Reply To: Some Concerns of Mine

[nesgran]

Now one thing that really strikes me is that many of these people giving out the criticism have years and decades of experience as professional photographers but since they hide behind avatars we don’t see any links to examples of any of their work as examples of what exceptional or bona fide photography is.

Actually, most of us have posted our own images but this forum isn’t conducive to showing it easily. The second problem is how the haters of this page finds their way to your personal photography business. Don’t believe me? check out some posts by browneyedgirl. None of us have to prove ourselves as photographers. If we boast about our amazing photography skills and it turns out it is shit and you are still giving out advice there is a problem. Anyone else remember that thread I’m thinking of? If you want stunning photos no one needs to look further than say 500px or flickr explored. Most of these are going to be very good photos in various different categories.

Overall the impression I get is one of fear of and attempts to discourage competition from less experienced market entrants who can undercut prices in a tough economy. It’s the same train of thought as the long running rage against microstock . Yuri Arcurs for one has done very well out of microstock but any claim that he is not a professional photographer could not be taken seriously given the size of his business.

This is pretty silly I think. Of course most real photographers are feeling the squeeze from the hordes of fauxes that are out there. Problem for many of the people frequenting this site is that they are in the portrait/wedding business where fauxes roam free. What most of us have problems with are people who start up a photography business and don’t do it legally. There is no way to undercut as much as these people do if you pay taxes, it doesn’t add up. If you are paying your taxes but your photos are sub par, that is the clients problem. I personally have a problem with people who are advertising themselves as wedding or event photographers and don’t have the skills or the equipment to pull it off. It isn’t the end of the world (for a faux) if your client gets shoddy photos from their budoir session but if they have no decent photos from their wedding it breaks my heart.

Those of us that do more advertising are feeling it less but then there are fewer fauxes trying to break into there and most of them get shot down brutally anyway by editors etc. As for microstock, I can’t recall anyone saying anything bad about it as such, just that your shots weren’t great.

As for selective colouring, people want it and people will buy it. It is a bit like ugg boots, people want them but they look awful anyway. I was down in IKEA the other week and they have massive (probably 70×100″) red london bus in a black and white street and honestly it doesn’t look bad. Problem is when fauxs are using it as they are, it has ruined selective colour completely and it is starting to look very dated, think very heavy HDR for example