TaoTeJared said:
Oh god let's not get into defining what a pro is AGAIN.

OK, sorry. What I suppose I was saying is that the individual who meet the description of what I see as a pro, will always be sought after. There is going to be a market for this category always. Even in the face of mediocrity.

Oh god let's not get into defining what a pro is AGAIN.

There are 100's of threads on that already.

I believe the OP had the intent of looking at the viability of work for pros (defined as someone who makes their living at it - no other qualifiers) and how new technology has lessen opportunities for them.

Nice comments here.... a lot of wisdom.... Gives me thought about what a pro maybe could be defined as..... not necessarily our reality today, but what a good definition might be....

First.... highly self critical and able to look at their own work and always see room for improvement.

Second..... open to the comments and criticism of others without being insulted of having their feelings hurt

Third.... on a continual quest to improve what they are doing, seeking both technical and creative insights.

One can test a true professional by simply asking if they can meet these criteria. Some can, some cannot. And maybe some of the ones who are considered the best in the photo business cannot. But it is the characteristics above that define one who is not only a talented individual, but also a fine human being.

bjrichus said:

I do not disagree. Understanding the tech is these days, less important, but still very much a big help and more important that many think.

I do not disagree. Understanding the tech is important for both a professional and expert amateur but it does not differentiate between the two

The professional is working for a client, the amature for himself

It is providing what the client wants, that is going to make the professional successful. I feel advances in technology, does not change this basic rule of running a successful business

sevencrossing said:
I don't think a client has ever ask to see my qualifications, to be honest I don't know were they are

IMHO, being a professional, is about understanding and fulfill the clients needs,
it has little to with technology, equipment , f numbers, lenses or shutter speeds.
Being a successful professional has a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time, and delivering the goods on time and on budget

IMO it has a lot to do with all of the above. The proportions vary with each of us...

The qualifications show you have been able to learn and attained recognition of your peers etc. Nice. I keep my certificates in frames on the wall, so they don't get lost!

Understanding the tech is these days, less important, but still very much a big help and more important that many think.

As for luck (right place right time) ... without it, you are sunk. As others say, "... then make it yourself."

sevencrossing said:
I don't think a client has ever ask to see my qualifications.

No nor me. Although they are nice to have as a form of recognition by others of your talents, are paper qualifications necessary to be a pro? Does anyone except the paying customer have a right to judge another's work? Who says that because this professional body feels that your shots don't conform to the recognised norms, that this makes them in any way inferior? I have read so many photography magazines where a reader has sent in a shot for some critique, and the so called "expert" has in my opinion wrecked what was a lovely shot to think that any more. Photography is an art, we "paint with light", there are many world renound painters whose work you couldn't give me, beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder, and as far as I'm concerned the only people I have to impress is my clients. Their referrals and written letters of recommendation are worth far more to me than any certificate obtained by an educational body.

Sorry, rant over.

pistnbroke said:
"because I love taking pictures" oh yes I turn up at a wedding in jeans and a t-shirt because I am arty ....what b@@@@ks

If you can say I am a qualified photographer by examination by the RPS/BIPP/MPA and I have a healthy bank balance and pay tax then you are a professional.

I have seen so called pros turn up at weddings in T shirts and jeans too. It can fit the occasion of that is what is asked for by the couple (honest - it has).

This thread is not about the old and done to death question of what *makes* a pro, but how pros respond to challenges and change.

Maybe trying to be constructive, sharing, positive, helpful, is the mark of the true pro?

I don't think a client has ever ask to see my qualifications, to be honest I don't know were they are

IMHO, being a professional, is about understanding and fulfill the clients needs,
it has little to with technology, equipment , f numbers, lenses or shutter speeds.
Being a successful professional has a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time, and delivering the goods on time and on budget

Well you keep banging on about professionals but no one mentions if they are qualified to do the job....ie had there work accessed by a professional body...Seems to be a trend to say I have a degree in media or similar and that qualified me as a photographer " because I love taking pictures" oh yes I turn up at a wedding in jeans and a t-shirt because I am arty ....what b@@@@ks

If you can say I am a qualified photographer by examination by the RPS/BIPP/MPA and I have a healthy bank balance and pay tax then you are a professional.

aetas said:
I just wanted to thank everyone for all the responses....even though its not my post. Its refreshing to see people having adult conversations with rational arguments about something anymore. People hide behind the wall of the internet to be jerks. This was a subject that could have went south and did not ..
~thank you

You are welcome young man!

:-)

I just wanted to thank everyone for all the responses....even though its not my post. Its refreshing to see people having adult conversations with rational arguments about something anymore. People hide behind the wall of the internet to be jerks. This was a subject that could have went south and did not ..
~thank you

Mike Gunter said:

The conundrum I see that continues to play out for a photographer's career is that he/she wants to be seen as a creditable artist and shoots a lot of film (now digital shots), but has always - for those who miss the mark - fail to give the darkroom, or post software, sufficient drift, which goes directly to improving the shooting skills.

This is a good point Mike. Tao was going down a similar path, others too ... Production value.

I taught recently a small workshop with a couple of stay at home moms who wanted to 'take better photos'. In it I covered the basics of shooting and their cameras. But I didn't get anywhere near covering post production. And I know that when the session was over, they didn't get that there is, in this day and age, as much or more knowledge and effort required for post production than shooting alone.

I've been working with photoshop since it launched, and now lightroom. Every image I take and publish, for fun or otherwise, is edited in post. I can take a photo and make it look radically different, yet palatable, from its original form. And while I've seen my technique improve over the years, I view my skills as that of a beginner.

So high end fashion/beauty/portrait/landscape/macro/other(?) photos have higher post production value, and their corresponding markets grow to expect that higher production value, creating separation from pro and not-pro photographers.

Meanwhile, editorial photos, traditionally 'unedited', become the province of anyone with a camera phone pointed in the right direction at the right moment. The exception here is as stated in the interview - when the image can only be taken with gear typically owned by pros, like a 600mm f/4, etc.

Successful pros will be those photographers who consistently produce high production value photos on demand, to outlets with the highest production standards. And, as Mike says, those who successfully market themselves as such.

Facebookinstagram is not a significant threat because it is not a high production value outlet. I say this because 'good' photos that wind up on Facebook or Instagram are mostly luck and generic post production. Any high production value outlet would shy away from those kinds of images because they don't differentiate the outlet in the market.

Change is opportunity, and there is a TON of change in the photography business.

Chase Jarvis and his remote controlled helicopter shoots (amongst many other things).
Emily Soto (a fashion photog who's work I like) BTS marketing videos from her shoots.
Joe McNally, Dave Hobby, and the army of strobists doing their thing in the field.

All photographers taking the tech and doing things to differentiate themselves with it.

And that's four people in a growing worldwide industry - who knows what the thought leaders of tomorrow will bring to the table?

Very exciting times!

Hi all,

Photography as a business is changing for sure.

But keep in mind that it's always been a 'easy' thing to get into though. Anyone with a camera was a photographer.

And I'm not too sure that what we traditionally think of as "skill levels" have ever really played into making making those who choose that path successful either.

Having seen many people out there who have been very successful, I know they are hard workers, dedicated to getting the job done, make the most of the opportunities afforded them, make sure they know how to use their tools, and such.

I would suggest that the working photographers today who work the most are the ones who market themselves better than others, regardless of what anyone might think of the products produced in the market. No one will beat a path to your door if they don't know where your door is, or worse, if they don't know _you_ are behind it.

The conundrum I see that continues to play out for a photographer's career is that he/she wants to be seen as a creditable artist and shoots a lot of film (now digital shots), but has always - for those who miss the mark - fail to give the darkroom, or post software, sufficient drift, which goes directly to improving the shooting skills.

My best,

Mike

I listened to the interview again and I believe their focus was really on daily journalism. Everyone here is going into all the other aspects (which there are 100s if not thousands of "types" that people make money off of. Daily/weekly news papers in my area (midwest US)(except for the largest papers) don't have staff photographers anymore.

There is one paper that I run into a lot and they just send someone from the office with a D5100. They never have said a word to me as they do see many of my photos and schools, politicians have asked to have mine used instead of theirs. The point of it is, that I have been offered $25 for my photos. I know the owner of the paper and they honestly can not afford to pay much more. They actually don't have to buy photos of school events and other events as people are happy to have their photo published. And the paper give them a print with the article framed - nothing huge just an acknowledgement. 15 years ago they had a staff photographer and there were 5 freelancers in the area who made their living shooting for various papers. The photos now are not great by any means, but for a paper that gets read and thrown away - how good does it really need to be for an average run of the mill story.

I believe that is the real question that is being answered now - "How good is good enough?" I think that is what is making many photographers who make their living of it loose sleep at night - the realization that "good enough" is way below their skill level and they are loosing the perceived advantage of being needed. Much of that is driven by the lagging economy as well - many businesses are feeling the exact same concerns. It is not unique to photography.

The market is contracting in some regards for sure. I believe with the lower prices on cameras, more people are buying them, and more are seeing that the camera doesn't make the photo and they grow into appreciation of what a good photograph is and know they can't do it. It is the cyclical nature of things that deal with degrees of skill. It is the same for clothes, furniture, cars, and even construction. Everyday stuff, cheaper is better. For longevity or enduring items, people are willing to pay for the talent someone can offer. People with a degree of skillfulness and craftsmanship will endure, if they are willing to change with the times.

I was going to post a long ditty here, but I think I will simply say that the high quality professional photographer will always be in demand. While the public may have poor ability to distinguish between what is good and what is not, the professional client will always demand the best.

Well said, proudgeek. I do think that even if facebookstagram lowers the bar on what a "great" image is, there will still be room for pro photographers (like aetas pointed out—what pro means is "a whole 'nother story"). BTW, I don't think you need to apologize for getting some money doing something you love, aetas.

The course I teach on light and sound attracts quite a few budding photographers (it sounds more fun to them than the sciences classes that cover, say, the big bang and evolution, I guess!), and in conversations I've asked them if they ever get any paid work. Some have said a common request these days in our college town is facebook profile pictures. To get a good mp3, you need to start with a well-mixed track, I guess. And to extend the mp3 analogy, mp3s sound fine to me in nearly every situation I ever listen to music, just like most images look fine on the web. When I put on my studio phones, though, I can tell a difference between an mp3 I got from amazon compared with one I ripped from a CD. It's all about the final use of the image, and good prints will always require a better camera and more careful post processing.

I don't want to start the what makes a pro argument on this thread. It does beg to be started though. If you take common sense out of a debate then you might as well not be debating. It seems as though the op was talking about a "pro" in the sense that they are getting paid with the expectation that said pro will be able to give a result that is desirable.

That being said I still stand behind my argument. Photo manipulation aside people are always going to have events, whenever thats a wedding, portrait, stage show that they want "good" photos of. To get this they are going to go to the "pro" who is able to get the photos and fits the style of shooting they want. Now there has been a huge influx of photographers that want to get paid for their work. So that makes finding the "right" photographer more difficult. As photographers it seems that if you want to make a living with your art your going to need to find your niche. If your amazing at one thing and stick to it more people are going to hear of you, with help through your advertising, whatever that may be.

I shoot as a "amateur" . I do not make the majority of my income from the trade. By definition I am not a pro. I have shot everything from landscapes to weddings and enjoy all aspects of photography. I feel as if i am giving a "pro" result to my clients because I know what I am doing and have the experience to give them what they want on demand. That also means that I am one of the shooters out there that some "pros" hate. I can shoot when I want for how much I want and it does not effect me. I feel as though my results and happy clients speak for themselves.

I think that the need to have a professional photographer at these events, weddings, ect... has not went away but the ability for people to find multiple shooters has changed. "Pro" photography as defined by making the majority of your income from trade is getting harder and harder that I agree with. The need for "professional results" has not.

Wow, I'm done. Sorry about the rant =-( and I did kinda stay off the :pro argument.

I'm not saying that iPhones will ever take better pictures, nor am I saying that digital manipulation can replicate the capturing of the human spirit. But if the audience can no longer discern (or no longer cares) about the difference between your average Instagram photo and a carefully thought out image that really captures a moment, those who make their living creating the latter are going to have to confront the realities of a shrinking audience.
Ask recording engineers who possess the skill of a George Martin whether there's as much work now as there was 20 years ago. If the world develops a collective tin ear, there's no need to spend the money and time crafting music that's finely tuned to sound perfect on a $10,000 sound system when 99% of the people are going to be listening on iPod Shuffles.
Should the same happen to photography it will be a sad day.

Maybe we will at some point distinguish between what I see as photography and "photo-art". A lot of us can create some pretty astonishing things in the computer with an average photo.... I call this "photo-art". I think photography is the capture of the human spirit on film. Or the actual way a landscape looks to us when we see it, captured in a way that everyone who sees the photo can experience what we saw when we pushed the button. But a lot of what is "called" photography, is not, in my opinion. Or at least by my definition.

As far as pro photographers... I think we have some great ones capturing everyday the world we live in. And they are not going to go away. No iPhone will ever capture an image like a super telephoto does at 11 FPS in the hands of a real craftsman. Or a 50mm f/1.4 in the dark of an alley, looking at the desolation some of us have to live in. No iPhones there. And in the battlefield, the jungle, the slums, rarely do we see something but what only a creative individual in a professional position, living out the dream of recording the world as they see it, can produce. In a lot of cases to get the shot we have to place something on the line. This is what some of the pros do everyday of their life.

Oops, I really did not mean film....just a slip of the tongue....

You are totally right proudgeek! The public perception of a good photo is getting worse and worse which is part of the reason why there are so many great photogs out there... Mods need to add a like button :P

One factor that's been overlooked (and I confess I haven't listened to the broadcast). Part of this migration might be the way that the public judges what is a "great" photograph. Take a look at the music we listen to. Years ago audiophiles would have turned their noses up at MP3-quality music. Today a huge majority of us listen to highly compressed (and compromised) files through $30 plastic headphones. Not everyone, but the level of acceptance is growing, even among diehards.
Could the public's judgement of photography be moving along a similar trajectory? Whereas years ago we would have scoffed at iPhone photos, tomorrow they may the way we capture and share images. If no one asks for high quality (primarily because of declining standards) will be a market for those capable of producing it?

Professional Photography won't die for a while. However I do expect the industry to shrink like the one for film did in 5-10 years. Wedding/portrait/medical/forensic photographers probably won't take too much of a hit. I expect the Landscape/Sport/Photojournalist/Event/Product to shrink.

Anaxagoras said:
So very true. And it's largely what sets the pros apart from the rest of us - the ability to produce great photos 'on request'.

I in a way disagree with this as I have met several amateurs who are much more refined in their skills than many of the pros I know (usually comfortable in what they do) In weddings your example works well. In many other forms, not so much...

I personally am a lightswitch pro (based on income) One month it is the majority of my income the next month it only is 30% of it. However my skills are not what is keeping me from a more steady income but the stiff competition, much of whom can do most of what I do but their establishment in the community and their following are large. A pro is not somebody who gets it right every-time (based on my assessment of my competitors and colleagues). A pro is one who can make a living at what they do by successful self promotion, advertisement, and people skills. Good work isn't enough anymore...

aetas said:

Some people will get lucky by snapping away and getting a great photo but the "pro" should be able to always get it.

So very true. And it's largely what sets the pros apart from the rest of us - the ability to produce great photos 'on request'.

Sure, if I'd been using my camera at my daughter's wedding I'd have got some great photos too - on a par with the pro.

But I would have produced a dozen or so great photos in amongst hundreds of 'OK' photos. The pro created 796 great photos.

Everyone brings up some great points here. I feel as if the professional photographer is not going away anytime soon. As others have said just because the price of doing business is going down does not mean that people are willing to put in the time to advance themselves. Some people will get lucky by snapping away and getting a great photo but the "pro" should be able to always get it.

Yes and thanks for the link also bjrichus

Anaxagoras said:
Interesting stuff.

Personally, I believe there will always be a need for professional photographers.

When my daughter was married six months ago, she paid a substantial sum to a professional to record her once-in-a-lifetime day. And the photos were truly excellent. The very idea of relying on the guests using their camera phones sends shudders down my spine.

And it's true in other areas; 'innocents' might sometimes have the advantage of being in the right place at the right time, some may be talented or just plain lucky, but rarely do the pictures "tell the story" in the way that a good professional news photographer's does.

Even experienced amateurs like me, with decent equipment, are no threat to the professionals.

+1

Thanks for the link, bjrichus.