I'm shocked at what passes for professional photography?

[Throckmorton]

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.

blastingcap said to be creative so I posted my picture!

It's for Easter, no deaths recently

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

I don't want to hijack this thread talking about my picture, but I like open sky. Without enough sky, I get a claustrophobic feel. I think the horizon is pretty close to the golden ratio location, 60% up from the bottom edge (rule of thirds is an approximation of the golden ratio).

Since the sea is dark it would have been better to put the joint of the cross above the horizon, but I was standing above it on the stairs going down to the beach.

 

[blastingcap]

blastingcap said to be creative so I posted my picture!

It's for Easter, no deaths recently

I can see how you could interpret it that way but I meant for people in general it is easier to criticize, about anything (not just photography), and that if you feel like you can do better than these so-called pros, feel free to start your own photo studio.

 

[Throckmorton]

I can see how you could interpret it that way but I meant for people in general it is easier to criticize, about anything (not just photography), and that if you feel like you can do better than these so-called pros, feel free to start your own photo studio.

I think a lot of us think we can do better, but it's difficult to get started. Established photographers have a huge advantage. Skills are almost irrelevant, as shown by these horrible photographers who make a living with it.

I for one am going to try to get paid anyway. I ordered a Sony A35 and I'm going to pick up an old 70-300mm lens to try to sell surf and other sports photos for a few bucks, but I'm not that optimistic.

 

[Zaap]

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.

I was thinking the same thing.

I would bet most of her clients are very happy with the results and don't know/care much about the work being better.

Maybe some of this "why is someone else a 'pro' photographer' pondering comes down to personality? I'm guessing people with more likeable personalities get just as much if not more work than arrogant people who might take great shots but people can't stand having them at their important events. After all, letting someone photograph you can be pretty personal. Just a speculation.

 

[blastingcap]

I was thinking the same thing.

I would bet most of her clients are very happy with the results and don't know/care much about the work being better.

Maybe some of this "why is someone else a 'pro' photographer' pondering comes down to personality? I'm guessing people with more likeable personalities get just as much if not more work than arrogant people who might take great shots but people can't stand having them at their important events. After all, letting someone photograph you can be pretty personal. Just a speculation.

That is a good point. She is a reasonably attractive and friendly-looking person with a clean, clutter-free website.

Furthermore, not all professionals are of the finicky landscape variety. Many amateurs like myself *can* take stellar photos, but we can't consistently nail it under pressure. That's important for time-sensitive events like weddings. No second chances, no taking your time. Gotta be quick and accurate the first time.

To make an analogy, I'm not that bad of a shot with a pistol and given time to aim and lack of pressure, and as many tries as I wanted, I could hit just about any target. But could I do it under pressure, like during a shooting competition? Not likely.

That said, there are definitely some bad photographers posing as pro wedding photogs, too, but it's harder to fake.

 

[elitejp]

blastingcap said to be creative so I posted my picture!

It's for Easter, no deaths recently

Sometimes on this forum you never know. :$

 

[SilthDraeth]

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?

I like that photo. Sort of reminds me of the style used in the movie 300. But then I am not good at taken photos at all. And, I may like what you guys think is crap, I would probably like what you take pictures of also!

Below reminds me of most photo snobs, my brother included.

 

[finbarqs]

lol haha.. In a way, that's pretty true!