Sometimes the best photos are done by advanced enthusiasts

Colin K. Work wrote:

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.

Pretty much what I expressed earlier, but with an additional slant. Professionals don't just shoot de rigueur, they also look for challenges where applicable.

I think professionals always look at what they are doing and ask themselves if they are getting stale, by doing the same thing over and over again. Then they adjust if necessary.

OzRay wrote:

Pretty much what I expressed earlier, but with an additional slant. Professionals don't just shoot de rigueur, they also look for challenges where applicable.

I think professionals always look at what they are doing and ask themselves if they are getting stale, by doing the same thing over and over again. Then they adjust if necessary.

Well I think the depends on the individual - there are plenty of pros who over the years have opted for the easy life and established the minimum effort required to get by (as per any profession). You often see this in wedding photography, where some pros are trying to produce a "standard package" in as short a time as possible, whereas the amateur puts heart and soul into the special day. (Not to say there aren't outstanding pro wedding photographers - but due to cost constraints open the door for cut price operators).

The one thing amateurs tend to have more of across the board is enthusiasm ... they don't have to take pictures, they want to,

I think for the one great photo, it's anyone's game. All you need is the eye for the photo.

On average, the pro will probably get it more often a) simply because of the greater amount of time spent (on average) with camera in hand and b) perhaps less likely to screw it up for technical reasons.

-- hide signature --

Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

Charley123 wrote:

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

.... but  enthusiasts have full time jobs to deal with, or education, so until retirement or lottery wins I'm not sure the oft mentioned time factor really comes into play - moreover, the opportunity for photography for enthusiasts may be constrained to, say weekends or holidays when they are at the mercy of whatever the prevailing weather is.

Pros are perhaps more able to pick and choose when they shoot - but perhaps more importantly, pros can be thinking about photography more of the time - even  marketing is in the context of what the photographer is capable of, or the time of work wanted.

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.

haha; and that's why "pros" act like such jerks - same as "specialists" of any fields. biggest bunch of prima donnas I've ever encountered. They've been using that "under pressure" drivel since the first "association" was formed lol. I'm always amazed at how far people will make stuff up to separate themselves as being better.

Best thing ever about all this good cheap gear is that it's put the cameras in the hands of real people and not surprisingly they can produce work as good and better then pros. No different then the trend in food to make better meals at home then a Michelin restaurant. Folks are just not falling the same old rot.

Power to the people man.

jimboyvr wrote:

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.

haha; and that's why "pros" act like such jerks - same as "specialists" of any fields. biggest bunch of prima donnas I've ever encountered. They've been using that "under pressure" drivel since the first "association" was formed lol. I'm always amazed at how far people will make stuff up to separate themselves as being better.

Best thing ever about all this good cheap gear is that it's put the cameras in the hands of real people and not surprisingly they can produce work as good and better then pros. No different then the trend in food to make better meals at home then a Michelin restaurant. Folks are just not falling the same old rot.

Power to the people man.

There is some truth in what you say, though perhaps a bit unfair to tarnish all with the same brush! The big problem clients (eg. publishers) have with amateurs is reliability - I've heard it time and again from picture editors ... so and so promised me a copy of his brilliant shot, then failed to deliver by the copy deadline, and variations on the theme.

To take your restaurant analogy - sure people prepare great meals at home ... but do they do it night after night to a consistent standard? I think not.

What would be pros need to realize is that what most clients are looking for is a reliable service, people who will keep to deadlines and budgets and deliver time after time. I think I've met more prima donnas in the amateur world than the pro world ... leaving aside a very few "names" (who may or may not be deserving), any pro copping a prima donna attitude is very likely to find themselves unemployed. People skills is a major part of staying in work, esp. these days where most of the permanent gigs are gone,

That's a really sad story and not one I expected to hear in the 21st century happening in a modern democracy.

I'm inclined to say that a professional is someone who makes money from their trade, it says little about the standards they work to.

Some professions have relatively low standards of professional behaviour and sloppy or careless workers can still prosper. Other professions have more competition and if someone in that field wants to prosper they have to up their game to compete.  The professional behaviour you wish to see is simply the standards of behaviour expected in a highly competitive field where clients will walk away if they don't see it.

TheEye wrote:

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.

jimboyvr wrote:

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.

haha; and that's why "pros" act like such jerks - same as "specialists" of any fields. biggest bunch of prima donnas I've ever encountered. They've been using that "under pressure" drivel since the first "association" was formed lol. I'm always amazed at how far people will make stuff up to separate themselves as being better.

Best thing ever about all this good cheap gear is that it's put the cameras in the hands of real people and not surprisingly they can produce work as good and better then pros. No different then the trend in food to make better meals at home then a Michelin restaurant. Folks are just not falling the same old rot.

Power to the people man.

Unfortunately tarring everyone with the same brush is not a good look. Unless you've walked in the same shoes as those who you decry, you don't have a basis for your assertions. There are jerks in all walks of life, many just don't realise it.

DMillier wrote:

I'm inclined to say that a professional is someone who makes money from their trade, it says little about the standards they work to.

And I say one can't be a professional without adhering too professional standards.  Of course, you can just call someone who lacks professionalism an unprofessional professional, which its semantically non-sensical. We can play a game of semantics and definitions all day long.

Some professions have relatively low standards of professional behaviour and sloppy or careless workers can still prosper. Other professions have more competition and if someone in that field wants to prosper they have to up their game to compete. The professional behaviour you wish to see is simply the standards of behaviour expected in a highly competitive field where clients will walk away if they don't see it.

TheEye wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/photography-by-thomas/sets/

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

OzRay wrote:

Colin K. Work wrote:

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.

Pretty much what I expressed earlier, but with an additional slant. Professionals don't just shoot de rigueur, they also look for challenges where applicable.

I think professionals always look at what they are doing and ask themselves if they are getting stale, by doing the same thing over and over again. Then they adjust if necessary.

Professionals have to reinvent themselves constantly, A pro is only as good as his last assignment has turned out. An enthusiast has the luxury of only showing his best work, but a pro really always has to produce his best work now, and then again and again, or someone else will get the job - at least in a professional environment, not in a common lowest-bid-gets-assignement scenario.

JimW-203 wrote:

Kszchopstix wrote:

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

As a matter of interest; where does KR place himself on this scale?

Ken goes up to 11.

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

The best photos I ever made were when I was a college student formally studying photography (and business). I was a formally educated photographer and an amateur enthusiast at the same time. So when I was an amateur enthusiast I had the education for it, the love for it, and the time for it, and I aspired to making art. So I was an artist too.

As a pro, I became more businesslike, pragmatic, and reliable; but at the cost of losing some artistry to increase consistent results and to work faster.

I was somewhat the same. I think when you do something more as a hobby, you tend to put more emotion into the activity. But when you do the same thing as a job, you become pragmatic and time, effort and just getting things done become a priority. The latter, often can dim the creative spark.

OzRay wrote:

Colin K. Work wrote:

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.

Pretty much what I expressed earlier, but with an additional slant. Professionals don't just shoot de rigueur, they also look for challenges where applicable.

I think professionals always look at what they are doing and ask themselves if they are getting stale, by doing the same thing over and over again. Then they adjust if necessary.

I'm adjusting right now.

OzRay wrote:

I was somewhat the same. I think when you do something more as a hobby, you tend to put more emotion into the activity. But when you do the same thing as a job, you become pragmatic and time, effort and just getting things done become a priority. The latter, often can dim the creative spark.

That's definitely a risk - and I was warned about this by friends in the trade when I was talking about turning pro. But I personally haven't found that to be the case - I think because I restrict my pro work to things which I love ... or put another way, would probably be doing as an amateur anyway if I wasn't being paid.

One thing I think I gained by turning pro is direction - I seem to work better if I'm given a brief (even a vague one) ... left to my own devises I tend to be a bit all over the place, there is a lack of cohesiveness in my work. It all depends on the individual though - some people simply cannot take direction which, despite having photographic skills, may make life as a pro uncomfortable.