E L Fanucchi wrote:
When cell phones and amatures do as below ... they become artists ...
and I hang my hat up for the last time.


But you know ... 100 years ago photographers were considered techno marvels
and chemists and scientists.


IT WAS BETTER 100 YEARS AGO !

E L

YES, I was!

DigitalCMH wrote:

I think there is SOME merit to what BCG is asking though.  And a difference with your analogy.

I think the odds of someone picking up a camera and taking pictures that are "good enough" is highly more likely than someone picking up a pencil and drawing a picture that people would consider "good enough" to frame and put on their wall.

No matter how cheap cameras get, the odds are, the magazine shooters, the fine art shooters, etc, will not be losing working.  But other more photographers like wedding photographers might feel the pinch.  Why?  More and more often I'm hearing of people on a tight budget, having disposable cameras at their weddings and letting the guests take pictures.  Of course, it won't be nearly as polished as a good wedding photographer.  However, they'll be "good enough" to bring smiles to the newlyweds.

As good cameras become more affordable, less people will be taking their babies into WalMart or other mall studios as they'll choose to have them done by themselves or family members.

I picked up a camera and with very little experience, I started off decent enough that people liked what I was doing.  No mentoring, no training.  However, no matter how many times I pick up a pencil, I can't seem to draw anything worth admiration from anyone older than age 3.

You're right - there is merit in BCG's question...  It is a question that will come up time and time again.  Within a few years you'll be able to buy point and shoot cameras that rivals many of today's SLR's - and they'll be dirt cheap as well.  It really doesn't matter how accesible a tool is - what matters is how passionate and focused a person is. It will show in thier work no matter what tool they pick up and choose to master....

BCG wrote:
what concerns me is the fact that the level of acceptable quality has changed/lowered...and ANYONE with a rebel XT can take acceptable images.

Oops, I guess that would be me, mine are very acceptable to some models and I have a rebel XT, thus my images may be SHITTY to some of you. Who gives a hot damn anyway, I consider the source. I've been shooting not even a year, yet. I like my progress, and I can just about find a flaw in everyone's portfolio on this site, especially from the ones always clucking about digital and photoshop.

The Art of CIP wrote:

Then that's a good thing.... More players on the field.. COmpetition is healthy..  It's one of the cornerstones of American thought...  If you feel threatened by these "new" photographers then I don't know what to tell you BCG... The simple fact is that ANYONE and EVERYONE has the right to shoot - if you can afford a camera or have access to one can shoot.  SOme people will become good some will just suck...  But you or anybody else really has no say in who can shoot and who shouldn't...

I agree with your post and I swear, these type of threads are popping up left and right. I guess some people are a bit pissy about technology, hell just buy a BETTER camera or get the high tech equipment and apply those fantastic technical 20+ year walmart portrait skills to it, nobody will be able to touch them, then, lol.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
Talentless Shooters?

There are two sides to this and both have to do with how that person goes about perfecting or honing that ability. To be able to perfect or hone this ability, it will take practice, time and effort.
The casual photo taker is just that.....a photo here and there at parties or gatherings. Nothing that will perfect or hone this photo taking ability. Eventualy losing interest altogether or dont even give it a second thought.
The Professional photo taker takes the time to perfect and hone this ability and better themselves thus producing better and better photos each time. This person will go out of thier way to find photo opportunities, build thier product to impressive quantities to show people. Always interested in anything where they can take photos and hone and perfect thier ability.
In the end you will always have one around and the other will just be passing thru.

Has anyone noticed the ones defending their right to "shoot" actually have BETTER images than most complaining? I mean really...people want to insult the digital babies, I'm throwing the shit right back, really fed up with it. I should be able to come here, network, post and be positive to people without reading this flaming cluckfest shit from grown ass men (basically). More so than not, people whom *I* think have very average images...Hell they don't hold their sharp tongues, neither am I anymore, it's pointless.

MisterChris wrote:
I think there's some damn good marketing behind Britney Spears. Everybody knows the name. I didn't say the cream would always be recognized as such. heh

You said the cream would always "rise to the top" -- If you weren't referring to celebrity and financial reward, what were you talking about?  It's no trick to be a legend in one's own lunchtime, but i'm living proof that unless you're a recognizeable figure, you're just another nobody...even if you're world famous on the internet.

BCG wrote:
what concerns me is the fact that the level of acceptable quality has changed/lowered...and ANYONE with a rebel XT can take acceptable images.

anyone with an Eos Rebel or a Nikon N60 could properly expose film... it's just that now all these shitty (albeit, properly exposed) photos are on iPhoto, web pages and easy share galleries instead of shoe boxes...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45122

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Well I guess that explains the sucess of Britney Spears, dosen't it?

Well the nut part in nutshell does.
I couldn't imagine going to  her house and not at least seeing a car up on blocks, even if it is a Bentley.

Paul

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

You said the cream would always "rise to the top" -- If you weren't referring to celebrity and financial reward, what were you talking about?  It's no trick to be a legend in one's own lunchtime, but i'm living proof that unless you're a recognizeable figure, you're just another nobody...even if you're world famous on the internet.

Okay, when I say the cream will always rise to the top my point is that regardless of equipment or technology the individuals who take the time and effort to learn their craft will consistently produce better work. I'd be willing to wager that there are a few photogs running around that could make better photos with an oatmeal box (not something I've done but I have intended to for quite some time, just never get around to finding the time to play with it) than many can with a 1DS Mark II or an H1D. A little talent helps too.

On the web it would be tough to see the difference.

Where we differ is in our definition of "top" I suppose. To you being on top is apparently all about recognition. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't mind a little friendly debate so long as it holds my interest. To me being on top would be having developed my skills to the point where I can consistently produce better work than most.. there's always somebody better. The last thing I want is fame.

To each his own I say.

And for the record, whoever the genius is that made Britney Spears sell; they have my utmost respect.. as do you.