Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I am obviously in a curious mood today.

Digital photography now avails any talented person with a camera and computer the ability to create quality images. With Photoshop replacing the need for a darkroom some amateurs are capable of creating very nice images - publish worthy images. And with internet sites like Flickr and many online stock sites these amateurs are able to display their work worldwide.
My understanding is that Flickr is trolled by many groups/people/bloggers/publishers looking for free photos to use in their sites/publications. Many amateurs are happy simply to be credited for their photo.
Many amateurs are now able to do weddings for friends/colleagues at a fraction of the cost of a pro. Granted the quality may not be as good but many amateurs, armed with pro-sumer gear and Photoshop are capable of nice work.
What are the thoughts on this from you folks that make money off of your images? Does it bother you that there are a lot of capable amateurs willing to give their stuff away cheaper and sometimes for free?

Depends on customers.

People pay the pretty dollar for a pro based on:
- experience
- customer service
- guaranteed delivery and results
- business savvy

I know many who are great with a camera but won't bother to spend the time to be a business.

That's fine, those amateurs will just want to share their passion and that makes them happy.

Well, it doesn't really bother me, per se. Obviously, if only accredited professionals were allowed to operate cameras, I probably would be making a lot more money (think about any other profession with high entry requirements). But that's not reality.

I'm a member of a private forum that caters to professional wedding and portrait photographers. I doubt there has been a full week in the past 8 years or so I've been there that someone doesn't comment about losing a job to a Craigslister, or how undercutting a photographer is "devaluing the market", or how doing shoot 'n burns (photograph the wedding, deliver images on DVD) is a "race to the bottom", etc., etc. There's a thread going on right now about photographers who are willing to shoot a destination wedding for travel costs alone, because they think it'll be like going on a vacation for free. These aren't amateurs doing it either... it's other professionals.

The fact is, the market is changing. This is akin to what Hollywood has been facing for many years, with the proliferation of music and movie sharing. The old guard within the MPAA and RIAA want to stick to their traditional business models, but that's not going to work. They have to figure out how to adapt to the way consumers want to enjoy music.

It's the same with photographers. Everyone has a camera these days, it seems. I cannot think of a single other activity that is so pervasive, so ubiquitous, and so easy to get into, and yet there are people trying to convince other people to pay them to do it. Videography, maybe, but nothing else even comes close.

It is simply a matter of priority with most people. Those who truly value photography will continue to pay for it. The benefits and advantages a seasoned pro brings to the table are far greater than any camera capability or software upgrade. But to some people, it just isn't that important. That's fine with me.

Sometimes I wonder if photographers are just naturally bitchy. I mean, I can't imagine the executive chefs at Toronto's fine dining establishments complaining about fast food joints "devaluing the market", or any such BS.

BTW, I do make 100% of my living from my wedding and portrait photography business.

A pro who says the amateurs are ruining his business, must be a dinosaur or lack that special personal style that no one else can offer. Pure whining, adapt to the market or sink. 1900s are long gone, wake up. A lot of people can produce outstanding results if talented or passionate enough.

I am one of those anchors dragging the business down, because I am not a pro and don't have former education, but I will try to get into the fields I know I can do well, i.e. no weddings for me

Digital allow people to learn from their mistake faster, easier, but doing a wedding is quite a different story.
I remember my first (as a 2nd), after 10 hours I was dying to have a seat for 10 minutes, and I wasn't even running around with a 1D series camera back then!

Doing a friend's wedding just because one has a DSLR is a pretty sure way to sour a relationship. People should really really get a experienced professional on the most important day of their life.

My 2 cents.

I don't do weddings I don't do commercial photogrpahy and I don't do fashion photography. Perhaps these fields are most impacted by Johhny DSLR Hobbyist. I do wildlife photography. This is less likely to be done by hobbyist. I can't imagine too many hobbyists can take a month vacation to hire float plane, camp in the wilderness or desert, live in a cabin for an extended period of time. Some can and some do. But they are more likely to be roped in to a friend's wedding than they are going to Denali or Bolivian altiplano. Mind you this isnt' really a living. I still take non-photography jobs to supplement my income. There's no pension plan.

Bottom line though - If the hobbyist takes amazing shots while on a wilderness vacation then he or she SHOULD be able to sell it and profit from it.

I can't help but fully agree with Brian on this. I know when I work with clients I make sure I listen to their needs and present what I can do for them (note that I'm in the information technology field so I'm referring to providing a solution). Ultimately I know I have to compete with other companies/individuals so I specific aim my services to a particular target market. So I don't think anyone should feel threatened.

Personally the only concern that comes to my mind has to do with whether amateur photographers are being taken advantage of. I've noticed some companies will use contests to get photo's and then in the fine print retain ownership of the images (National Geographic comes to mind). So maybe it would be better to educate people on how their images are being used.

Speaking from my personal experience -- and I would clasify myself as semi-pro / emerging photographer... I don't have a problem with the increase in amateur photographers. I think that its great that people are finding a hobby/passion in their life. Photography can provide personal satisfaction in having created a beautiful image, and is an excellent creative outlet.

The advances in digital technology over the last 30-40 years brings many technologies closer, less expensive, and easier to use for the mass population. It's no surprise to me that photography was included in that when the advent of cheaper and smaller digital camera's began to be available to the consumer.

Now, as for the consumer of photographic business. They have the choice whether to hire a professional photographer, or whether to hire a GWC. That is their choice. But for the descerning eye - they will most often choose a photographer who will meet the criteria, budget, and quality they expect. There are exceptions of course to that rule, but its buyer beware! You get what you pay for.

I think there is definately a need for education in this area!

At the end of the day even the best DSLR is just a tool. As advanced as prosumer tools (cameras and software) are they can't hold a torch to premium gear in premium hands. The premium gear will give a technical edge and the premium hands refer to a creatively gifted individual. Put them together and the sky is the limit!

That being said, if you are truly creative it doesn't matter how long you have been shooting or how dated your gear is, your talent will show. In that case you deserve to make money from your gift and hard work.

The terms 'pro' and 'not pro' may not be applicable in a different perspective - fine art photography. I'm fresh from a lecture last night held by photographer Richard Martin and so was thinking about this in that context (lxdesign, I could've sworn I saw you there, but have only barely met you on 1 occassion and so wasn't sure?).

Personally, and in my limited exposure, I found his work beautiful and immensely creative. I highly doubt that a GWC can produce it. Apparently his gearset for most of his work could be equated to that which a typical GWC would own.

In that sense, the differentiator might simply be the calibre of work an artist produces, and there simply is no comparison between an amateur and a skilled photographer.

Are there a lot of talented amateurs up and coming that are barking up the tree of 'pro' photographic artists? Are amateurs taking business away from potential print sales that the established guys would've made had the market not been flooded by works pumped out by the GWC's? Maybe the huge availability of artwork is making it harder for artists to get broad exposure? I really don't know since I barely expose myself to this aspect of photography.

At the end of the day, I think talent will win, and when I say talent, I don't mean just photographic talent, but talent with running a business as well.

Talent+"darkroom"+great business skills will set you apart. If you've been doing it for the last 20 years and can barely pay for your mortgage and constantly loosing work to craigslisters then you will need to evaluate your business. Shitty work doesn't cut it anymore. Shitty websites stopped working a few years back too. Competition is huge and those in the business need to find a way to differentiate themselves from all the others and find a way to be competitive. That means producing work different than your neighbors. Most photographers like to visit other photographers sites and copy. That won't get you anywhere.

5-6 years ago no photographers wanted to be in the wedding business. Now everyone just want to be a wedding photographer. Easy money, 1 day a week work,free food...
I did a free wedding in 2004 and posted a few pics on a forum. I got destroyed for doing it for free,for "shitty" post processing and just for photographing a wedding,since"Only desperate and talentless photographers do weddings".
It felt somewhat as if I was their competition. It was weird. Seriously, if an experienced pro has issues with a newbie then there's something wrong with his business model. A newb should not be able to have a significant impact on an established studio,UNLESS that studio was living on a cheese platter and just crusing its way through.
This won't work anymore. Every photographer these days need to be able to adapt and evolve every month/year and put more more into the business. Many are not willing to do it and you will see them downsize and close the doors.
Clients are MUCH more educated in terms of photography these days and Crap won't cut it.
I bought 10D from the states when it came out and I think it was around $1500US at that time. Nowdays you can buy a significantly superior camera for less than $600 and 20Ds are sold for around $250. Chances are your clients do have one of these too(I constantly have uncles with 1DIIIs and 5DIIs!!). You just need to be able to show that your images are better than uncle's

Personally, I think the best thing to do right now is find a way to sell to all the amateur photographers. You will make much more money.
You can sell Fong Dongs, actions,textures,workshops,presets, camera straps and bags. Any of these will make you much more money than shooting weddings. Just look at (wedding photographers) Yervant, Ghonis,Cantrel and others. They make their living by selling seminars,actions,book software,etc.


Cheers

Pro doesn't mean better...pro only means you get paid for what you do. I know many amateurs who produce better images, not to mention know more than the pros...the love of photography is stronger than the love of the dollar. Actually on DPR I can't remember how many times I've read of amateurs complaining of having "pros" stealing their images for their websites because the amateur shots look better than the shots the pro can take.

To me pros whining about amateurs taking their photography jobs reminds me of an episode of South Park with them screaming "They took our jobs":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI

This isn't the first time in history where technology has enabled non-professionals to do things pros have done in the past...someone above mentioned the MPAA, but it goes a lot further back than MP3...how many people here hire someone in the publishing/printing industry to produce signs, or newsletters anymore? Now you just load your DTP software and print it on your own printer.

Long distance phone lines, and fax machines put an end to the telegraph companies. When was the last time you've heard of someone sending a telegram (besides old movies).

Going back to music when radio and the gramophone were invented you could listen to an orchestra in your living room, you didn't need to hire one anymore, or go to a concert.

Direct dial phones reduced the number of telephone operators that were needed.

Automobiles eliminated the need for those who shovelled horse manure off the streets.

Of course this isn't to say that I am supporting inexperienced, unknowledgeable photographers, amateur or pro, misrepresent themselves as knowledgeable...like this clip from Joe Brown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

Answer honestly though, how many here would be doing professional wedding photography if there was no digital? No computers, no P, A, or S modes on your camera, no TTL...you can't bite the hand that feeds you, and your competition.

I know a wedding photographer who still shoots at least 50% film (medium formamt).... and she gets a lot of business, because of that fact. Up until recently she started shooting digital, but only because she could get some images that she might not have been able to, without a very fast film (and lots of grain!)... If she had the choice, she would probably shoot 100% film.

Relevant article in yesterday's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/busin ... otogs.html

Brian, just curious .. what's an "accredited professional" in Photography and how does one go about getting that accredition? Thx.


I agree. I've developed an interest in portrait, product and wedding photography in the last few years and I'm always frequenting related forums and websites. Some Pro pics I see leave a lot to be desired. I notice this more and more as I become better @ photography (tend to develop a critical eye due to constant exposure to the craft).

Due to easy access to related information on the WWW, there is now a declining need for the "master / apprentice" path. Photographers can now get their work critiqued online; learn shooting techniques from forums and Youtube; get started off in Craiglist and build a solid portfolio etc. I think this is great. Cheers.



You can do weddings. See what I wrote above IMHO, one can learn a lot about the art and business of photography if that person makes an effort. Not easy, but can be done. Cheers.

Fionah, I think you're likely to find that there are far more amateurs on this board than there are professionals, if the criteria is that a pro makes more than half their living at photography. Like PotatoEYE, I am one of those who are "ruining it for pros." I have a day job but during the summer months, I shoot motorcycle roadracing and sell my images.

Just selling the odd image doesn't make someone a pro. It just means that you're either good enough that people want to buy what you have, or your product is "good enough", for the stated cost, to be usable by the client. I doubt that I could make a living at it since what I do is seasonal, and the per-image rates are incredibly low in this branch of the field (in Canada, at least). These rates were set by the "pros" who came before me, so I'm not dragging THAT down. They under-valued their own work from the beginning. In fact I charge more than they do, per image, in most cases.

Last year I had the track pro come up to me and say that I cost him something like $4K last year, he said by "giving away" my images. I don't do that; rather I have a Creative Commons license for personal use of down-sized shots and rigorously pursue those who use my images for commercial purpose, without compensation. He was laying blame at my feet for a damaged economy hurting his business and people, who would not have purchased his shots anyway, coming to me.

When they do come to me I charge them as much for 4 or 5 images as he does for a DVD with a dozen, or more. I operate on a different business model based on individual image sales, and licensing for purpose. He works on volume. If all that they want is one image, for a poster or website, they're just as likely to come to me as him. For general use the majority go to him. He's consistent and reliable. By contrast if they want a specific type of shot racers will come up to me and ask if I can take it for them. I'm more flexible in both sales and in meeting specific needs.



One example: http://www.ppoc.ca/

Thanks Rob, I appreciate that!

Why is that?
From what I've seen you are adept at MANY different styles and should be able to be proficient in wedding photography. Many pros (me included) are adept and comfortable at only one or two areas. I excel at wildlife but can't for the life of me take a decent shot in an urban environment.

Maybe you just need to lay off the shrooms?

Yeah, that's true. I have no interest in weddings, it's boring for me. Maybe some day when I run out of shrooms

Personally, I'd love to shoot a wedding, but for my own personal interest, rather than a paying gig. It's hard to find another event that's so unifying where people gather for one purpose that isn't about money.

Plus, I don't think I can carry the responsibility of capturing every moment at a wedding yet.

Funeral?

Airport Arrivals

With the baby boomers getting to that age it could be a good idea, maybe a new and expanding niche market, just make sure you are payed ahead of time

I think that every photographer should do it, at least once, so that we can understand just how mind numbingly difficult it is.

Like Rob said, the PPOC (and the provincial organizations) is the primary accreditation body in Canada for wedding and portrait photographers. You gain that status by collecting points in print competitions and so on. But even though you can put "MPA" (Master Photographic Arts) after your name, it's not really the same at all as getting a professional degree, like you would as a medical doctor or an attorney. There are no regulations in place that prevent someone from calling themselves a "professional photographer". I've seen photographers with a dozen letters after their name whose work isn't really all that great, while there are plenty of amazing photographers who just don't bother with any formal accreditation process. For the most part, those titles really only mean something to other photographers... the average Joe on the street has no idea what they are.

I think, we think, the same.

But I've also had pro photographers rail on me for thinking a proper "governing body" (at least for pro wedding photographers) would be a good idea. But again, as you stated, it would only hold water with other pro photographers. It's not like the IBEW or CAW or IOC or any other "union" or governing body.

As for amateurs - who knows - I don't know what I am anymore; Semi-pro? Minor League Player? Triple A? and who's to be the judge if I'm "talented" or not?

Just let me know what a "plethora" is or entails...

Cheers,
Dave

Indeed, the accreditation is simply the addition of a few titles to your name, but even something basic like joining a local accreditation body does at the very least afford a certain "level of comittment." I believe ppoc requires a vendor's permit as part of their membership requirements. Something simple like that already shows a certain amount of committment to the craft. People that are in it to simply shoot (both skilled and unskilled) may not be bothered to have to deal with remittance of rst/gst and taxes. It isn't always about the quality of the photo neccessarily, but all of the other elements that make up the complete package.

This same individual might then also be a valid member of CPS or Nikon's equivalent, and have spent time calibrating their monitors, understand color management, aspect ratios and invest the time to soft-proof with the labs they use. This person might have also invested into reliable gear like wizards vs e-bay triggers, duplicate lenses and redundant gear. He/she understands that minimizing risk for the client is one of the key goals as a photographer. An amateur may not be so inclined to buy extra gear that sits in a camera bag for those just in case occasions. A working pro also has access to labs and affiliates in the business that can turnaround products for clients, etc.

I read a blog post awhile back that states "You can't know what you don't know." When learning the craft, there are so many things that you can't know because you just don't know. If you didn't know about family of angles, then there would not be a way to understand how to remove a distraction reflection. If you didn't know about nd and grads, then you wouldn't know how to deal with dr or exposure times. If you don't know about gels, you wouldn't ever be able to deal with complicated lighting. This is something that experience provides and cannot really be bought.

Nobody has to formally get their accreditations to be a pro, but some of these things are part of the process. If you are serious about your work, then you should be serious about the craft.

But like mikefellh said, times change and the only pros that are threatened are those those that don't change with the times fast enough. These days photogs need to be web devs (for web galleries and marketing), it specialists (to be able to use adobe's gamut of products proficiently, shoot tethered and manage color), and also mbas (to understand what to offer in their business and how to offer it and make a profit). But I agree, Pro doesn't have to mean better, they only get paid to do what they do because they can get it done every time any time.

The idea does sound a bit like a union. It'll create extra bureaucracy and cost fees. Is it's sole intention to keep amatuers out of the wedding photography?
I can't speak for Canada but we have similar associations in the UK for teachers. There's still plenty of crap teachers. Plenty of people who can teach and can do so better as non-accredited tutors.

"Guild" may be a better term; more palatable per se.

That said, I wouldn't think the intent of such a guild (or union or what have you) would be to keep amateurs out of the business but rather to ensure (or try to ensure) a consistent standard is applied to the business. But again, this standard would only mean something to the general public if they were aware of that standard. To other photographers, yes, it would carry some weight. To "Joe Punchclock" and "Sally Housecoat"... not so much

I believe the reason it would be too difficult to put into place is not because of the bureaucratic nature of such a beast but, instead, because the consistent standard would/could be a moving target.

What appeals to some, may not appeal to others.

So who is to say what is "ok" and allowed "in"? This year's awesomeness may be next year's craptacular...

Cheers,
Dave