I'm shocked at what passes for professional photography?

[Arkitech]

I was just randomly looking at various photo galleries and came across this one. What's remarkable is this person apparently has had a number of clients.

More examples of the horror found here




Edit: I hope this post does'nt make me come off as snarky, but I was just honestly surprised that some clients don't demand a higher level of quality.

 

[Arkitech]

Couple of interesting links

http://www.pixiq.com/article/top-10-signs-of-a-bad-photographer

http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/

These might be some of the worst examples of professional photography evar

I'm praying they did'nt pay for this last photo, then again it may be worth the money.

 

[nboy22]

I agree that these are all really bad examples of "pro photography." Although, I do see people posting this same question/statement on other forums, but I've actually seen some decent photography and people are calling it crap. It seems very subjective when listening to other peoples opinions on the topic of "pro photography."

So, I would like to know what other people think. When does one start becoming a pro? Obviously you can have expensive equipment and shoot like crap, or you can shoot pretty well but not have a vast amount of expensive equipment. Does one only consider someone a pro when they have vast amounts of L-glass (or nikon equivalent to L-glass) and the vast majority on forums says their pictures are good? I'm interested to know everyones thoughts as to when someone makes the transition from amateur to pro.

 

[Arkitech]

]A few more gems for the collection

Last one was just silly

 

[Arkitech]

I agree that these are all really bad examples of "pro photography." Although, I do see people posting this same question/statement on other forums, but I've actually seen some decent photography and people are calling it crap. It seems very subjective when listening to other peoples opinions on the topic of "pro photography."

I agree with that, I've some really good pictures get slammed as being horrible photography. I guess the bottom line is pleasing the client. However in many cases the customer is not always right..

 

[Arkitech]

I really need to get some work done around the house, but I can't resist. I must post more.


The next set is courtesy of http://youarenotaphotographer.com/

 

[Arkitech]

Professional Myspace Photographer - Shefflied Quigley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hK0r5LCs3DY#!

 

[Arkitech]

One more for the road

http://weddingpros.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/top-20-worst-wedding-photos/

 

[blastingcap]

I was just randomly looking at various photo galleries and came across this one. What's remarkable is this person apparently has had a number of clients.

Some clients actually like blown out photos and such too. Whatever.

Note that many "professional" photographers actually lose money even if they have nice websites and quotes or whatever. They don't bring enough clients to pay the bills... or maybe have zero clients who aren't related by blood. Like any small business, there is a lot of churn with people giving up after several years and new entrants taking their place.

 

[corkyg]

All "professional" means is that the person gets paid for the work. Photography can be very subjective. Goodness or badness is often dictated by the customer. There's an age old debate that exists between "professional" and "amateur." "Amateur" literally means that the person does it for the love of doing it - not for the need to get paid. It does not necessarily reflect quality of work or product. Popular usage seems to suggest that it does.

 

[jacqg]

Ahahaha these are funny shots. But ^ good point +1.

 

[BradleyJ]

Yes, the photos that are posted in this thread (or most of them) are not very aesthetic and some are even gross. But that doesn't mean the people that purchased them are not happy with them. Of course happy doesn't mean they think what they have gotten is professional photo. In my opinion when we talk about "professional" - no matter if it refers to photography, graphic or other design - it is a matter of expressing an idea. I mean you may not have the best photography tools but if you manage to express your idea, a concept not just a randomly shot object then you are a pro.

 

[xj0hnx]

It seems very subjective when listening to other peoples opinions on the topic of "pro photography."

It is, and it isn't. There are somethings that are necessary, like images being in focus, and exposed properly, the subject matter, composition, and vision are subjective, but the core elements aren't really.

When does one start becoming a pro?

When you get paid for your work.

Obviously you can have expensive equipment and shoot like crap, or you can shoot pretty well but not have a vast amount of expensive equipment. Does one only consider someone a pro when they have vast amounts of L-glass (or nikon equivalent to L-glass) and the vast majority on forums says their pictures are good? I'm interested to know everyones thoughts as to when someone makes the transition from amateur to pro.

Equipment doesn't mean someone is, or make someone a pro, I've used lenses that are worth more than my car, and I am not pro. Professional photographer is just that, someone who's profession is making photographs.

 

[Throckmorton]

A few posts are talking about subjectiveness. Art is only subjective to a point. There's also craftsmanship and objective measures of aesthetic things like composition and lighting. For example if lighting is bad and you have weird looking shadows, and it's because you neglected to light properly rather than going for some artistic effect, that's just bad craftsmanship which can be objectively judged.


Just because your business is successful doesn't mean your craftsmanship is good. Look at all the people who buy poorly built houses.

 

[elitejp]

^ Everyone is different and thats just the way it is. Due to reading and learning about photography one of the basic "rules" is not to use direct on camera flash due to it just being too harsh. I proceeded to follow that advice and tried to never use it. Believe it or not my friend was looking at some pics of herself that i had taken and basically the ones that used direct flash were the ones she liked the best. lol. Whats the moral? Who knows, maybe that garbage photo you just took is actually artistic genius and you could be a millionaire!


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/11/most-expensive-photo-world/44772/

 

[Throckmorton]

Sometimes when you take awkward, pretentious pictures, it's considered "artistic".

http://www.npr.org/blogs/picturesho...7/not-your-average-prom-portraits?sc=fb&cc=fp

But note the fawning comments on the article. Now look at the comments on Facebook. Almost everyone saw right through the emperor's new clothes in this case
https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/201202459991707

 

[Throckmorton]

A professional photographer here on Maui named Peter Liu posted this. Classic HDR taken way way too far. Why is this guy a professional but not me?

 

[blastingcap]

A professional photographer here on Maui named Peter Liu posted this. Classic HDR taken way way too far. Why is this guy a professional but not me?

It's always easier to criticize than to be creative yourself. Yes his photo looks garish, but there might actually be a market for such photos. If you can do better, then do better. If I made bad photos but made fun of others' even-worse photos, I still have not elevated myself.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's always easier to criticize than to be creative yourself. Yes his photo looks garish, but there might actually be a market for such photos. If you can do better, then do better. If I made bad photos but made fun of others' even-worse photos, I still have not elevated myself.

Here's one I took yesterday. So far it's popular with Christians

 

[blastingcap]

Here's one I took yesterday. So far it's popular with Christians

snip

I am not calling you or anyone else out, just thought that your calling out a professional photographer by name, however bad his work might be (and I agree with you that the HDR was way over the top by my tastes), was a little rude. (Notice that the fauxtography humor sites black out the names of the photographers/studios they make fun of.)

You asked yourself why you aren't a pro and I answered. Market yourself then if you think you're good. And by "you" I mean everybody. It's a general statement not directed to anyone in particular.

 

[elitejp]

You know Throck i wouldnt be to surprised if someone drowned there recently and thats why a cross was put up. On the other hand it could have been an easter celebration. Either way I dotn really nderstand what your post is supposed to add to this thread.

 

[ronbo613]

All "professional" means is that the person gets paid for the work.

Bingo.

You do what the customer wants, they pay you = professional.

Do what you want = artist/enthusiast.

 

[shortylickens]

http://www.vickibarrettphoto.com/

 

[blastingcap]

http://www.vickibarrettphoto.com/

Her flash photography is shockingly bad for a wedding photographer, and the non-flash photos are hit or miss, but I've seen worse, and she's got some good ones in there. Not sure why you'd single her out.

 

[finbarqs]

A professional photographer here on Maui named Peter Liu posted this. Classic HDR taken way way too far. Why is this guy a professional but not me?

it's hard to object a very subjective field. If I were to criticize this, the over processing is probably not to my tastes. But it may be for the client? Maybe people "love" that type of "art-painting" style.

Without all that processing, the photo may just be plain. However, if I were to compare it to your photo with the cross, he has a stronger composition than you do. You split the horizon down the middle, leaving you too much sky (empty space). That's all fine and dandy if you have something to show in the sky, so I think what would make your photo stronger if you would crop down. Now there are pictures by the famous galen rowell, and other landscape photographers that leave a huge sky open such as yours.

However, your subject, ocean and cross and boat with the sand is a complete contrast to the open sky, and makes it much busier than the serene sky.

You can argue and defend your image all you like, but this is just my personal opinion. I'm not making any money on my landscape work, so it's just subjective.

What maybe awesome to you, may not be to the next person.