love for it when it's a job. I'm endeavoring to regain my enthusiast mindset I used to have when younger. I want to be an artistic enthusiast when not working, but still be a practicle reliable pro when working.

I want to feel more love and enthusiasm for photography like I did when I was a young enthusiast. I did some amazing things then that I've never done as a pro.

Part of it has to do with customer expectations of reliability. A pro is expected to always deliver results, which means one must play it safe and go for the sure things, and not take chances trying to be to artistic.

When I was a young enthusiast I was free to do whatever I wanted. I could spend as much time as I wanted on a project, and I could attempt artistic endeavors that may or may not turn out. I could take chances. If it succeeded, I made beautiful art. If it failed, I made nothing worthwhile, but no big deal since no one was depending on me for results.

As I pro I learned to take less chances and go for the sure things that always turns out. That produces reliable repeatable results, but isn't very artistic.

As an enthusiast I used to love to use slow shutter speeds to capture motion blur in a still photo, but that is an art, and it doesn't always turn out well. As a pro I can't take those chances. Likewise as an enthusiast I love night photography, which created some great art but also some failures (especially in the film days).

Amateurs have more freedom to compose and take chances. I envy them.

I'm old enough to be nearing retirement and I'm wanting to reconnect with my amateur enthusiast roots that I had when I was young so I can enjoy photography as an art again, and not just a paycheck.

One thing I love about OMD cameras is they look like the old school film cameras I used back in the day. They make me nostalgic.

I get where you are coming from now...  However, what you are really saying is that "for you" you are purposely not doing much more "artistic" photos because you are spending the time making a living.  You have the skills just you are using it differently.

For certain high stress fast paced situations that require always getting results (weddings, my real estate shoots that require lots of notices and scheduling with tenants and property owners, fashion shoots using paid for models and sets or locations) the pros have the experience and testicles to handle those situations calmly and professionally and consistently get good results.

For slower paced, no stress situations, artists and enthusiasts can shine and do work as good as a pro. Sometimes better than a pro since artists and amateurs are likely to take more time doing it.

IMO

There are a huge number of photographers in the world.  Some are consistently great, some are occasionally great, most are ordinary to mediocre, many are terrible.

I would guess that anyone who has made it long term as a pro is at least competent in their genre and an adequate business person. Many amateurs don't have that filtering effect weeding out the bad ones, so probably the amateur field is much more mixed than the pro field.

Top pros also often have an army of artistic directors, post processing wizards and expert printers to raise the potential of their images to the utmost. The photographer's talent and those of his assistance often come together with the famous great works.

Most amateurs have to do everything themselves. But there are vastly more amateurs than pros. Out of that huge group there are bound to be lots of hugely talented, hardworking dedicated enthusiasts who produce the highest quality work.

So, beyond the pro arena weeding out the truly hopeless, I suspect both groups can produce great, good, and mediocre work.  Maybe the amateurs have a monopoly on the genuinely terrible work though!

DMillier wrote:

There are a huge number of photographers in the world. Some are consistently great, some are occasionally great, most are ordinary to mediocre, many are terrible.

I would guess that anyone who has made it long term as a pro is at least competent in their genre and an adequate business person. Many amateurs don't have that filtering effect weeding out the bad ones, so probably the amateur field is much more mixed than the pro field.

Top pros also often have an army of artistic directors, post processing wizards and expert printers to raise the potential of their images to the utmost. The photographer's talent and those of his assistance often come together with the famous great works.

Most amateurs have to do everything themselves. But there are vastly more amateurs than pros. Out of that huge group there are bound to be lots of hugely talented, hardworking dedicated enthusiasts who produce the highest quality work.

So, beyond the pro arena weeding out the truly hopeless, I suspect both groups can produce great, good, and mediocre work. Maybe the amateurs have a monopoly on the genuinely terrible work though!

Well said, but I don't think of the least common denominators. I think of the highest amateurs I meet and see their work, and I think of myself when I was an amateur. For all the less skillful amateurs, I figure they're either a work in progress, or hopeless, but either way I tend to look past them to the accomplished amateurs.

I do agree that pros are consistently at least competent or better, while amateurs run the full gamet from newbie to expert enthusiast, some with talent, some with none, and all with varying levels of knowledge. One thing to keep in mind though, every pro was once an amateur enthusiast.

Speaking of hopeless, I tried to train my nephew to be a photographer because he has the love for it, but he has no eye for it and not much technical brain for it either. The kid is 16 now and he is truly hopeless. I was hoping to train him to be my assistant, but all he's good for is a pack mule for carrying my tripod and camera equipment. (OMD and m4/3 will make him obsolete) His sister was truly gifted with both love and talent for photography. She had an eye for it. But her sexist parents wouldn't allow her to pursue it (or anything else except homemaking). So instead only her dim witted bother was allowed to pursue it, but he's hopeless. It irritates me whenever I think of the time I wasted trying to train him and how his parents wasted his sisters talent. They belong to a religion that I won't mention that thinks women are only good for housework, making babies, and singing in church. It's such a waste of talent when talented people aren't allowed to pursue their talents. She's now lost interest in photography after years of wanting training and not being allowed. I guess they finally broke her spirit. All she wants to do now is why they trained her to do all these years: housework, get married and make babies, and sing in church. I'm nauseated by the suppression and waste her talent.

Krusty79 wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

DMillier wrote:

There are a huge number of photographers in the world. Some are consistently great, some are occasionally great, most are ordinary to mediocre, many are terrible.

I would guess that anyone who has made it long term as a pro is at least competent in their genre and an adequate business person. Many amateurs don't have that filtering effect weeding out the bad ones, so probably the amateur field is much more mixed than the pro field.

Top pros also often have an army of artistic directors, post processing wizards and expert printers to raise the potential of their images to the utmost. The photographer's talent and those of his assistance often come together with the famous great works.

Most amateurs have to do everything themselves. But there are vastly more amateurs than pros. Out of that huge group there are bound to be lots of hugely talented, hardworking dedicated enthusiasts who produce the highest quality work.

So, beyond the pro arena weeding out the truly hopeless, I suspect both groups can produce great, good, and mediocre work. Maybe the amateurs have a monopoly on the genuinely terrible work though!

Well said, but I don't think of the least common denominators. I think of the highest amateurs I meet and see their work, and I think of myself when I was an amateur. For all the less skillful amateurs, I figure they're either a work in progress, or hopeless, but either way I tend to look past them to the accomplished amateurs.

I do agree that pros are consistently at least competent or better, while amateurs run the full gamet from newbie to expert enthusiast, some with talent, some with none, and all with varying levels of knowledge. One thing to keep in mind though, every pro was once an amateur enthusiast.

Speaking of hopeless, I tried to train my nephew to be a photographer because he has the love for it, but he has no eye for it and not much technical brain for it either. The kid is 16 now and he is truly hopeless. I was hoping to train him to be my assistant, but all he's good for is a pack mule for carrying my tripod and camera equipment. (OMD and m4/3 will make him obsolete) His sister was truly gifted with both love and talent for photography. She had an eye for it. But her sexist parents wouldn't allow her to pursue it (or anything else except homemaking). So instead only her dim witted bother was allowed to pursue it, but he's hopeless. It irritates me whenever I think of the time I wasted trying to train him and how his parents wasted his sisters talent. They belong to a religion that I won't mention that thinks women are only good for housework, making babies, and singing in church. It's such a waste of talent when talented people aren't allowed to pursue their talents. She's now lost interest in photography after years of wanting training and not being allowed. I guess they finally broke her spirit. All she wants to do now is why they trained her to do all these years: housework, get married and make babies, and sing in church. I'm nauseated by the suppression and waste her talent.

Don't get me started on organized religion!

One thing I do respect about pros is that they have had to learn about marketing. Most amateurs do not look forward to marketing themselves and I think that is a barrier to entering the market for many. Enthusiasts don't have to deal with the business end, so they have more time to be creative.

Organized religion.. you mean brand fanboyism?  Same thing right?

The definition of "professional" photographer is often reduced to meaning nothing but someone who makes a living from doing photography.

I know, for example,e, and I am deliberately  and arbitrarily singling them out, many car mechanics that make a living from repairing cars (more or less), but I hardly regard them as professionals, because they lack criteria that come into play when we consider "professional" versus "amateur."

Making money is only part of being a professional.

Behaving professionally, knowing the rules of the trade,  being on time, understanding the client's needs, understanding the field in one which is working in a  consummate manner, being able to deliver under adverse conditions on time and within budget, sticking to agreements, etc are all just as important as the ability to make money with one's photography.

I know professional photographers who are rather unprofessional, and I know amateurs who are rather professional. The one who behaves professionally is a more well-rounded whole-package deal and could be either a pro, an amateur/enthusiast.

Labels are not better than are the definitions for them.

Charley123 wrote:

Pro photographers aren't better photographers than enthusiasts. Pro just means I get paid to do it. It doesn't mean I'm better.

I think that if you could somehow measure a photogaphers "goodnews" and then determine the goodness of enthusiasts and pros, you'd find that the pros, taken as a group, are better. The worst of the pros is probably better than the worst of the enthusiasts; the best of the pros is probably better and the median pro is probably better than the median enthusiast.

Enthusiasts have the luxury of never having to deliver. An enthusiast can show his best work and it can be amazing, but he might fail badly 95% of the time, while the pro has to deliver 100% of the time.

Sometimes the best photos are created by advanced enthusiasts who take more time to strive for perfection.

Sure. But then, practice counts for a lot, and pros spend more time shooting than (most) enthusiasts. They don't get rusty.

and enthusiasts will often take the time to strive for perfection, even if it takes a lot of time to get it.

I definitely get your point. Pros are often too busy doing a job to do the kind of excellent photography that some enthusiasts are capable of doing. I've never had any real desire to be a pro photographer. I'd rather earn decent money at a job I'm good at, then be able to spend some of that on camera gear and take pictures for fun in my spare time. Now, if I could shoot what I want to shoot full time and somehow get paid for that, I'd jump at the chance - even take a big pay cut to do so. But I'm not terribly interested in doing what it really takes to make money at photography.

At the end of this week I'll do my first pro shoot with m4/3. Fingers crossed...

Good luck !

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Krusty79 wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

DMillier wrote:

There are a huge number of photographers in the world. Some are consistently great, some are occasionally great, most are ordinary to mediocre, many are terrible.

I would guess that anyone who has made it long term as a pro is at least competent in their genre and an adequate business person. Many amateurs don't have that filtering effect weeding out the bad ones, so probably the amateur field is much more mixed than the pro field.

Top pros also often have an army of artistic directors, post processing wizards and expert printers to raise the potential of their images to the utmost. The photographer's talent and those of his assistance often come together with the famous great works.

Most amateurs have to do everything themselves. But there are vastly more amateurs than pros. Out of that huge group there are bound to be lots of hugely talented, hardworking dedicated enthusiasts who produce the highest quality work.

So, beyond the pro arena weeding out the truly hopeless, I suspect both groups can produce great, good, and mediocre work. Maybe the amateurs have a monopoly on the genuinely terrible work though!

Well said, but I don't think of the least common denominators. I think of the highest amateurs I meet and see their work, and I think of myself when I was an amateur. For all the less skillful amateurs, I figure they're either a work in progress, or hopeless, but either way I tend to look past them to the accomplished amateurs.

I do agree that pros are consistently at least competent or better, while amateurs run the full gamet from newbie to expert enthusiast, some with talent, some with none, and all with varying levels of knowledge. One thing to keep in mind though, every pro was once an amateur enthusiast.

Speaking of hopeless, I tried to train my nephew to be a photographer because he has the love for it, but he has no eye for it and not much technical brain for it either. The kid is 16 now and he is truly hopeless. I was hoping to train him to be my assistant, but all he's good for is a pack mule for carrying my tripod and camera equipment. (OMD and m4/3 will make him obsolete) His sister was truly gifted with both love and talent for photography. She had an eye for it. But her sexist parents wouldn't allow her to pursue it (or anything else except homemaking). So instead only her dim witted bother was allowed to pursue it, but he's hopeless. It irritates me whenever I think of the time I wasted trying to train him and how his parents wasted his sisters talent. They belong to a religion that I won't mention that thinks women are only good for housework, making babies, and singing in church. It's such a waste of talent when talented people aren't allowed to pursue their talents. She's now lost interest in photography after years of wanting training and not being allowed. I guess they finally broke her spirit. All she wants to do now is why they trained her to do all these years: housework, get married and make babies, and sing in church. I'm nauseated by the suppression and waste her talent.

Don't get me started on organized religion!

One thing I do respect about pros is that they have had to learn about marketing. Most amateurs do not look forward to marketing themselves and I think that is a barrier to entering the market for many. Enthusiasts don't have to deal with the business end, so they have more time to be creative.

Agreed

Dennis wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

Pro photographers aren't better photographers than enthusiasts. Pro just means I get paid to do it. It doesn't mean I'm better.

I think that if you could somehow measure a photogaphers "goodnews" and then determine the goodness of enthusiasts and pros, you'd find that the pros, taken as a group, are better. The worst of the pros is probably better than the worst of the enthusiasts; the best of the pros is probably better and the median pro is probably better than the median enthusiast.

Enthusiasts have the luxury of never having to deliver. An enthusiast can show his best work and it can be amazing, but he might fail badly 95% of the time, while the pro has to deliver 100% of the time.

Sometimes the best photos are created by advanced enthusiasts who take more time to strive for perfection.

Sure. But then, practice counts for a lot, and pros spend more time shooting than (most) enthusiasts. They don't get rusty.

and enthusiasts will often take the time to strive for perfection, even if it takes a lot of time to get it.

I definitely get your point. Pros are often too busy doing a job to do the kind of excellent photography that some enthusiasts are capable of doing. I've never had any real desire to be a pro photographer. I'd rather earn decent money at a job I'm good at, then be able to spend some of that on camera gear and take pictures for fun in my spare time. Now, if I could shoot what I want to shoot full time and somehow get paid for that, I'd jump at the chance - even take a big pay cut to do so. But I'm not terribly interested in doing what it really takes to make money at photography.

Agreed

Charley123 wrote:

I'm posting this because I've had this thought many times and I just got a PM that made me think of this again.

Pro photographers aren't better photographers than enthusiasts. Pro just means I get paid to do it. It doesn't mean I'm better.

Sometimes the best photos are created by advanced enthusiasts who take more time to strive for perfection. Pros are usually in a hurry to produce and have to balance that against quality. So often pros results are highly adequate for the job's requirements, but certainly not perfection.

Knowledgeable enthusiasts often know as much (or more) than pros, and enthusiasts will often take the time to strive for perfection, even if it takes a lot of time to get it.

I was an enthusiast for several years before I was a pro. I created my best photos when I was an advanced enthusiast who was willing to spend as much time as necessary to achieve perfection. That was way back in the film days.

I have a great respect for enthusiasts, and especially for advanced enthusiasts who probably know as much about general photography as I do, and they certainly know more about computer post processing since I'm an old pro. Also, the advanced m4/3 enthusiasts know a lot more about m4/3 than I do. I'm a m4/3 newbie who's trying to learn and catch on. I think I'm making progress.

I welcome the opportunity to learn from enthusiasts and pros. I appreciate and respect you, and I appreciate the time you've spent to orient me to m4/3. I'm still a work in progress, but I think I'm starting to catch on to m4/3.

I'm going to be a practicing enthusiast with my new m4/3 gear the first half of this week learning how to use it and going on some practice shoots. At the end of this week I'll do my first pro shoot with m4/3. Fingers crossed...

I certainly agree that amateur's produce brilliant photos - particularly when they are combining their photography skills with another of their passions.

But, there are some creative advantages to being professional in my experience ...

1 - Access. In some areas the advantage of getting close (even dangerously close) to the action can offer the opportunities for better pics (think of pretty much any serious sporting event). One thing I've found since shooting pro is a much reduced need for long lenses - as a general rule I find frame-filling shots with normal to wide lenses have more impact.

2 - Pushing the envelope. As an amateur, I found I had a tendency to staying with subjects and situations that I was comfortable with and could be sure of good results. One of the things I enjoy most about shooting professionally is being forced into something new - trying to realise the client's vision rather than my own. I think the problem solving aspect forces creative thinking.

3 - Harsh feedback. I shoot for magazines, and the feedback from art directors/picture editors can be merciless. If they're good at their job, they have a very good feel for what works and doesn't work for a wide audience. I have certainly learnt a lot from such people since turning pro.

Against all that, the pressures of time - either deadlines, or the need to shoot in less than ideal conditions, and the sheer dullness of some assignments can have a negative impact on photography.

Now I'm lucky in so far as I do not make my entire living from photography, which gives me more freedom than some to pick and choose assignments, but overall I'd say it's motivation (pro or amateur) which produces results - for some, the pressure of pro work can be a positive contribution.