Low cost photography - raised

Some yes, agreed. Not all. And no mf won't improve your images but if you are good it opens up new avenues that would be inaccessible to anyone with crop format cameras.
The detail you can get with some mf is phenomenal though it has to be said.
I shoot with an olympus E3
Not a great camera in some respects but fantastic in others. but it suits me for what i am doing now. Olympus brand it, and now its successor the E5 as "pro" sure it may be their top line camera but i have never considered it to be so.
I wouldn't dream of working with anything less than full frame if i was to make a living,
I think this whole thread has wandered astray from the main topic, which is EVERYBODY thinks they are photographers now they can cheaply and easily take and edit images.
 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
Some yes, agreed. Not all. And no mf won't improve your images but if you are good it opens up new avenues that would be inaccessible to anyone with crop format cameras.
The detail you can get with some mf is phenomenal though it has to be said.
I shoot with an olympus E3
Not a great camera in some respects but fantastic in others. but it suits me for what i am doing now. Olympus brand it, and now its successor the E5 as "pro" sure it may be their top line camera but i have never considered it to be so.
I wouldn't dream of working with anything less than full frame if i was to make a living,
I think this whole thread has wandered astray from the main topic, which is EVERYBODY thinks they are photographers now they can cheaply and easily take and edit images.
Click to expand...


Well, its a lot easier and cheaper to capture an image NOW, than it was in the 70's. And that's my point!! NOT that everyone that owns an entry level camera is a professional.


Digital killed the Pro! I am talking about the family Portraits/snaps, aunt Ethel and her dog Brian (yes, BIG family guy fan) wanting a picture for the sidebored, Ethels more than happy with her Grandsons picture, so one less for the Pro!



As for gucci, porche, versace, vivien westward and rolex, well, its a different league. Im taking about cats and dogs and your talking Rolex and Versailles, caviar and Boll......s
 
Simon photo said:
Lmfao!
Easy tiger. I still disagree that digital killed the pro, just made it easier for amateurs to have a crack at the whip.
Click to expand...


So we sort of agree Simon, lol, clear the Checks, and have a go service mate.
 
Simon photo said:
Some yes, agreed. Not all. And no mf won't improve your images but if you are good it opens up new avenues that would be inaccessible to anyone with crop format cameras.
Click to expand...

And crop-format cameras open up avenues that are not accessible to MF.

The detail you can get with some mf is phenomenal though it has to be said.
Click to expand...

If you know how to use it. Cameras do not take photographs.

I shoot with an olympus E3
Not a great camera in some respects but fantastic in others. but it suits me for what i am doing now. Olympus brand it, and now its successor the E5 as "pro" sure it may be their top line camera but i have never considered it to be so.
Click to expand...

A camera cannot be `pro`. Or `amateur`. A camera is a tool. It does not have a job.

I wouldn't dream of working with anything less than full frame if i was to make a living,
Click to expand...

I seriously suggest that you do not try to enter the field of professional photography until you have learned rather more about the subject.

I think this whole thread has wandered astray from the main topic, which is EVERYBODY thinks they are photographers now they can cheaply and easily take and edit images.
Click to expand...

No, the opening post reads:

Just saw interesting tweet from a magazine posing a question -


PhotoProUK Photo Professional
Debate topic: Is low-cost photography killing our industry, or enhancing it? #proQ
Click to expand...

What would you say is the answer?
 
Digital enabled amateurs to take a lot more shots without the D&P cost that many Pro's had to take to learn their craft. So it is the experimental cost that has made an impact, add that to auto exposure, auto focus, and we are a long way from where I was shooting 35mm back in the 1960's on. Most half competent users can take a shot they consider worth framing for Auntie Flo or even someone elses Auntie Flo at an affordable cost, so the pressure is bound to be on Pro's who want to charge £15 for a 10x8. Having said that, there are probably billions of rubbish shots around, I know I have some of my own :D taken by those who don't have a clue, and creativity is a matter of sheer luck.
 
I have a pro camera and lenses but I was told the other day I can't take a photo to save my life :)
 
jon ryan said:
A camera cannot be `pro`. Or `amateur`. A camera is a tool. It does not have a job.
Click to expand...

This

If you read 'life in the wild' by andy rouse theres a bit in there where he's shooting with a canon D30 (because both his film cameras have died) - The D30 was an incredibly basic Canon DSLR with a spec considerably less than an entry level DSLR has today (3mp sensor for example) and yet he was using it for a pro commision job shooting jumping dolphins.

Sure the pro level cameras are broadly those used routinely by pros (like the 1D4 etc) but owning one doesnt make you a pro if you can't shoot - and by the same token an experienced tog will get better shots with the most basic of cameras than a no nothing with top spec kit
 
big soft moose said:
This

If you read 'life in the wild' by andy rouse theres a bit in there where he's shooting with a canon D30 (because both his film cameras have died) - The D30 was an incredibly basic Canon DSLR with a spec considerably less than an entry level DSLR has today (3mp sensor for example) and yet he was using it for a pro commision job shooting jumping dolphins.
Click to expand...

Awww! Canon D30! My first digital press camera was a D30. Weighed a ton, shutter lag you need a calender for, about 2.5 fps on a good day, stopped at the first sign of damp in the air - and we were expected to shoot sports with them.

And we did. :)
 
Exactly - its the ability that maketh the shots not the gear

Of course good gear helps but if a D30 can do it the right hands something like a 20D certainly can ( I know at least one guy who is still working with a 1dmk1 , the 4mp model )
 
artyman said:
Digital enabled amateurs to take a lot more shots without the D&P cost that many Pro's had to take to learn their craft. So it is the experimental cost that has made an impact, add that to auto exposure, auto focus, and we are a long way from where I was shooting 35mm back in the 1960's on. Most half competent users can take a shot they consider worth framing for Auntie Flo or even someone elses Auntie Flo at an affordable cost, so the pressure is bound to be on Pro's who want to charge £15 for a 10x8. Having said that, there are probably billions of rubbish shots around, I know I have some of my own :D taken by those who don't have a clue,
Click to expand...
I agree with allof that
artyman said:
and creativity is a matter of sheer luck.
Click to expand...
But that's sheer nonsense. The idea that a great photographer is lucky is as much nonsense as a great footballer, writer or guitarist being lucky. We get better with practice and knowledge The old adage 'The more I practice, the luckier I get' is true.
 
Simon photo said:
I wouldn't dream of working with anything less than full frame if i was to make a living,
.
Click to expand...

so the 1Dmk4 (with its 1.3 crop) isnt a suitable camera for a proffesional then ? :suspect: - theres a lot of press , sports, and wildlife photographers who'd disagree
 
i'm afraid to say even some of the 'pros' are duffers.

because photography is an art, being a professional is actually a pretty meaningless designation.

there is a fairly well known wedding photographer around here who gets a lot of work (i know this because i see the previews appear in the facebook group and i've been to at least two weddings she's covered) and the photographs are mostly poor, just snaps, no pop, and look underexposed (probably because they are shot on auto, but i can't confirm because there is no exif on the images from facebook).

but the thing is, she charges £200-300 a wedding, not the £1200+ you'd expect to pay for a pro.

but even then, i've seen the wedding photos from a professional photographer, from kodak weddings - i think the couple paid the best part of £2000 (this is going back about 5 years now) where the photographs were just awful (think harsh shadows, bright green fire exit signs, radiators, fire extinguishers and other stuff coming out heads etc) and it's horror stories like this where the difference between the enthusiast and professional might not be so apparent:

if your average couple sees a set of photos from a photographer which costs £2000 and another set from a photographer that cost £200 and if there isn't much difference between the two, the £200 photographer is going to seem an awesome talent and good value and a lot of couples are indeed willing to sacrifice artistic quality for just snaps documenting the day, it's said but true.
 
Simon photo said:
Wasn't it Bailey who replied to the statement, "give a monkey a camera it will eventually get one good photo, the difference is i will get two"
Click to expand...

So bailey is only twice as good as a monkey then lol
 
cuthbert said:
i'm afraid to say even some of the 'pros' are duffers.

because photography is an art, being a professional is actually a pretty meaningless designation.

there is a fairly well known wedding photographer around here who gets a lot of work (i know this because i see the previews appear in the facebook group and i've been to at least two weddings she's covered) and the photographs are mostly poor, just snaps, no pop, and look underexposed (probably because they are shot on auto, but i can't confirm because there is no exif on the images from facebook).

but the thing is, she charges £200-300 a wedding, not the £1200+ you'd expect to pay for a pro.

but even then, i've seen the wedding photos from a professional photographer, from kodak weddings - i think the couple paid the best part of £2000 (this is going back about 5 years now) where the photographs were just awful (think harsh shadows, bright green fire exit signs, radiators, fire extinguishers and other stuff coming out heads etc) and it's horror stories like this where the difference between the enthusiast and professional might not be so apparent:

if your average couple sees a set of photos from a photographer which costs £2000 and another set from a photographer that cost £200 and if there isn't much difference between the two, the £200 photographer is going to seem an awesome talent and good value and a lot of couples are indeed willing to sacrifice artistic quality for just snaps documenting the day, it's said but true.
Click to expand...

LoL a mate of mine had a seriously expensive (as in four figures) proffesional on his big day who totally screwed the pooch - blown whites, no detail at all in the brides dress, over exposed faces, underexposed faces, red eye you name it - real chimp with a camera stuff

They complained vigourously and got the fee back , but ellected not to have all the hassle of suing for restage costs

we put a wedding album together for them out of the various shots taken by guests with DSLRs

On another occasion my mate james had an expensive proffesional who managed to drop the CF card with about half the shots on it down a drain grid in the car park (again we had to cover the gap with uncle bob shots)
 
What is a pro? As far as I'm aware we all do the same thing - make pictures :)

-J
 
Amateurs do that as well. I'd say a pro is anyone who...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Sorry, nodded off.
 
difference between me and uncle bob...

I am paid to get the shot, right, first time, every time, without fuss, and then deliver a substantive body of work, no mater what

For sure your average uncle bob can float in and take a handful of stunning images in a day, but that's usually the limit of it
 
Same old tp argument. If you are a good photographer you'll get paid well. That's it really. Crying about people who 'don't charge right' is silly. They set their prices, people pay and are happy. It's not really anyone else's concern.

It is always funny to see the crying though :)
 
When does someone go from being an amateur where you, as the customer, are sacrificing quality for cost, to someone entering the market who can provide you with quality at a lower cost in order to build a reputation and a working portfolio?

In answer to the op, no I don't think the lower cost of digital is killing the industry - it's astonishing how many people cannot even get a half decent shot with a very capable camera. The Uncle Bobs will be at every wedding but not in a paid capacity and if a client is prepared to pay £200 for mediocre shots then they were never really in the running for a pro anyway. Maybe these people, people like me, are filling a gap.

I have booked a wedding recently, it will actually be the first I have charged for and am charging £350 for the full day coverage with a DVD. It will seem like peanuts to some but over-priced to others but the couple are happy with my style of photography and are comfortable enough with me. I also noticed another newbie locally advertising their services and charging less than I plan to, but I checked them out and we are very different so people who are interested in them probably wouldn't be interested in me - I can live with that, variety is the spice of life or so they say :)
 
Iris said:
When does someone go from being an amateur where you, as the customer, are sacrificing quality for cost, to someone entering the market who can provide you with quality at a lower cost in order to build a reputation and a working portfolio?

In answer to the op, no I don't think the lower cost of digital is killing the industry - it's astonishing how many people cannot even get a half decent shot with a very capable camera. The Uncle Bobs will be at every wedding but not in a paid capacity and if a client is prepared to pay £200 for mediocre shots then they were never really in the running for a pro anyway. Maybe these people, people like me, are filling a gap.

I have booked a wedding recently, it will actually be the first I have charged for and am charging £350 for the full day coverage with a DVD. It will seem like peanuts to some but over-priced to others but the couple are happy with my style of photography and are comfortable enough with me. I also noticed another newbie locally advertising their services and charging less than I plan to, but I checked them out and we are very different so people who are interested in them probably wouldn't be interested in me - I can live with that, variety is the spice of life or so they say :)
Click to expand...

The thing with price is a red herring. If you have another job, your hobby is photography, you have a pile of nice gear, you may feel that charging a few hundred quid seems reasonable

When you make your living from photography, suddenly economics dictate the fact that you cant afford to make a few hundred quid from a wedding
 
POAH = "I think you live in a time bubble - very few people will use film because of the cost. difital has surpased MF film now anyway - only a fool would use it 2

Prolab in Oxford downsized 2 year back to be a digitsl lab. He had to keep the film processor as 40% YES! 405 of pros are still using 120 film & E6.

Large fridge full of it. sells none stop.

Gandhi? Tell me about it? we are trying to short list for 2 photographer posts and some send one liners and others do not read the brief correctly. Early strts and driving essential!!!

Love to see how someone in London with lug Camera cases/Lightstand case/Bowens 4 head case. 9ft x20ft roll vinyl around on public transort?
 
Last edited:
Richard King said:
difference between me and uncle bob...

I am paid to get the shot, right, first time, every time, without fuss, and then deliver a substantive body of work, no mater what

For sure your average uncle bob can float in and take a handful of stunning images in a day, but that's usually the limit of it
Click to expand...

I've got no doubt you can do that, Richard, but why so threatened by WW's and UB's?
 
Iris said:
When does someone go from being an amateur where you, as the customer, are sacrificing quality for cost, to someone entering the market who can provide you with quality at a lower cost in order to build a reputation and a working portfolio?
Click to expand...

My view is that if they are charging at all then they arent an amateur - this is the view shared by C&R if you are charging then you are in business as a photographer (aka proffesional).

the difference between bargain basement and elite service is a duiifferent question - its like poundland vs harrods - both are proffesional retail outlets but the quality and cost is dramatically different.
 
Richard King said:
The thing with price is a red herring. If you have another job, your hobby is photography, you have a pile of nice gear, you may feel that charging a few hundred quid seems reasonable
Click to expand...

Not really - loads of pro photographers also have other jobs - Andy for example also works as a doorman - does that mean he isnt a proffesional ?

Come to that lots of WW provide a very proffesional service , and can provide the shots no matter what just like a full timer - the fact that they are working part time or have other employment as well has no bearing on their ability to do the job.
 
malo50 said:
I've got no doubt you can do that, Richard, but why so threatened by WW's and UB's?
Click to expand...

Im not threatened. If a bride wants uncle bob, they pay uncle bob prices. They vote with their feet. I cant afford to drop my prices to a silly low level, so I am not even going to pursue that end of the market.

I do however find it remarkable on a forum of people interested in photography that many don't value it. If I worked as a full time Optician. I would expect to earn 25K+ If I worked as a full time Insurance broker, I would expect to earn 25K+ etc. etc... Why should one not expect to earn 25K+ as a full time photographer? I would earn that if I worked for a studio, or as a photographer in the Police force, or the NHS, or as a employed press photographer, so why not as a wedding photographer?
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
My view is that if they are charging at all then they arent an amateur - this is the view shared by C&R if you are charging then you are in business as a photographer (aka proffesional).

the difference between bargain basement and elite service is a duiifferent question - its like poundland vs harrods - both are proffesional retail outlets but the quality and cost is dramatically different.
Click to expand...
My sentiment exactly with my caviar comment.
Also, if film is dead then how come i can't buy a bronica etrsi with all the trimmings for less that 300 sheets? And see them sold every day on the bay? Who is this crazy fool buying up all the nice cameras lol
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Not really - loads of pro photographers also have other jobs - Andy for example also works as a doorman - does that mean he isnt a proffesional ?

Come to that lots of WW provide a very proffesional service , and can provide the shots no matter what just like a full timer - the fact that they are working part time or have other employment as well has no bearing on their ability to do the job.
Click to expand...

I feel you have missed my point

I don't give a monkeys who is doing the shooting. I just noted at one end of the scale, you have people who earn good money doing something else, and don't have any financial pressure to earn a living from an individual job, hence they can charge a few hundred quid.

At the other, you have the chap who literally will or wont eat, if he charges a unsustainably low price.

Brides make a choice - that's blunt market forces and economics. I am not going to make an impact on it, so...


As a self employed photographer...
IF
I don't provide a product and service at a price people are prepared to pay
AND...
The money I then make after costs isn't enough to support my family
THEN
I'm bust



WHEREAS
IF
I have a full time job that pays the bills & supports my hobby
AND
I shoot a wedding for £200
OR
If I dont shoot any weddings at all
THEN
I will still be in a job and I will still pay the bills

HOWEVER
If the whole world run like the second scenario, nothing will get done, nothing would get developed, the world as we know it would come to a grinding halt. We accept we all need jobs, we accept we all pay for goods and services, and we accept that there are always going to be 2 prices - the real price and the underground price. Yes it makes business a little more challenging, but ultimatally, the low prices are unsustainable, which is why people charging the real price are still there, will always be there etc. etc.

Same applies to anything - car mechanics, decorators, photographers, cake makers etc.
 
Last edited:
so you think only pros send film into get developed then :cuckoo:


Daryl said:
POAH = "I think you live in a time bubble - very few people will use film because of the cost. difital has surpased MF film now anyway - only a fool would use it 2

Prolab in Oxford downsized 2 year back to be a digitsl lab. He had to keep the film processor as 40% YES! 405 of pros are still using 120 film & E6.

Large fridge full of it. sells none stop.

Gandhi? Tell me about it? we are trying to short list for 2 photographer posts and some send one liners and others do not read the brief correctly. Early strts and driving essential!!!

Love to see how someone in London with lug Camera cases/Lightstand case/Bowens 4 head case. 9ft x20ft roll vinyl around on public transort?
Click to expand...
 
Daryl said:
Doh!!!!!! Never said said that.... I have not used film since 2001 but thare are many who do.....

You said 'Only a fool would use it!''

Do you have any friends left? You are always Poking the Bear!!!
Click to expand...

I still shoot some film too. mainly for pleasure, often a roll or two at a wedding too
 
Daryl said:
Doh!!!!!! Never said said that.... I have not used film since 2001 but thare are many who do.....

You said 'Only a fool would use it!''

Do you have any friends left? You are always Poking the Bear!!!
Click to expand...

Large (300+) school/group photographers for one. Maybe it's about time that you dusted off your LF & Wetplates! :D

Mind you if you're going into that Market you either have to buy or hire in a shed load of tiered seating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top