I feel the same way. There are a few kids in my school who are decent photographers, but everyone just groups me in with them even though i just recently got my first dslr and up till then I was shooting all on 35mm film. People go and try to tell me that just because I'm a "photographer" just like everyone else in our whole town that I don't really know anything about photography. When, in reality, I want to minor or possible major in photography in college. Now I'm definitely not very good, but I've put my time in.
Facebook people who call themselves photographers
- Thread starter MatRich
- Start date
corona
Active member
Way to be an elitist prick. If someone wants to buy themselves a nice camera and tinker with their mediocre pictures on photoshop why should you or anyone care? They're not intruding on you at all, and it's not like any of them are going to be taking business away from you as no one would ever buy their photos. And if they do, then good on them for being so naturally talented at it.
corona
Active member
I've read the whole thread and fail to see how it makes the life of a professional photographer any more difficult.
The point was made that 'these shitty photographers are undermining our business by offering their service for way less than what it's worth'.
What doesn't seem to be understood is that the people who hire one of them are the people who would never in a million years pay for a professional photographer in the first place. They'd either spend the 20 bucks or get their nearest friend with a camera to do what they want. They will never spend $300 for a few pictures. Hence it in no way hinders the market for professional photographers.
In fact it can only help as they're putting money into the industry by buying all the equipment.
We could compare this to skiing so easily.
You're making the point "only people who are actually excellent at skiing should try to get sponsored and that shitty sponsorship videos are hurting those who are truely talented at the sport". Do you not see how flawed that is? If you're truely talented all the thousands of shitty sponsor me videos won't affect you at all.
And it bugs me that you're thinking that it's only a fad that untalented people like to take pictures. It's not. For as long as there have been consumer cameras available then people have been taking shitty photos and thinking they're a photographer. It's only recently that you actually notice it because of Facebook and Myspace and what not. If sited like that didn't exist you'd never see them at all. You know why you'd never see them and why you never saw them before FB etc existed? Because no one uses their pictures since they suck. Further proving the point that they do not in any way impose on professional photographers.
If you actually take the time out of your day to care about these people then there's something wrong with you.
The point was made that 'these shitty photographers are undermining our business by offering their service for way less than what it's worth'.
What doesn't seem to be understood is that the people who hire one of them are the people who would never in a million years pay for a professional photographer in the first place. They'd either spend the 20 bucks or get their nearest friend with a camera to do what they want. They will never spend $300 for a few pictures. Hence it in no way hinders the market for professional photographers.
In fact it can only help as they're putting money into the industry by buying all the equipment.
We could compare this to skiing so easily.
You're making the point "only people who are actually excellent at skiing should try to get sponsored and that shitty sponsorship videos are hurting those who are truely talented at the sport". Do you not see how flawed that is? If you're truely talented all the thousands of shitty sponsor me videos won't affect you at all.
And it bugs me that you're thinking that it's only a fad that untalented people like to take pictures. It's not. For as long as there have been consumer cameras available then people have been taking shitty photos and thinking they're a photographer. It's only recently that you actually notice it because of Facebook and Myspace and what not. If sited like that didn't exist you'd never see them at all. You know why you'd never see them and why you never saw them before FB etc existed? Because no one uses their pictures since they suck. Further proving the point that they do not in any way impose on professional photographers.
If you actually take the time out of your day to care about these people then there's something wrong with you.
LjayCinema
Member
took the words outta my mouth
WillStart
Active member
You are incorrect my friend.
Perhaps you missed this post? I thought it illustrates the point pretty nicely.
'Like lets say two weddings are shot. Both capture all the crucial moments. Both couples see that these crucial moments were preserved as clear images and are stoked. It has sentimental value to them. But is it just a picture of them kissing? Or are there elements that compositionally make it a great shot? And does either couple see it? Maybe one of these four people has been shooting for a while and can differentiate between good and great stuff. Long story shot, some people can't tell the difference between professional and decent stuff.'
When people are planning weddings, they are willing to drop serious, serious cash. In past years, the couple has only had once choice: Photographer A.
Photog A is a professional and has been doing it for a long, long time. He charges a lot ($2000? idk how much photogs charge) and takes nice photos.
If Photog A was the only choice, they would hire him. But now, Photog B enters the mix. Photog B is a friend of a friend. He/she has a nice camera, knows how to operate it well on Auto mode, and will capture the moments, but it will probably be a meh photo from an artistic perspective. Photog B charges $100.
The couple doesn't know anything about photography, so they are comparing two photographers who both take 'pretty' pictures. One charges $100, one charges $2000. Who do you think they are going to choose?
It takes jobs from professionals and undermines the integrity of the business.
I never said people who aren't good at photography shouldn't take photos; I never even implied it. Not sure why you are thinking I did.
Your skiing example doesn't work. Think about it: who watches the videos? Companies. Companies KNOW good skiing when they see it. In a sense, a big part of their job is to be able to recognize talent. So shitty sponsorship videos are just ignored. Many couples who are about to get married probably don't know how to tell good photography from mediocre photography as long as they both capture the moment. So it was actually your argument that was flawed.
Once again, why do you seem to think I am against people taking up photography? I never said anything about that. I encourage people to take up photography/filmmaking all the time. What I am against is people immediately watermarking their photos, putting up a FB page for their 'studio,' and offering services for cheap. That's really what this whole fucking thread is about man. It might not seem like it to you, but it is.
And we care because yes, it actually affects us. What is weird to me is that you seem so bent out of shape over something that actually doesn't affect you at all.
Perhaps you missed this post? I thought it illustrates the point pretty nicely.
'Like lets say two weddings are shot. Both capture all the crucial moments. Both couples see that these crucial moments were preserved as clear images and are stoked. It has sentimental value to them. But is it just a picture of them kissing? Or are there elements that compositionally make it a great shot? And does either couple see it? Maybe one of these four people has been shooting for a while and can differentiate between good and great stuff. Long story shot, some people can't tell the difference between professional and decent stuff.'
When people are planning weddings, they are willing to drop serious, serious cash. In past years, the couple has only had once choice: Photographer A.
Photog A is a professional and has been doing it for a long, long time. He charges a lot ($2000? idk how much photogs charge) and takes nice photos.
If Photog A was the only choice, they would hire him. But now, Photog B enters the mix. Photog B is a friend of a friend. He/she has a nice camera, knows how to operate it well on Auto mode, and will capture the moments, but it will probably be a meh photo from an artistic perspective. Photog B charges $100.
The couple doesn't know anything about photography, so they are comparing two photographers who both take 'pretty' pictures. One charges $100, one charges $2000. Who do you think they are going to choose?
It takes jobs from professionals and undermines the integrity of the business.
I never said people who aren't good at photography shouldn't take photos; I never even implied it. Not sure why you are thinking I did.
Your skiing example doesn't work. Think about it: who watches the videos? Companies. Companies KNOW good skiing when they see it. In a sense, a big part of their job is to be able to recognize talent. So shitty sponsorship videos are just ignored. Many couples who are about to get married probably don't know how to tell good photography from mediocre photography as long as they both capture the moment. So it was actually your argument that was flawed.
Once again, why do you seem to think I am against people taking up photography? I never said anything about that. I encourage people to take up photography/filmmaking all the time. What I am against is people immediately watermarking their photos, putting up a FB page for their 'studio,' and offering services for cheap. That's really what this whole fucking thread is about man. It might not seem like it to you, but it is.
And we care because yes, it actually affects us. What is weird to me is that you seem so bent out of shape over something that actually doesn't affect you at all.
act.resist
Active member
WillStart
Active member
let's be a little fair here though and not make fun of all amateur photographers.
This shouldn't be a thread to mock less than great pictures taken by beginner photographers, I think some people are missing that. Everybody has to start somewhere, and there's nothing wrong with people being proud of the shots they take and posting them. The point is to mock the shitty pictures that people have watermarked and posted on facebook on their 'photography studio' page or in their 'my photography' album or something.
This shouldn't be a thread to mock less than great pictures taken by beginner photographers, I think some people are missing that. Everybody has to start somewhere, and there's nothing wrong with people being proud of the shots they take and posting them. The point is to mock the shitty pictures that people have watermarked and posted on facebook on their 'photography studio' page or in their 'my photography' album or something.
corona
Active member
Of course there are those photographers who are going to cost the thousands of dollars and who are going to do an exceptional job and there have and always will be those who are mediocre at what they do and charge a minimal amount and the person gets what they pay for. But here's the point that you missed. The person who hires that cheapo off craigslist is not anywhere close to the person who will hire the professional. The only people who will hire someone like that are people who actually care about having a very nice picture. The people who don't care would never spend those thousands of dollars in the first place whether there is a choice or not. For those people, capturing their moment with their uncles $150 camera is good enough; so why do they want to spend the thousands?
And why is it a bad thing that there are cheap photographers who take mediocre pictures?? Again, you get what you pay for.
I can't think of one industry in the world where there is no such thing as a cheap, low quality alternative.
To make it seem like this is only a recent endemic is also false. Like I said before, as long as cameras have been available to the average consumer there have been people offering photographic services for cheap. You only see them since they're on facebook, where facebook didn't exist before. And in the 100+ years of people making a living off photography it sure seems like it's never been a problem.
And why is it a bad thing that there are cheap photographers who take mediocre pictures?? Again, you get what you pay for.
I can't think of one industry in the world where there is no such thing as a cheap, low quality alternative.
To make it seem like this is only a recent endemic is also false. Like I said before, as long as cameras have been available to the average consumer there have been people offering photographic services for cheap. You only see them since they're on facebook, where facebook didn't exist before. And in the 100+ years of people making a living off photography it sure seems like it's never been a problem.
act.resist
Active member
well this isn't the picture that i was actually hoping to put on, I couldnt remember who took the picture. but im pretty sure they watermarked it...but my point is everyone does it. and whats the meaning...so...you have friends that wear shoes? cool.
WillStart
Active member
Once again, that is not true.
For example, I filmed my first wedding with one other kid a couple years ago. We didn't realize that charging low amounts hurts the industry, so we charged $600 and gave them (in my opinion) a great product. However, i GUARANTEE we could have charged $1500-$2000 and they would have paid it. And in retrospect, we should have done that. So you are wrong in thinking that people will pay for one or the other.
And read the fucking OP man, the whole point of this thread is people who watermark their shit and put it on facebook. Facebook is a crucial part of what makes this thread relevant, because 50 years ago you didn't have girls posting their 'photography' with over-photoshopped eyes and such. We all know people have been taking mediocre pics forever, but what i just mentioned is a recent trend. That's what makes this thread funny in the first place. You're missing the whole point man.
The reason why you're having so much trouble understanding it is that you're treating photography like any other industry. The problem is that it is an art, and that completely changes things. You can say 'you get what you pay for,' but the problem is that to somebody who knows nothing about photography, you can pay $100 for a photo of the couple kissing, or you can pay $2000 for a photo of the couple kissing, but it seems like they're paying two different prices for pretty much the same thing.
For example, I filmed my first wedding with one other kid a couple years ago. We didn't realize that charging low amounts hurts the industry, so we charged $600 and gave them (in my opinion) a great product. However, i GUARANTEE we could have charged $1500-$2000 and they would have paid it. And in retrospect, we should have done that. So you are wrong in thinking that people will pay for one or the other.
And read the fucking OP man, the whole point of this thread is people who watermark their shit and put it on facebook. Facebook is a crucial part of what makes this thread relevant, because 50 years ago you didn't have girls posting their 'photography' with over-photoshopped eyes and such. We all know people have been taking mediocre pics forever, but what i just mentioned is a recent trend. That's what makes this thread funny in the first place. You're missing the whole point man.
The reason why you're having so much trouble understanding it is that you're treating photography like any other industry. The problem is that it is an art, and that completely changes things. You can say 'you get what you pay for,' but the problem is that to somebody who knows nothing about photography, you can pay $100 for a photo of the couple kissing, or you can pay $2000 for a photo of the couple kissing, but it seems like they're paying two different prices for pretty much the same thing.
WillStart
Active member
Not every photo has to have a meaning, sometimes they can just look cool. While i would definitely not consider it a good photo, I actually kind of like looking at it. nothing wrong with people exploring artistic expression a little bit.
there's a big difference between making fun of peoples' art (not what this thread is about), and making fun of people who think they are professionals because they bought a $700 camera at Best Buy (what this thread is about).
there's a big difference between making fun of peoples' art (not what this thread is about), and making fun of people who think they are professionals because they bought a $700 camera at Best Buy (what this thread is about).
Karkoskier
Active member
As you can see, This one was turned black and white, and she did a little trick with "photoshop" to really bring out her eyes.... So damn artsy...
act.resist
Active member
Yea well I didn't take the time to read the whole thread I guess...and either way your making fun of someone who thinks they are doing something good. rather than that why don't you suggest to these people the ways they could make there photography more appealing. but i guess that's not really how ns thinks
jeremy.g
Active member
this turned into a really interesting thread. i have learning photography for 3 or 4 years now, and am now going to college for it, this will be my profession at some point. thank you guys for turning this into a very informative thread. with easy access to such technology, it is a good thing to familiarize myself with i think, the appropriate valuing of work, and this value being undercut by all the homeboys with cameras that can do a so so job.
WillStart
Active member
i highly suggest you read the thread, because you are still missing the point.
but here it is in a nutshell: there is nothing wrong with these people learning photography. taking bad shots is a part of that. but when they start their own 'photography business' before they've even taken the time to learn the craft, well, that's fucking stupid. in addition, it hurts professionals because it devalues the work. i'd say it's ok to make fun of them for it.
and if you think it's wrong to do that then why did you post a picture in the first place? you could have spent that time suggesting to the photog ways to improve. but i guess that's not really how you think. i didn't even mean to come off like i was attacking your post in the first place, i was just trying to keep this thread on track.
but here it is in a nutshell: there is nothing wrong with these people learning photography. taking bad shots is a part of that. but when they start their own 'photography business' before they've even taken the time to learn the craft, well, that's fucking stupid. in addition, it hurts professionals because it devalues the work. i'd say it's ok to make fun of them for it.
and if you think it's wrong to do that then why did you post a picture in the first place? you could have spent that time suggesting to the photog ways to improve. but i guess that's not really how you think. i didn't even mean to come off like i was attacking your post in the first place, i was just trying to keep this thread on track.
Dan.
Active member
It sounds to me like photography is at the point the music industry was a few years ago. there is no longer a barrier of entry, so everybody is a photographer, just like suddenly everybody was publishing music without major label support. this makes the foundation of the industry super cluttered and hard to sift through all the shit(have you been on a music blog lately?), but people still make it. there is still a ladder to climb for those talented enough to do so, it just takes that much more work to get up out of the crowd and onto that first rung.
WillStart
Active member
well said.
anybody who thinks photography is just as accessible as it has always been is a fool. we're at a point where music, photography, and filmmaking are much, much more accessible than ever. and while there are a lot of downsides, there are also a lot of benefits, but that's for another thread.
anybody who thinks photography is just as accessible as it has always been is a fool. we're at a point where music, photography, and filmmaking are much, much more accessible than ever. and while there are a lot of downsides, there are also a lot of benefits, but that's for another thread.
Yeah... this is with all forms of artistic media.
It's become substantially harder to get webdesign work in the last 3 years than it has ever been and my work has gotten 300% better. I can't complain cause I'm still able to make a living off of it, just not as easily.
Wordpress is to web design/development as affordable dslrs are to photography as garageband/m boxes are to audio production as gopros are to film..........
Certainly all of these things are great and fun and even the pros like to play, but having one/knowing how to use one does not make you a pro. Time, trial and error and the ability to use the most advanced tools and compose and so forth... those are the things that make you a pro.
Professional = have a body of work comparative to your industry peers in which you receive wages within the industry standard.
It's become substantially harder to get webdesign work in the last 3 years than it has ever been and my work has gotten 300% better. I can't complain cause I'm still able to make a living off of it, just not as easily.
Wordpress is to web design/development as affordable dslrs are to photography as garageband/m boxes are to audio production as gopros are to film..........
Certainly all of these things are great and fun and even the pros like to play, but having one/knowing how to use one does not make you a pro. Time, trial and error and the ability to use the most advanced tools and compose and so forth... those are the things that make you a pro.
Professional = have a body of work comparative to your industry peers in which you receive wages within the industry standard.
I.B
Active member
I'm not a photographer, but i do enjoy my old film camera.
And i do like taking pictures with it.
These are my pictures, straight from the film.
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/301623_2076671034504_1176825905_31949762_1067855121_n.jpg[img]
[img]http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/319281_2076670394488_1176825905_31949760_1489700138_n.jpg
lol
And i do like taking pictures with it.
These are my pictures, straight from the film.
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/301623_2076671034504_1176825905_31949762_1067855121_n.jpg[img]
[img]http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/319281_2076670394488_1176825905_31949760_1489700138_n.jpg
lol
act.resist
Active member
ok sorry haha i understand what you're saying. the only reason i posted the picture is because i personally think its uncreative and unoriginal. it is nice to look at but the only reason someone took the picture is because they got the idea from another picture. and the reason i posted it was because i know a lot of people on facebook who call themselves photographers and think that there 2 years of practice makes them a professional so they make a fan page for "John Smith Photography" and then put up a picture like this. and I'm not getting angry or anything honestly i don't really care, i just misunderstood the thread. and if you are angry at my exsistence in this thread, well then i shall leave. peace.
Raz.
Active member
Nooo I mean like, My photo teacher requested I skip photo 2 and 3 to take a college level photo class. btw I'm a junior in HS, and the rest of the class is seniors.
I'm not saying i'm like fucking amazing or anything, but definitely above average.
get what i'm sayin? because I'm really not trying to sound cocky.
I'm not saying i'm like fucking amazing or anything, but definitely above average.
get what i'm sayin? because I'm really not trying to sound cocky.
corona
Active member
No, not well said. You quite clearly have not had a good solid look at the history of the music industry. The only thing that's changed in this respect since recorded music is the method of recording/distributing and the Internet. There was never ever a point where all of a sudden it became cool to make music so everyone did it. It's always been a constant. The only reason why you think it's like that is because none of the shit that people recorded 50 years ago is still around and today it's much easier to access the shit that's made. No one cared about it back then so it's gone. The exact same thing with photography. There is no boom of wannabe photographers. It's just that you notice it now because you're in the present; with them. You would never hear tale of them from before because nobody gave a shit about them and their work didn't stick around. I don't understand how this is so difficult to grasp. Maybe I don't know how to write it out properly, or maybe everyone wants there to be something to work against.
will_powder
Active member
MatRich
Active member
Come on thats bullshit. Where are you getting the info you base yourself on? As someone who works camera sales, i can confirm you that cameras are on the rise. Juste this year, there is a 10% rise in sales. Cameras are half the price of what they used to be. Of course theres more new fauxtographers. Yes a lot of it is due to them being more visible, but there is a huge uprise in camera owners. And in music, now it is very doable to have a respectable in house studio. There are now many more people are producing and promoting their shit because they dont have to pay for studio time. Perfect example of undercutting.
Dan.
Active member
agreed on everything except your last sentence. It's not undercutting, I'd say it's leveling the playing field. granted, the playing field now is lower, but, everybody has a fair chance at success. It's a free market, and if someone wants to pay Terry Richardson prices and get Terry Richardson work, they can do so, or they can go to their neighborhood shittogropher they found on facebook, pay em with 10 bucks and a handjob and get what they pay for.