Sometimes the best photos are done by advanced enthusiasts

This is relatively self-evident.

I have seen decidedly average professional work and outstanding amateur work.

Likewise, a number of individuals with very successful web-based photography tuition and/or review businesses are at best average photographers. They are, however, consummate self-publicists who make a great deal of money.

True enough - although some manage to be genuine photographic artists, teachers, writers and run a successful business. Guy Tal (USA) and Bruce Percy (Scotland/UK) spring to mind.

Kiwisnap wrote:

This is relatively self-evident.

I have seen decidedly average professional work and outstanding amateur work.

Likewise, a number of individuals with very successful web-based photography tuition and/or review businesses are at best average photographers. They are, however, consummate self-publicists who make a great deal of money.

The longer you're a pro, the more difficult it is to keep the creative spark alive. I was still quite creative for the first 5 years I was a pro. Now I've been a pro for 25 years. It got stale.

Partly because I have specific subjects that I specialize in (and repeat clients for those subjects), which allows me to be good and fast at those things, but also caused those things to eventually get boring/stale.

What I'm now doing to rekindle my interest and creativity is trying m4/3 gear which I find very interesting. I may also start doing computer processing of my images (beyond just crop and resizing). Like maybe make use of some of the advice you guys have given me for that. Though I still like a camera that can make a good jpg without any computer doctoring - cause sometimes there isn't time.

Also, I'm going to start doing amateur (unpaid shoots) again of things that just interest me and are subjects that I don't get to do on the job.

I want to do night photography again (because I don't do that on the job and haven't done any since I was an amateur). Likewise with sports, portraits, and maybe some hot babes. Those subjects were among my favorites when I was an amateur, but have never done them as a professional photographer.

As a pro I've done landscapes and lots of architecture-real estate; also some group photos, kid photos, and parties and events. Those used to also be among my favorite subjects when I was an amateur, but those are no longer favorites since I've done so much of those as a pro. Those topics/subjects are a job to me now.

Some new m4/3  gear is an adventure for me both on and off the job, and fresh-new subject matter when not at work will be a nice adventure too.

That's what I need.

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.

The definition of "better," without context, is arguable. But in photojournalism at least, pros are indeed better. For one thing, they are more consistent. The professional photojournalist earns his or her keep by proving to their editor that no matter the assignment, they can reliably come back with publishable images. Pro photojournalists are also "better" at telling stories with their images. Often the image that tells the story most accurately and fairly isn't necessarily the prettiest one.

Where your argument falls flat is the assumption that "pro just means I get paid to do it," implying that money is the only difference between pro and amateur, with the pro being merely lucky enough find someone to throw money at them.

But put yourself in the shoes of the one paying for professional work. Who would you give your hard-earned (or bean-counter-controlled) money to? The one with the better pictures, of course. Which means that, eventually over time and given a free market, the paid pros are indeed the ones who most consistently turn out the better work, because that is how they earned their paychecks in the first place.

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.

There is a kernel of truth to this, in that making good photos does take time, which is in short supply with the limited budgets at most publications today. This is why, as an editor, I'm less interested in seeing what an aspiring pro has published (work that is often done under such budgetary and time constraints) than what they have done in their personal work, which by contrast is not done under pressure.

Current portfolio recommendations for aspiring photojournalists generally advise 20 images: 10 singles from assignments, and the remaining 10 from an extended, self-directed personal project. The 10 published singles, accompanied by tearsheets, show me that a photographer can get themselves in the right place at the right time in a variety of situations to get the shot and turn it in on deadline. The extended project, on the other hand, gives me insight into their personality and thinking process.

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.

There is nothing inherently different about M43. It's still photography and obeys all the same rules of physics that every other format does. So given you're an "old pro" who presumably has a working understanding of photography, I find it hard to grasp what it is exactly that you need to "learn and catch on." Getting it correct in the camera is still the best way to do it (just like shooting slide film), and the better you are at doing that, the less post-processing you have to do. All the post-processing I know and have ever needed to use I learned from the assistant photo editor at my newspaper internship over the course of an afternoon.

Hugh J 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.

The definition of "better," without context, is arguable. But in photojournalism at least, pros are indeed better. For one thing, they are more consistent. The professional photojournalist earns his or her keep by proving to their editor that no matter the assignment, they can reliably come back with publishable images. Pro photojournalists are also "better" at telling stories with their images. Often the image that tells the story most accurately and fairly isn't necessarily the prettiest one.

Where your argument falls flat is the assumption that "pro just means I get paid to do it," implying that money is the only difference between pro and amateur, with the pro being merely lucky enough find someone to throw money at them.

But put yourself in the shoes of the one paying for professional work. Who would you give your hard-earned (or bean-counter-controlled) money to? The one with the better pictures, of course. Which means that, eventually over time and given a free market, the paid pros are indeed the ones who most consistently turn out the better work, because that is how they earned their paychecks in the first place.

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.

There is a kernel of truth to this, in that making good photos does take time, which is in short supply with the limited budgets at most publications today. This is why, as an editor, I'm less interested in seeing what an aspiring pro has published (work that is often done under such budgetary and time constraints) than what they have done in their personal work, which by contrast is not done under pressure.

Current portfolio recommendations for aspiring photojournalists generally advise 20 images: 10 singles from assignments, and the remaining 10 from an extended, self-directed personal project. The 10 published singles, accompanied by tearsheets, show me that a photographer can get themselves in the right place at the right time in a variety of situations to get the shot and turn it in on deadline. The extended project, on the other hand, gives me insight into their personality and thinking process.

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.

There is nothing inherently different about M43. It's still photography and obeys all the same rules of physics that every other format does. So given you're an "old pro" who presumably has a working understanding of photography, I find it hard to grasp what it is exactly that you need to "learn and catch on." Getting it correct in the camera is still the best way to do it (just like shooting slide film), and the better you are at doing that, the less post-processing you have to do. All the post-processing I know and have ever needed to use I learned from the assistant photo editor at my newspaper internship over the course of an afternoon.

Getting paid to do something and earning a significant portion of your living from it is the definition of a "professional" in a business sense. Photo journalism is another matter, a specialty IMO, which I don't know much about.

Professional standards and ethics are things pros are supposed to aspire to, but (in a business context) not what makes them a pro. In a business context anyway. I don't know about journalism. In business, good standards and ethics are what makes a good, reputable, long term successful pro. However, there are some pros (paid photographers) who are lacking, while others are great. Obviously the better pros last longer though.

There are some differences with m4/3 photography. Camera operation, which F stops work best for the lenses. M4/3 cameras and lenses are slightly different with regard to physics due to different sensor sizes and shorter lenses with different depth of field than I'm used to. So there are some things to learn. Also, I've never done video - so that's new to me. I am outdated in my knowledge of camera equipment and am working on catching up. Why give me a hard time for that? I freely admit I'm somewhat outdated-obsolete and want to modernize. I think I'm reasonably humble. I freely admit that I'm not the best photographer I could be, and I want to improve. I'm certainly not as modern as I should be, and want to improve that.

I totally agree that getting it right in the camera should be the goal to minimize the need for post processing. We are totally in agreement there. However, I do want to learn more about post processing, which I'll get to later.

Colin K. Work wrote:

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

Yes! That's what I meant in my OP.

Also, young pros have a lot of enthusiasm too, and may be more experienced than amateurs. I think young pros are (sometimes) really good, IMO.

I love it when underdogs show themselves better than expected. It's inspiring.

Disclaimer: Before anyone gets offended... Yes, sometimes established long time pros are really good too, and that's to be expected since they're still at it.

Ultimately, anyone in any category has the potential to make really good photos (or not).

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.

Yipes. I didn't meant to start a feud. Regarding pressure. Shoot a few weddings and then let's talk about pressure.

I shot a few weddings when I was young and that was all I needed to know that I didn't want to be a wedding photographer. To much pressure and having to deal with difficult stressed out people.

Krusty79 wrote:

I said this in another thread. My sister is an optometrist and she told me that of the students in her graduating class, the ones with the most successful practices are the ones with the best people skills, not the ones who finished at the top of her class.

My work background and education is general business, real estate, and photography.

There is a saying in the real estate profession, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

People skills are important for success.

I read in Forbes magazine that 1/3 of success comes from your level of talent and hard work, 1/3 come from how well you are liked by coworkers, and 1/3 comes from your degrees or titles.

So depending on the source (and perhaps on the profession): people skills are either the main ingredient of success, or one of the key ingredients.

If people like you, they help you get and keep jobs, assignments, and opportunities. If they don't care about you they won't help you. If they dislike you they will sabotage you every chance they get. That's reality.

Charley123 wrote:

Getting paid to do something and earning a significant portion of your living from it is the definition of a "professional" in a business sense.

In a general sense yes, but in the broader scheme of things no. In Australia, we have what is called the Country Fire Authority (CFA): http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/index.php/country-fire-authority/ .

These are volunteers who are trained in fighting all manner of fires in rural areas. They are as skilled as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade members (often more so when it comes to bushfires), yet they don't earn an income from these volunteer services. They are professionals in every sense of the word.

Photo journalism is another matter, a specialty IMO, which I don't know much about.

To be totally correct, in a definition sense, a photojournalist takes photos and writes the stories associated with the photos. From a newspaper perspective, the photographer takes photos and writes captions, which may or may not be part of a story written by a journalist.

What's happening more nowadays is that journalists are given a camera (or use their iPhone) to take photos while they are compiling their story. The journalists aren't photographers, yet they take photos for their newspapers.

OzRay wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

Getting paid to do something and earning a significant portion of your living from it is the definition of a "professional" in a business sense.

In a general sense yes, but in the broader scheme of things no. In Australia, we have what is called the Country Fire Authority (CFA): http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/index.php/country-fire-authority/ .

These are volunteers who are trained in fighting all manner of fires in rural areas. They are as skilled as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade members (often more so when it comes to bushfires), yet they don't earn an income from these volunteer services. They are professionals in every sense of the word.

Photo journalism is another matter, a specialty IMO, which I don't know much about.

To be totally correct, in a definition sense, a photojournalist takes photos and writes the stories associated with the photos. From a newspaper perspective, the photographer takes photos and writes captions, which may or may not be part of a story written by a journalist.

What's happening more nowadays is that journalists are given a camera (or use their iPhone) to take photos while they are compiling their story. The journalists aren't photographers, yet they take photos for their newspapers.

IMO those volunteer fire fighters have attained as much skill as professionals, but since they are unpaid volunteers they technically aren't professionals, but I intend no disrespect to you or the volunteer fire fighters. I have a great deal of respect for highly skilled amateurs and professionals.

Ah yes, journalists/writers with a camera. You're correct, especially in smaller cities like where I am. That explains why I'm usually unimpressed by their photos. It's a rare thing to see a good photo in our newspaper.

I assume that larger cities still have real photo journalists? I do enjoy looking at good photo journalism, but I have to look at a publication from a larger area than where I live to see good photos.

Charley123 wrote:

Colin K. Work wrote:

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

Yes! That's what I meant in my OP.

Also, young pros have a lot of enthusiasm too, and may be more experienced than amateurs. I think young pros are (sometimes) really good, IMO.

I love it when underdogs show themselves better than expected. It's inspiring.

Disclaimer: Before anyone gets offended... Yes, sometimes established long time pros are really good too, and that's to be expected since they're still at it.

Ultimately, anyone in any category has the potential to make really good photos (or not).

Perhaps it is easier to look at this thread the other way round - what makes bad photos?

Lets assume that both pros and advanced enthusiasts have the necessary technical skills and understanding of composition , I'd say 'complacency' is the main cause of mediocre or poor images.

Now the enthusiast who's not in the mood simply doesn't (or perhaps shouldn't) take photos. Pros don't have that choice  - keep in mind that the majority of pros are doing roughly the same thing day in, day out, and like anyone with a job, probably consider themselves under paid and over worked.

How do you keep the enthusiasm/creativity/motivation going after say 100 weddings? 1000?

Charley123 wrote:

IMO those volunteer fire fighters have attained as much skill as professionals, but since they are unpaid volunteers they technically aren't professionals, but I intend no disrespect to you or the volunteer fire fighters. I have a great deal of respect for highly skilled amateurs and professionals.

I disagree, you do not have to be earning an income from any endeavour to be considered a professional. It's one metric used to classify a professional, but it doesn't mean that it's the only metric.

Ah yes, journalists/writers with a camera. You're correct, especially in smaller cities like where I am. That explains why I'm usually unimpressed by their ghastly photos. It's a rare thing to see a good photo in our newspaper.

That's why.

I assume that larger cities still have real photo journalists? I do enjoy looking at good photo journalism, but I have to look at a publication from a larger area than where I live to see good photos.

That is also diminishing. It's not as bad here just yet, but the rot is setting in and I'm glad I'm out of that business.

OzRay wrote:

Charley123 wrote:

IMO those volunteer fire fighters have attained as much skill as professionals, but since they are unpaid volunteers they technically aren't professionals, but I intend no disrespect to you or the volunteer fire fighters. I have a great deal of respect for highly skilled amateurs and professionals.

I disagree, you do not have to be earning an income from any endeavour to be considered a professional. It's one metric used to classify a professional, but it doesn't mean that it's the only metric.

Ah yes, journalists/writers with a camera. You're correct, especially in smaller cities like where I am. That explains why I'm usually unimpressed by their ghastly photos. It's a rare thing to see a good photo in our newspaper.

That's why.

I assume that larger cities still have real photo journalists? I do enjoy looking at good photo journalism, but I have to look at a publication from a larger area than where I live to see good photos.

That is also diminishing. It's not as bad here just yet, but the rot is setting in and I'm glad I'm out of that business.

From what I've seen, no one takes worse photos than newspaper writers who are untrained and uninterested in photography, and are using a camera they know nothing about. Well OK, the writers using smart phones take even worse photos.

My local newspaper could greatly increase the quality of their photos if they hired the a high school photo club kid or a high school newspaper photographer. Cause the kids have at least some experience and they have enthusiasm. They'd also work cheap too.

The high schools all have actual photographers (from high school photo clubs) taking their photos for their school papers, and they're making far better photos than the writers who work for the adult newspaper. It's kind of hilarious and frustrating.

There are all sorts of issues involved, not the least being indemnities, workplace issues and the like. The other thing is that nowadays it's the story that take precedence over the quality of the photograph, which is why so many newspapers call for readers to submit photos.

In a sense, photos have always been supplementary to the story, but nowadays the quality of the photos is matching the quality of the journalism. I suspect that many newspapers are actually using high school students to write stories, judging by the quality presented.

Charley123 wrote:

Getting paid to do something and earning a significant portion of your living from it is the definition of a "professional" in a business sense. Photo journalism is another matter, a specialty IMO, which I don't know much about.

You can't really isolate the business sense from any other sense because the individual "senses" don't exist in a vacuum. Pros generally aren't people who just happen to get paid and that's the end of it. Are there pros who are just masters of marketing and are otherwise photographic hacks? Sure (and Peter Lik is probably the king of that arena), just as there are amateurs who are so good at what they do that they could become pro if they so desired. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. And the rule tends to be that pros turn out consistently better work, while the amateur occasionally gets the lucky shot -- which I suppose is a way of agreeing with the title of your original post.

Even my grandmother, who has absolutely no art or photography training, once took a shot on her phone that could have been entered in World Press Photo; it was literally a 5MP old master painting. But it was a complete accident, she was never able to duplicate it, nor could she understand what was so great about it.

Another thing is that there is an undeniable advantage to shooting day in and day out as a pro, as opposed to an amateur who is a weekend hobbyist but otherwise spends the workweek at a completely unrelated day job. This is another reason why pros tend to turn out consistent work -- because they do the work. It's the old mantra of needing to spend 10,000 hours at something to get good at it (the actual number is more debatable than the gist of it), and pros who shoot all day, every day will logically get there a lot faster.

Professional standards and ethics are things pros are supposed to aspire to, but (in a business context) not what makes them a pro. In a business context anyway.

Again, refer to my "senses (or contexts) in a vacuum" statement above.

There are some differences with m4/3 photography. Camera operation, which F stops work best for the lenses. M4/3 cameras and lenses are slightly different with regard to physics due to different sensor sizes and shorter lenses with different depth of field than I'm used to.

The only camera operations that actually matter in M43 photography are shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, and shutter release, same as every other format. Anything else is just an embellishment of the aforementioned operations or fluff designed to sell new cameras. The only thing you need to know for M43 f-stops is that you run into diffraction limits faster than bigger formats. But this is/was already true for full frame 35mm compared to, say, medium format, for medium format compared to large format, and for large format compared to 20x24 Polaroid. The physics are exactly the same.

The depth of field issue is, likewise, the same problem encountered by photojournalists of the Vietnam War era who were test-driving the new smaller format Leicas and Nikons in place of the usual Rolleiflexes and Speed Graphics. All these issues were overcome by shooting with the gear to learn the quirks and limitations of the new format. There was no internet to search back then, and each shot cost money in the form of film and chemistry. So with digital there really isn't any excuse to not be able to figure out these problems on one's own.

Charley123 wrote:

There are some differences with m4/3 photography. Camera operation, which F stops work best for the lenses. M4/3 cameras and lenses are slightly different with regard to physics due to different sensor sizes and shorter lenses with different depth of field than I'm used to. So there are some things to learn.

Like any format, m43 has strengths and weaknesses (that;s why we have choices). The trick is to figure out if the pros of a format outweigh the cons for what you want to do.

For example, many moan about the difficultly of getting a shallow dof with m43 - but for my work the extended dof (compared to larger formats) is actually an advantage.

Having things to learn is perhaps the best way to avoid complacency and stagnation - things mentioned as the enemy of the pro photographer.

Charley123 wrote:

Ah yes, journalists/writers with a camera. You're correct, especially in smaller cities like where I am. That explains why I'm usually unimpressed by their photos. It's a rare thing to see a good photo in our newspaper.

And that's an interesting thing to note, because I don't think most reasonable people would call a writer who happens to have an iPhone a professional photographer. Yet, by your "business" definition of a pro, since that writer is being paid to do both the copy and the photos, the crappy, grainy, poorly composed snapshots made by them that you see published in the paper next to their written articles makes them a "pro" photographer. It's a little more nuanced than simply money.

As for how I personally define a "pro"?

A thorough knowledge of the history of their genre, if not the medium, is a given. I find it difficult to take a landscape photographer seriously who doesn't know who Ansel Adams was. And if forced to choose between two otherwise identically qualified photojournalism students for the internship I'm offering, the one who knows what the Farm Security Administration was will get my nod.

Knowing the tools and how and when to use them is also a given. Someone who sets their flash to TTL for studio and manual for events is clearly not a pro.

Whether or not they've ever gotten paid for their work might have something to do with it. The quality of their portfolio and whether they've been published definitely has a lot to do with it. But there is published and there is published. Getting "published" on your own website or in a camera club photo contest is not the same thing as getting published in, say, Newsweek or the New York Times, and there is a vast grey zone in between.

To quote Justice Potter Stewart, who was asked in 1964 to define hard-core pornography (in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184):

"I know it when I see it."

Charley123 wrote:

From what I've seen, no one takes worse photos than newspaper writers who are untrained and uninterested in photography, and are using a camera they know nothing about. Well OK, the writers using smart phones take even worse photos.

My local newspaper could greatly increase the quality of their photos if they hired the a high school photo club kid or a high school newspaper photographer. Cause the kids have at least some experience and they have enthusiasm. They'd also work cheap too.

The high schools all have actual photographers (from high school photo clubs) taking their photos for their school papers, and they're making far better photos than the writers who work for the adult newspaper. It's kind of hilarious and frustrating.

... and made the news a few years ago when the Chicago Sun-Times laid off its entire photo department, intending to replace them with freelancers and requiring mandatory iPhoneography training for their writers.

http://www.poynter.org/2013/sun-times-will-train-reporters-on-iphone-photography-basics/214954/

This is what happened:

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/replacing-photographers-with-iphone-wielding-reporters-yields-mixed-results/