Is post production more important than Gear?

bartjeej said:
This is pretty much what I had in mind... it's not a big change, like I said, I think the direction of the energy in this crop is a bit more defined, but I dunno if you agree :tongue:

dsc01947-6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Here, for comparison's sake, the original photo as edited by you:
dsc01947-6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Click to expand...

I would even crop a bit more boldly:
dsc01947-6.jpg
 
wok64 said:
There´s an obvious difference between what helps most to improve and what is most fun. For us hobbyists there is nothing wrong to buy new gear just for the fun of it. I should have added this to my list of differences between a pro and an amateur. A pro has to be profitable otherwise he will go out of business. An amateur has a different source of income and therefore can afford to just play around with gear he doesn´t really need. There are a lot of different ways to enjoy photography, collecting gear is one of them.

Wolfgang
Click to expand...

I hate when people bring up remote exceptions to statements, but ... As a blanket statement, this isn't necessarily true ... a lot of pros are on salary, so no profit motive there. I think that a non-salary pro is nearly forced to purchase expensive gear because of client expectations (if they're dealing with the general public a client would be disappointed if the photog shows up with a "soccer Mom" camera). Many pros forced to get expensive stuff just to add further separation from the interchangeable lens cameras use by the general interchangeable lens camera toting public ... like a 300mm f/2.8 or a Fisheye.

I think a pro buys equipment for similar reasons non-pros buy equipment, to expand their capabilities and to make it easier and with greater consistency to capture the exceptional image. (Not that equipment needs any justification other than "I want it", but maybe a pro can better justify a purchase. I think many non-pros buy equipment thinking that it is a short-cut to excellence. Many look at the images on Flickr for a particularly expensive piece of equipment and think, man, if I had that camera/lens I too could take photos like this ... not realizing that most photogs spending serious bucks on serious equipment are serious photographers, with a hundred thousand+ images in their back pocket building up to the purchase of that camera/lens and the image they're admiring.

There is no substitute for experience.

Gary
 
Gosh, such a small and bold crop and all these messages flying around :grouphug: for rolling hats - :rolleyes: - well cool to see that it drives interest thanks all :)
 
john m flores said:
[I can't sleep, so I guess I'll wade in these waters...]

There are a number of things that separate the work of the working pros from the rest. Here are my $.02, with the most important things on top:

Purpose
Pros have assignments - either given to them or given to themselves. Sometimes they are mundane - photograph the opening of a new store, photograph a new car, etc... And sometimes they are not - cover a war, cover a speech by a noteworthy politician, go to a remote wilderness and capture epic sunrises/sunsets/etc. Guess which ones make it into print and into their portfolios?

When they go on these assignments, that's their sole purpose. They're not going with the family and trying to sneak in some photography. They're not going to the local park for a walk and hoping to stumble upon an epic shot. Can you get a really nice photo this way? Yes. Can you get a great photo? Not consistently, and you often need some luck/good fortune.
Click to expand...

I have to take issue with these statements many times the mundane assignments can provide opportunities to shoot something personal, adding to the portfolio.
What some photographers find to be mundane assignments and what others think are exciting are many times at odds with each other.

Also if one is looking and good at their craft, great images can be found anywhere, from out with the family to alone self assignments to very large production shoots.
Being a pro really only means that when one is getting paid for the images, one has to deliver what you were hired for, being a great photographer does not mean one has to get paid. Again it is all comes down to being able to see.
 
IMO there is truth in what both you guys state and that the statements of both are not mutually exclusive. Yes, you can get mundane assignments, in those you gotta really muster up the creative juices in order to photograph a store opening that people will stop and view ... and there are assignments like war, which contains such a high level of impact that it is hard not to get an exceptional photo.

While images can be found everywhere (and, BTW it is our jobs as photographers to see and capture them), some things like family vacations with children just doesn't mix well with photography and one has to prioritize family time with photo time.


My take on the Pro label is that I feel that "Pro" designates a level of skill, consistency and quality, and said label is earned. I don't feel that a tax code, financial statement, web site or card is a qualifier for professional status. (I'd like to think the consideration of your peers as a qualifier for "professional" and not a statement by one's accountant.)

Gary
 
Gary said:
My take on the Pro label is that I feel that "Pro" designates a level of skill, consistency and quality, and said label is earned. I don't feel that a tax code, financial statement, web site or card is a qualifier for professional status. (I'd like to think the consideration of your peers as a qualifier for "professional" and not a statement by one's accountant.)

Gary
Click to expand...

While I would like to agree with you on this, for me I find more often than not the definition for most any Pro means they are making a living at it, regardless of their talent. Obviously if they can not produce the work normally dries up.

What I meant was, one does not have to make a living at photography to be very good at some form of it, more in the vain of artist than technologist. For years I have coached people who are having a tough time at selling either themselves or their work to keep shooting and find their art, their vision.
 
Landshark said:
... What I meant was, one does not have to make a living at photography to be very good at some form of it, more in the vain of artist than technologist. For years I have coached people who are having a tough time at selling either themselves or their work to keep shooting and find their art, their vision.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was my point as well ... 'cept I like to use "pro" as a judgement of skill and expertise, not as an accounting term. Just because you wrangled making a living at photography, and by accounting you may technically be a professional photog ... doesn't necessarily mean you have professional photo skills and expertise. And conversely ... what you said.

Gary
 
Landshark said:
I have to take issue with these statements many times the mundane assignments can provide opportunities to shoot something personal, adding to the portfolio.
What some photographers find to be mundane assignments and what others think are exciting are many times at odds with each other.

Also if one is looking and good at their craft, great images can be found anywhere, from out with the family to alone self assignments to very large production shoots.
Being a pro really only means that when one is getting paid for the images, one has to deliver what you were hired for, being a great photographer does not mean one has to get paid. Again it is all comes down to being able to see.
Click to expand...

Gary said:
IMO there is truth in what both you guys state and that the statements of both are not mutually exclusive. Yes, you can get mundane assignments, in those you gotta really muster up the creative juices in order to photograph a store opening that people will stop and view ... and there are assignments like war, which contains such a high level of impact that it is hard not to get an exceptional photo.

While images can be found everywhere (and, BTW it is our jobs as photographers to see and capture them), some things like family vacations with children just doesn't mix well with photography and one has to prioritize family time with photo time.


My take on the Pro label is that I feel that "Pro" designates a level of skill, consistency and quality, and said label is earned. I don't feel that a tax code, financial statement, web site or card is a qualifier for professional status. (I'd like to think the consideration of your peers as a qualifier for "professional" and not a statement by one's accountant.)

Gary
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything that is being said. Yes, great photos can be found anywhere, even at a store opening. And those great photos can be taken by so-called pros and so-called amateurs. Sometimes a photographer will luck into something - even while on vacation with the family. But luck is not a good business plan for a pro or a good strategy for an amateur wanting to be a better photographer.

A good photographer - pro or amateur - will willfully put themselves in a situation and a mindset where they will look for something memorable - in even the most mundane place - and won't leave it be until they think that they've caught something. That is the PURPOSE that I am talking about, and I'm also simply pointing out that pros often have better portfolios simply because they've put themselves in more PURPOSEful situations. It's a numbers game.

By no means am I suggesting that all pros are better than all amateurs simply because they pay the bills with their cameras. I know plenty of very fine amateurs that are better than so-called pros. If anything, I know of pros whose senses have been dulled over time, for whom photography has transmogrified from a calling to a job.

Funny anecdote - one of the favorite compliments I've received was from a story I did in Kansas. I was out riding a Harley Davidson Heritage Softtail and eating barbecue and taking photos. After it was published, one guy online wrote that the photography was good because I managed to make the mostly flat straight roads of Kansas look interesting. It was good to hear that someone recognized how hard I worked in 95+ degree heat to make sure I got interesting shots.
 
John, again, we are on the same page. I often feel that it was the situation that made the shot, not my skills. And that if any one of us on this forum was in the same situation as I, that 'any one of us' would have walked away with something similar/equal to my photo(s).

Gary
 
Gary said:
John, again, we are on the same page. I often feel that it was the situation that made the shot, not my skills. And that if any one of us on this forum was in the same situation as I, that 'any one of us' would have walked away with something similar/equal to my photo(s).

Gary
Click to expand...

This introduces the notion of "personal style" which in my opinion is even more difficult to attain than profound photographic skills. For sure 99.9% of images on this planet could have been captured by just anyone. The 0.1% you can immediately assign to a specific photographer are on a completely different level. Only few of us can hope to get there.
 
Gary said:
My take on the Pro label is that I feel that "Pro" designates a level of skill, consistency and quality, and said label is earned. I don't feel that a tax code, financial statement, web site or card is a qualifier for professional status. (I'd like to think the consideration of your peers as a qualifier for "professional" and not a statement by one's accountant.)

Gary
Click to expand...

One of the points I was trying to make is the importance of an improvement loop which involves getting honest feedback. Unfortunately most of us have the tendency to surround ourselves with people who share our own opinions and look at the world with similar eyes. Therefore unfortunately the consideration of your peers about your level of skill may be quite deceptive. I remember how I took place in a photo competition in the 90s. Based on my own judgement and those of my peers I was convinced to end up among the winners. In fact at that time I produced meaningless postcards (still doing so ...) and I found myself embarrased when my "master pieces" got some quite mediocre ratings. After some further attempts I realized the root cause wasn´t the ignorance of the judges but my own ... We won´t improve by stewing in our own juice.

Wolfgang
 

Similar threads

pniev
    • Like
There is more than Golf
Replies
9
Views
1K
aKilter
aKilter
mnhoj
    • Like
More than...
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
mnhoj
mnhoj
bilzmale
    • Like
More than 50 years ago.
Replies
7
Views
625
Petach
P
Back
Top