Ally Moy wrote: How does full frame make a difference? Even phones these days take decent photos. I posted a location shot straight from my cell just for a quickie status update on facebook and I got a bunch of people complimenting the 'amazing photo'. People's photographic ignorance has nothing to do with cheap full frame cameras.
The capabilities of a 35mm digital sensor allow for a far stronger technical image to be created than could a camera with a smaller sensor. Far far more can be done with a FF sensor based camera than a simple cropper. I once argued otherwise. I then got my first FF camera, and.....
Urban Stylz Photography wrote: FINALLY someone who has understood my point, rather than make stupid irrelevant insults. After reading these comments I am sure my initial post hit a nerve with probably many who are part of the group of lowballers. Consistent Lowballing = undervalue of the industry as a whole. Which is why the majority of clients today see photography as a LUXURY rather than a necessity and are not willing to pay the rightful value due to Lowballers auto-proclaiming themselves pro photographers the minute they can afford a decent quality piece of gear and undercutting the market value of services. The end-result is conditioning people to think photography is an inexpensive service. There is so much crap being published out there, as you stated, from nobody's just because of this conditioning. The point of making FF more affordable is that it will only entice more lowballers to come out of the woodwork and claim they can do EVERYTHING a seasoned vet can. Again, the idiots here who like to misinterpret everything just to get a cheap thrill have no relevancy to this matter.
All of these idiots making comparisons to painting and such is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Furthermore, making childish insults and sarcastic remarks ads ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the conversation. Mentioning Pros like Steven Meisel and Annie Leibovitz has no purpose as NONE OF YOU OR I are in that league, so surely they will never be affected by lowballers. Yes, your folio speaks for it self but with the way companies are mass producing and marketing Digital more than ever, it just saturates the industry even more with amatures CLAIMING to be pros when in discussions with clients. Missleading the same clients leads to the interpretation that photography is and should be an inexpensive service.
I laugh out loud every time I see someone come on these forums and try to tell me amateur photographers have "ruined" their ability to make a living.
What makes you ANY different than ANYONE else who went out and bought a camera and decided to try to sell their services? Did your camera come with some sort of membership to some secret guild or something?
Using your logic, the folks like Steven Eastwood, or Ken Marcus or any number of other professionals here should be the ones writing about YOU, the low priced shooter who is undercutting THEIR business, taking money out of THEIR pocket.
But I dont see that, ever....they are too busy shooting. Making money.
If you dont have the skills to compete with an amateur photographer, if they are "stealing" your clients, it is a simple result of the consumer (the client) shopping for the product they want for the price they are willing to pay.
You seem to have forgotten that it is the consumer making the choice. If you have done nothing to convince the consumer that your product is superior, what in the world makes you think it is the fault of the "competition" that you failed to win the consumer?
If some pimply faced teenager with his dad's Rebel is able to win your customers, is it his fault? or yours?
You can get all butthurt and tell me I am wrong, that I "dont understand", but I am sorry... read the responses in this thread. It isnt me who doesnt get it.
Every advance in imaging has made it more accessible to non-technical, non-professional people. This didnt begin with digital, it has been a steady evolution for more than 150 years. If you failed to see the changes coming, if you built a business model based on expectations that technology was going to protect your exclusivity, then blaming other photographers is the least of your problems.
rfordphotos wrote: If you dont have the skills to compete with an amateur photographer, if they are "stealing" your clients, it is a simple result of the consumer (the client) shopping for the product they want for the price they are willing to pay.
why do you assume that the topic has anything to do with my own personal work...LOL I make a good living from what I do but this topic is a reality of the undervalue of the industry with the help of tools being more and more affordable to random folks. It doesn't affect me but I am sure it does affect many who had to shut down their studios due to increased lowballers and self-proclaimed pros.
Urban Stylz Photography wrote: why do you assume that the topic has anything to do with my own personal work...LOL I make a good living from what I do but this topic is a reality of the undervalue of the industry with the help of tools being more and more affordable to random folks. It doesn't affect me but I am sure it does affect many who had to shut down their studios due to increased lowballers and self-proclaimed pros.
excuse the use of the editorial "you". It is a generalization for the purpose of this discussion.
The point I am trying to make is this: you seem to be missing the evolutionary nature of imaging tech, the trends are no different now than they were a 100 years ago. TV did kill radio. Video did cut into still photography. Digital did kill film (or will, finally). The next tech evolution will kill digital.
In the 16th century, only the very rich could afford portraits, today, Moms snap shots of their kids with their cell phones. The world has changed, and photography has changed with it.
Whining about the change wont change it.
I just looked at your portfolio. Very nice work.
Question on your magazine.... do you pay the photographers who submit the images you publish?
Dan OMell
Posts: 856
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
what about art directors? their tool is vision. well, many don't use photo equipment even, and photographers are their tools too, lol I think vision always has priority. well, if you have the best equipment in the market and "compatible" with it, it's a match made in heaven. but it's rare.
I see recently A LOT of awesomely talented newcomers with totally unique vision.
they can shoot with iPhones or crappy cameras much better then many veterans, incl. myself. it's a good thing. it makes you stay competitive. it makes you learn.
some ideas and realizations provided by this "new wave" weaponized with DSLRs are absolutely incredible and fresh.
still, out of 100% weaponized with DSLRs it gonna be maybe 0.5% with awesomeness. I don't see much competition from the remaining 99.5% of "the best equipment collectors".
and, after looking at those pictures, you have a lot of inspirations, new dreams, targets, you start seeing things you never pay attention to before.
I don't care if it ruins somebody's business. some businesses should die. the sooner the better.
paradigm shift in hardware is less important then the same thing in the brains.
Jirrupin
Posts: 1,609
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
the only people I've seen shutting down their studios are people who had nothing to offer the modern market, times change in EVERY industry. Internet technology has put an end to more, once viable, businesses than camera technology ever will. The people who really have it tough are camera retailers who suddenly find people are just coming into their shop to play with the goods before buying online - they can't match online prices because they have more overheads - but people seemingly have no qualms taking advantage of them to gets hands on feel for a camera then walking away to buy online - same goes for lots of sectors of retail, they're the only people I feel are doing it tough.
As for the photography game, the people complaining about the fate of professional photography fall into two camps,
there are those who never would of been in the game before digital tech came along.. their argument goes along the line of "i'm really into photography and bought a 5d and three L lens last week and have a craigslist ad but nobody will pay me five grand to shoot their wedding because some slightly more clueless idiot who bought a 60d last week will do it for $50"
and then there are those long established who are just not good at business, can't adapt to changing market dynamics, and either don't have value to offer or can't sell their value proposition. Its hard to feel anything for these people except that they had it too easy for too long back in the 'good ol' days' they like to talk about so much.
I don't just FF cameras was the issue. I think DSLR's in general in the prosumer grade and not just professional market was damaging enough. And now that people can pick up D3's and 1ds mk iii's for under $2,400 is even more troubling.
And i've seen some people on this site that shoot with the 1ds, and have overly processed it to the point where it looks like a over retouched 7d shot. The camera doesn't make the photographer, although one may believe it makes him a photographer. Such as it is in miami. Where EVERYONE is a DJ, Model, Photographer, Club Promoter etc...
When an acceptably similar but less expensive option becomes available, consumer behavior is always the same.
Yes, it may mean people are satisfied with a lower standard of quality. That's just how industry works, and always has. I'm sure it's nice to have finer things as a display of success, and I'm sure someone had a few words for Mr Ford when he fully implemented the assembly line process and pretty much immediately lowered the cost of owning a car to "Joe Shmoe" territory... but there are plenty of people still making high-end cars for the customers who demand that level of quality, and will pay for it.
Adapt, be superior, change your client base appropriately, or fall by the wayside.
Urban Stylz Photography wrote: The end of Professionally Paid photography by making Full Frame now available and affordable to just about any Joe shmoe...Now my rant is not about the skill level of a shooter and such but more about how the industry is continuing to go down the shitters due to companies making tools that were once only affordable and available to pros, now available to shmoes... The days of film where you were paid like a pro because not everybody had the patience in the dark room, the skill level to shoot film and the budget to run such a business have been crippled by the digital era. Now making Full Frame affordable to just about anyone, I don't see how this is going to be a positive in how the professional working photographer is seen by prospective clients. Clients themselves will be able to shoot quality images with a basic D600 for instance. They may not have the lighting knowledge but with the current state of economy, do these clients really care in the end? It is not as if we don't have countless numbers of GWC's as is, now with cheap full frames, the uncle BOB disease will be spreading incessantly. Where is the antivirus?
The antivirus is knowing what to shoot. How to shoot is no longer relevant.
Urban Stylz Photography wrote: The end of Professionally Paid photography by making Full Frame now available and affordable to just about any Joe shmoe...Now my rant is not about the skill level of a shooter and such but more about how the industry is continuing to go down the shitters due to companies making tools that were once only affordable and available to pros, now available to shmoes... The days of film where you were paid like a pro because not everybody had the patience in the dark room, the skill level to shoot film and the budget to run such a business have been crippled by the digital era. Now making Full Frame affordable to just about anyone, I don't see how this is going to be a positive in how the professional working photographer is seen by prospective clients. Clients themselves will be able to shoot quality images with a basic D600 for instance. They may not have the lighting knowledge but with the current state of economy, do these clients really care in the end? It is not as if we don't have countless numbers of GWC's as is, now with cheap full frames, the uncle BOB disease will be spreading incessantly. Where is the antivirus?
Sooooo, in a nutshell your bitching about companys finding ways to ummmmmm..... Make money with their business.
Whilst bitching because you "Pro type photographers" arent making money with your business's?
So what your saying is your business should be allowed to make money with little creative effort but the camera companys shouldnt be allowed to expand their business's to ummmmm..... Make money.
And all this time i thought the purpose of having a business/company was to..... You guessed it. "Make Money"
BCADULTART
Posts: 1,949
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Urban Stylz Photography wrote:
This coming from guy in a state filled with massive controversy. You want a doughnut with that? You forgot to mention Comedian in that irrelevant list that no one asked for, OH GREAT Master Journalist...Maybe you need to worry about cleaning your own backyard from sexual predators a-la Jerry Sandusky and friends, instead of worrying what Eastern Canadians are doing.
What the H*** does Sandusky have to do with English? I don't do sports and
could not give a Rat's A** about Pen State. Now back to your "bad English"
I also do not care much about "Eastern Canadians" although Montreal is nice and
MaClean's checks do not bounce.
rfordphotos wrote: Question on your magazine.... do you pay the photographers who submit the images you publish?
Thats a great question.
I looked at his profile and read detailed information about how the industry works.
He mentioned that the client is the one who shells out the money to photographers, models, makeup artists, etc.
Im a wee bit confused though. Would something like a magazine publication be the company/client who pays the involved partys?
I ask because it appears that (gasp) his magazine doesnt pay. He makes mention that they get a specific number of pages and a centerfold and credits but absolutely no mention of any other "compensation"
[sarcasm]
What REALLY concerns me though is the fact that this guy does TFP..... Yea i know... It pisses me off too.... He's killing the industry by giving his work away "for FREEEE". I know its only select TFP but none the less someones getting screwed out of money. It's this type of insanely crazy behavior thats killing the modeling industry [\sarcasm]
Hector Fernandez
Posts: 1,146
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Paramour Productions wrote: Whenever this topic comes up, I think people only see whatever side of the continuum they are on.
It once was, not too long ago, that to get even a competent "professional" portrait taken and printed, one had to be a relatively competent professional or very advanced amateur. Even if they were boring as all hell (think Olan Mills) there was still a level of technical proficiency that, due to the nature of the materials, was beyond most people. So you had photographers that made a very good living simply because they could actually take the kind of photograph that most people could not. Then you had those who were successful because of their creative vision. The latter group has not been damaged as much (but they still have to an extent - more on that in a second), the former group has been almost put out of business. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's a bad thing, maybe it's just *a* thing - but it's reality.
Additionally, microstock has done as much if not more damage to the industry than hobbiests have.
As far as "full frame" goes, well, it wasn't too long ago that, for each respective format, everyone shot "full frame". It was called film.
The capabilities of a 35mm digital sensor allow for a far stronger technical image to be created than could a camera with a smaller sensor. Far far more can be done with a FF sensor based camera than a simple cropper. I once argued otherwise. I then got my first FF camera, and.....
Yes, but the complaint is about the clients and companies failing to recognize quality and determine who is a professional. I doubt there are many who just ask, "Do you use a full frame? Yes? YOU'RE HIRED!"
This coming from guy in a state filled with massive controversy. You want a doughnut with that? You forgot to mention Comedian in that irrelevant list that no one asked for, OH GREAT Master Journalist...Maybe you need to worry about cleaning your own backyard from sexual predators a-la Jerry Sandusky and friends, instead of worrying what Eastern Canadians are doing.
S W I N S K E Y wrote: I thought digital cameras represented the end of photography as we knew it...
My thoughts exactly (though someone else would ascribe that to the introduction of the motor drive, or color film, or the electronic flash when it replaced flash powder).
NOT.
[\sarcasm]
| 
| 
| edu