Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Professionals worried???


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 meme.may.fire

meme.may.fire

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

Posted 17 February 2011 - 01:26 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/9387518.stm

does this apply in uw photography??
share your thoughts.
cheers

Edited by meme.may.fire, 17 February 2011 - 01:32 AM.

D7000 + 60mm D + Ikelite + Sola 800 + LaLuz 800 x2
Oly XZ1 + Pt50 + D2000

Casually Wet & Deep in Conversation
Vimeo Flickr YouTube

#2 furby076

furby076

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 February 2011 - 04:40 AM

There really isn't much of a difference between professionals and amateur photographers. In fact the only real difference is one gets paid for their work on a "regular" basis. Professionals tend to have better and more equipment. If someone can sell their photo for a profit then great. Pro's can't be there all the time, and pro's aren't there shooting the world trade towers on a regular day just in case a plane flies into it...on the other hand a tourist would be.

As for diving photographers - it does take some of their money away. When I go diving I don't hire a photographer, because I have my own equipment - but then again I wouldn't have hired one anyhow unless it was a real special occasion. Dive photography is very expensive and takes a lot of training to get good quality photos. Dive photographers should sweat it a lot less then top-side photographers due to the extra skills it takes (not just diving, but photography as a whole).

If anything the competition may make photographers step up their game by offering things that even the best cameras in the world can't offer - an artistic eye.
The Nudibranches love my Nauticam!

#3 decosnapper

decosnapper

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:34 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/9387518.stm

does this apply in uw photography??
share your thoughts.
cheers


In a word, 'no'.

The market is already awash with content regardless of source, and that process has its origins at the point in time when Leica started using 35mm film instead of medium format. In spite of this, turnover and profit for me at least has remained stable year-on-year. An interesting trend this year has been to raise less invoices, but the individual values of each has been higher. A second trend of increasing recovery of copyright infringement fees and damages has been a not-unexpected occurrence.

The comment in post #2 about the World Trade Center is interesting, as it highlights why the value of images changes over time. An iconic image of the New York skyline, with the stars and stripes set against the setting sun appears in the DAM book by Peter Krogh. With one frame Peter explains that the long-term value of images (something I always held dear......) is affected by events outside of control and therefore the value of images changes over time. The same image cannot be recreated now. Those who create and maintain an archive of work and be able to find relevant material stand most to gain long-term as they can deliver IP with known provenance at some point in future when someone wishes to license and pay for its use. And photography is very much a long-term game with respect to profit.
Simon Brown

www.simonbrownimages.com

#4 Ron Kruger

Ron Kruger

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:46 AM

I've been selling photos for over three decades. A couple of years ago, I started posting on other sites about how digital technology is killing professional photography as we know it. I won't go into all the reasons and repeat myself, but when I post something about these day, I don't get all those rebutals and inuendos about quality.
One thing posted that is not true, generally, is that professional photographers have better equipment. Most enthusiasts have better equipment than I, simply because I make my living from it and can't afford the latest and greatest auto-everything features. The most important part of why there's little distinction these days is all the sophisticated and accurate auto features. Simply put, you no longer need to know much about photography to get quality shots with a machine-gun, P&S approach. What we once called "idiot cameras" have become genius cameras.
I do believe that the enthusiast threat to the bottom line that is so pervasive now above water is not as threatening under water, which is one of the reasons I got into submerged shooting last summer. Not everyone is carrying an underwater camera in their pocket or around their necks, or seriously pursuing underwater photography. It's still an esoteric pursuit.
But if you think, as most beginner's do, that equipment makes all the difference, and that pros use only the very best, consider that I bought a $150 P&S last summer (the first P&S I've ever owned), just to play around with and investigate submerged lighting. I was so surprised by the IQ that I submitted some shots. Before the charge bill came due, I sold two inside and two covers from this 12 MP toy.

Edited by Ron Kruger, 17 February 2011 - 07:47 AM.


#5 MIKE POWELL

MIKE POWELL

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa, FL

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:22 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...ine/9387518.stm

does this apply in uw photography??
share your thoughts.
cheers



While sad for the all the hard working bright photo pro's out there I do think it has and will continue to inflict pain to the industry as a whole...The trend in cameras is smaller, lighter, cheaper, do everything with one push of a button, which in due time will automatically edit, produce multiple samples of a single image, save them remotely to your computer, and forward them to buying agents globally. How soon will it be before pocket size video cameras will capture anything you want and extract high quality pics that then do everything mentioned earlier?? Maybe then I can afford this traveling photography crack habit!!

Damn my head hurts...maybe I should switch to decaf !!

Mike
Visit My Website

7D Nauticam + Z240's

#6 Paul Kay

Paul Kay

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wales, UK

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:36 AM

In a word, 'no'.

The market is already awash with content regardless of source....

... and if those sources were as good as made out then we'd all be out of business already.

The reality is that there is a great deal more to making money out of photography than simply going out, taking images and selling them. This applies above and underwater and everywhere else.

One point raised seemed to indicate that it is now that the amateur market is more important to camera manufacturers that the professional market is. It always has been. There are more amateurs out there to buy equipment and they don't look on it as a tool which simply has to fulfill the right criteria to do the job.

Lastly though, I do have concerns about the way that pro photography is going. Too many photographic courses appear to lack photographic fundamentals as part of their curriculum and this is worrying because a broad spread of base knowledge still applies and is still usable when there are challenges requiring more knowledge than can be acquired from simply empirical usage of a digital camera. Understanding how a digital camera works is not enough to figure out how to use it in all situations, and understanding optics and the mechanics of how to get things to work together is important if techniques are to be driven forward. Suggesting that pro photography is simply a matter of using an automated camera as the clip did, is a very superficial view IMHO.
Paul Kay, Canon EOS5D/5DII, SEACAM/S45, 15, 24L, 60/2.8 (+Ext12II) & 100/2.8 Macros - UK/Ireland Seacam Sales underseacameras & marinewildlife & paulkayphotography & welshmarinefish

#7 John Bantin

John Bantin

    Sperm Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teddington/Twickenham UK
  • Interests:former Technical Editor of
    Diver Magazine (UK) and www.divernet.com
    occasional contributor
    SportDiver (Aus)
    Undercurrent
    Author of Amazing Diving Stories (Wiley Nautical)

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:53 AM

Photographs have never been worth anything once they exist. I made a great deal of money in the '80s by providing photographs that did not exist at the time I was briefed. It was sometimes difficult but we used to say "If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!"

Anyone can make a pleasant noise with a piano but can you make the noise a composer suggested?

The mark of a true professional is to come back with the perfect execution of a preconceived idea. Snaps have always been snaps. I now take mainly snaps underwater but occasionally I am briefed in advance. Intro pictures for group tests on www.divernet.com are a case in point. http://www.divernet....ar/group_tests/

Edited by John Bantin, 17 February 2011 - 09:54 AM.

I buy my own photographic kit. Diving equipment manufacturers and diving services suppliers get even-handed treatment from me whether they choose to advertise in the publications I write for or not. All the equipment I get on loan is returned as soon as it is finished with. Did you know you can now get Diver Mag as an iPad/Android app?

 

#8 Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas

    Humpback Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2842 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego
  • Interests:filming/editing/exotic travel. l write reviews of editing software, books, tutorials and Mac based NLE related products for the www.kenstone.net and www.lafcpug.org sites as well as articles for Asian Diver Magazine and wetpixel. I am one of the founding members of the San Diego UnderSea Film Festival

Posted 17 February 2011 - 01:32 PM

It is not the tool you use, but the tool who uses the tool that makes the difference. Don't I wish I could afford the latest and greatest cams but I get by with what I have.
Steve

www.kenstone.net
www.lafcpug.org

Steve Douglas
steve-sharksdelight@cox.net

I have worked as an unpaid reviewer for the editing websites since 2002. Most all hardware and software is sent to me free of charge, however, in no way am I obligated to provide either positive or negative evaluations. Any suggestions I make regarding products are a result of my own, completely, personal opinions and experiences with said products.


#9 photovan

photovan

    Great White

  • Moderator
  • 979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 17 February 2011 - 01:38 PM

.... The mark of a true professional is to come back with the perfect execution of a preconceived idea...


I'll second John's comments...

It's not about equipment or even artist talent, it's about application.

Throw any good photographer - paid or not - in front of an amazing situation or interesting subject and they will produce great results, each with their own interpretation.

But if you're handing out a concept, layout and brief that involves a defined outcome, a deadline ... plus the considerable costs of crew, travel and accommodation etc etc ... make sure you hand it to a pro. Please. Unfulfilled briefs, and worse, non-delivery gives photographers get a bad name.

Darren Jew  |  Australia  |  darrenjew.com  |  fotofrenzy.com.au

Canon EOS1Dx   |   EOSM   |   Nauticam  |   Inon Z240


#10 wizbowes

wizbowes

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2011 - 01:05 PM

It's not about equipment or even artist talent, it's about application.


I think it's about both artist talent and application. I know I'd never make it as be a pro as even if my application improved (as it will with practice) I don't have the vision of say an Alex Mustard or a Keri Wilk. My best hope is to recreate some of their shots someday - but their ability to constantly produce something new sets them apart IMHO. Sure a lot of it is about application - but lots of it is also about the artistic vision.

#11 meme.may.fire

meme.may.fire

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

Posted 17 March 2011 - 08:01 PM

its nice to see everyone from from the pros and amateurs alike sharing their experience and ideas.
the bottom line i see from this is:

1-Underwater photography is a far different from land photography. IMHO,a p&s underwater shooter is superior than the pros who are afraid of the sea. Nowadays, the scene is that everyone owned a dslr. But not everyone is brave enough to go 20m underwater.

2-Always have a camera with you. A good camera is the one you have it with you. When i started diving i saw this school of bumphead parrotfish at that time i was camera-less. I went there like 20-25 dives later, not a single sighting of it. My uncle is an instructor at an island and been there for decades. There is only one sighting of a whale shark there, and at that time, you guess it, he was also camera-less.
D7000 + 60mm D + Ikelite + Sola 800 + LaLuz 800 x2
Oly XZ1 + Pt50 + D2000

Casually Wet & Deep in Conversation
Vimeo Flickr YouTube

#12 decosnapper

decosnapper

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

Posted 17 March 2011 - 11:14 PM

2-Always have a camera with you. A good camera is the one you have it with you. When i started diving i saw this school of bumphead parrotfish at that time i was camera-less. I went there like 20-25 dives later, not a single sighting of it. My uncle is an instructor at an island and been there for decades. There is only one sighting of a whale shark there, and at that time, you guess it, he was also camera-less.


Whilst having a camera with you helps, it still only helps record the scene that is set before it.

Often, this has absolutely nothing to do with financial gain. Just because an whale shark sighting is rare at a given point in the ocean, does it mean anyone will want to actually pay for the rights to use the image? The world is awash with whale shark images, and there are many stunning examples. The best - in my view - are those created by photographers who went to the right place at the right time and there for the sole purpose of capturing whale shark behaviour on their sensor. These images are not opportunistic, but planned and envisaged often months or years in advance. Whilst not exclusive in the pro world, this is often a trait that sets a few apart from the rest.

That and an ability to market & promote the results with the intention of financial gain.

Edited by decosnapper, 18 March 2011 - 02:06 AM.

Simon Brown

www.simonbrownimages.com

#13 Damo

Damo

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland
  • Interests:Getting close to underwater aliens- and pulling the camera trigger

Posted 18 March 2011 - 01:49 AM

Lastly though, I do have concerns about the way that pro photography is going. Too many photographic courses appear to lack photographic fundamentals as part of their curriculum and this is worrying because a broad spread of base knowledge still applies and is still usable when there are challenges requiring more knowledge than can be acquired from simply empirical usage of a digital camera. Understanding how a digital camera works is not enough to figure out how to use it in all situations, and understanding optics and the mechanics of how to get things to work together is important if techniques are to be driven forward. Suggesting that pro photography is simply a matter of using an automated camera as the clip did, is a very superficial view IMHO.


Well Paul, if it's any small comfort, it's taking me alot more thought and practice to compose a 'picture'.
Just trawling thro' my image collection from 2010, both under the water and over...deleting the rubbish... and backing up the 'keepers'.....I'm still nowhere near taking perfect images :-D Maybe I do need to do a course!! :-DD

Thats why amateurs like me will often look to the pros-either via workshop, printed word, or on this forum- to help, guide, and inspire.

Edited by Damo, 18 March 2011 - 04:14 AM.

Nikon D200- Sea and Sea DX-D200, YS-90 Auto/Duo strobes: Nikon 60mm/105mm macro : Sigma 10-20mm wide, now also with added Tokina 10-17mm power.

'All animals are equal, tho' some animals are more equal than others.'-Comrade Napoleon

'If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets'- Gurney Halleck

Visit My Flickr Website

#14 meme.may.fire

meme.may.fire

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

Posted 18 March 2011 - 06:39 AM

Whilst having a camera with you helps, it still only helps record the scene that is set before it.

Often, this has absolutely nothing to do with financial gain. Just because an whale shark sighting is rare at a given point in the ocean, does it mean anyone will want to actually pay for the rights to use the image? The world is awash with whale shark images, and there are many stunning examples. The best - in my view - are those created by photographers who went to the right place at the right time and there for the sole purpose of capturing whale shark behaviour on their sensor. These images are not opportunistic, but planned and envisaged often months or years in advance. Whilst not exclusive in the pro world, this is often a trait that sets a few apart from the rest.

That and an ability to market & promote the results with the intention of financial gain.


then i guess that really defines the line between pros and amateurs.
Like the post before me, i need to take up a lot of courses, a lot of inspiration and a lot of help.
long way to go my friend =)

cheers
D7000 + 60mm D + Ikelite + Sola 800 + LaLuz 800 x2
Oly XZ1 + Pt50 + D2000

Casually Wet & Deep in Conversation
Vimeo Flickr YouTube