I found a website (not mine) and wondered if you experienced shooters could give an opinion.

Here is the "Investment"....

http://melindafaithphotography.zenfo...stment-options

And here is the product....

http://melindafaithphotography.zenfo...5275#h164e4854

Just curious.

I think that is seriously floral wallpaper :)

Extortion. I can't believe people pick up a camera and just start charging people because they press the shutter button. It irritates me to no end.

So why exactly are you posting this? Is this in any relation to you or what you have experienced?

Are there people like this out there that would quickly jump into this industry? yes. Are there people willing to go for this? Yes. Are there people who want images, but just can't afford it? Yes.

My thoughts on this, is that as this industry is extremely competitive, care about your own work and pay heed to your own artistic vision.

Originally Posted by Moogle Pepper My thoughts on this, is that as this industry is extremely competitive, care about your own work and pay heed to your own artistic vision.

My exact thought.

Originally Posted by moogle pepper my thoughts on this, is that as this industry is extremely competitive, care about your own work and pay heed to your own artistic vision.

+1

My thoughts are, no offense, that it is not very polite to talk about people behind their back, for one.

It is however still productive to talk about the industry situation in general, in which subject I will comment that every opportunity I get I encourage people to only ever hire a photographer that can show consistently, job after job after job, that they deliver stunning results. The industry is absolutely overflowing right now, at all skill levels. That is my only real nugget of advice though. Hire based on personal recommendation, and not "oh I have a friend who is a photographer", but "oh so-and-so photographed MY wedding, and I'm thrilled with the photos"...

And so on and so forth.

=Matt=

I did not have any intention of "talking behind someones back". I am sorry if that is what has been implied.

I just wanted to give an example of what I have seen as the "dumbing down" of the art of photography in general. I am sure we have all seen it as "Photographers" post photos, of rather poor quality, on FB and Flickr and such, only to be told "great pictures" by a couple dozen people. And I am not talking about everyday folks that post pics of their kids & cats, but rather people that think of themselves "photographers". And please understand that I am not directing any criticism toward the photographers, but rather the public in general for not knowing a quality photo when they see one.

It just frustrates me.

Originally Posted by OhEddie And please understand that I am not directing any criticism toward the photographers, but rather the public in general for not knowing a quality photo when they see one.

I thing generally the Public don't know their ass from their elbow so photography is no different.

I have seen lots of people talk about educating the public by telling them how much equipment costs and insurance and tax and materials and cost of shoe leather amongst and how much time they spend and..... who bloody cares?
Someone tried that sales pitch on me and i'd definately be out the door.

I think the notion of educating the public to what is a good pic and what isn't is also rather laughable. Lets face it, If a bride can go through the wedding arranging process and not be educated by the thousands of pics she sees in bridal books and even just advertising pieces,to me she is beyond practical help.

The fact is, some people have their taste in their backsides and just don't appreciate quality in anything because they may not have been used to it.
I'm not trying to defend bad photography at all, I'm just saying there will always be a market for it simply because some people will want something familiar to them in being like shots they would take themselves rather than pics they may consider too "artsy".

You also have to Consider budget.
When I started in wedding I put ad's in the local paper. Most of the weddings I got were REAL low budget. I shot more in backyards, sometimes with a tent, sometimes not, than anything else.
Starting out my work was not much above good snapshots but my clients were always very happy and I had no trouble with getting referrals.

It's all well and good to say quality costs and all the rest but to some people, sharp, bright, straight shots are good pics and regardless of how much they prefer something else, Photography WILL be something they can cut back on.

I think it's also a bit Hypocritical for shooters to whinge about a lot of the low enders.
There have been loads of people come onto this forum and say " I'm doing wedding for the first time what shots should I take or what should I do" and people rush to offer advise.
Should we not be trying to deter these people that haven't had training by an established shooter or is it the right thing to give them a bit of confidence to stumble on and undoubtedly create what most shooters with experience would call a dogs breakfast?

I have seen some local shooters that have gone on for years churning out the same horrid crap and never seeming to make improvement. Somehow, they still get loads of work. It always amazes me though when a shooter is producing work that is clearly lacking, how they can do it for years and not improve one bit. Surely they can't help but see much higher standards of work around?

They fact they keep getting work is proof in itself of the market demand for what they do which many would consider highly sub standard.

Originally Posted by Glort ...I have seen lots of people talk about educating the public by telling them how much equipment costs and insurance and tax and materials and cost of shoe leather amongst and how much time they spend and..... who bloody cares? Someone tried that sales pitch on me and i'd definately be out the door...

Bingo. Customers simply DO NOT CARE what it costs to run your business. They don't care at all whether you put your kids through college by taking pictures, or by swinging a hammer.

They just want cheap photos. If they can get cheap photos from a hobbyist who does it in their spare time, then we can't compete with that. We just can't. Better customer service, insurance, etc? Maybe valuable to some, but not to the general consumer. They'd rather risk disaster and save a few thousand dollars.

Throughout history, technology has done this to "equipment operation professionals" as I would call them. Since the industrial revolution, countless jobs, careers, even entire industries have vanished into thin air thanks to advances in technology. Who are we to stand in the way of a digital imaging revolution?

There will always be a market for professional photography. Don't get me wrong! However make no mistake, the industry will change dramatically over the next few years / decades, in ways that we can't even fathom yet.

A lowering of standards also plays into the picture, but not as much as you'd think. Those with lower standards are simply the new additions to the world of photography, those who wouldn't have been into photography at all, if it were not for digital to begin with. See what I mean? It's not that standards have been lowered by those who previously had high standards, it's just that newcomers are starting at zero.

Either way, dramatic changes are occurring, and I'm interested to see where it all goes.

=Matt=

^That being said.... people are getting used to crappy photos, since all that most people use are their phone cameras as seen on facebook. So when they see a real photo by someone who shoots it intentionally, with real equipment, they are a bit amazed. I think technology isn't quite ready to steal the show... yet.

Originally Posted by OhEddie I did not have any intention of "talking behind someones back". I am sorry if that is what has been implied. I just wanted to give an example of what I have seen as the "dumbing down" of the art of photography in general. I am sure we have all seen it as "Photographers" post photos, of rather poor quality, on FB and Flickr and such, only to be told "great pictures" by a couple dozen people. And I am not talking about everyday folks that post pics of their kids & cats, but rather people that think of themselves "photographers". And please understand that I am not directing any criticism toward the photographers, but rather the public in general for not knowing a quality photo when they see one. It just frustrates me.

This criticism
Cries in all ages:
New generations,
No friends to art.

Originally Posted by heatherfeather ^That being said.... people are getting used to crappy photos, since all that most people use are their phone cameras as seen on facebook. So when they see a real photo by someone who shoots it intentionally, with real equipment, they are a bit amazed. I think technology isn't quite ready to steal the show... yet.

I am always going off at my kids for taking chit pics on their phones. There is always a ready to go camera sitting on my desk and they shoot event work for me so it's not like they can't use the things. Somehow while they would criticize a crap Event or wedding pic, taking garbage pics of other things seems to be OK.

It's really just the standard they are used to seeing from other kids and people who think a Phone is a perfectly good substitute for a camera when used in poor lighting and other conditions which only show up their limitations.

I have done events and heard people say that the pics they got on their phone weren't anywhere as good as what we took but for whatever excuse, they are " good enough".
That's scary.

The thing I hear all the time from wannabe shooters all the time is how great photo shop is at fixing pictures up. That mentality is rife even here with people declaring that every pic they shoot has to be edited before it is fit for the world to see it.
So many having never shot film don't get that you shoot the pic right in the first place like one did before the digital age.

I hear all the time of people taking weeks to edit a shoot and each image taking 10-30 min to edit and I wonder how the hell they have the patience.
If I had to Photoshop every pic I took, I'd give up!

The game will change. It will go more to pics people cant take themselves through access or equipment. A lot of traditional markets will shift and some new ones will open.
Of course then there is the problem of the over saturation of the market with shooters.

For the last few years this has been an important point in what I do. I have learned the difficulty of competing with every man and his dog, even if they are at different levels to what you are doing. I look for the Niches but they are getting fewer and other people are also looking to get into the less serviced markets.
I have been lucky so far but that won't last forever.

Originally Posted by Glort The thing I hear all the time from wannabe shooters all the time is how great photo shop is at fixing pictures up. That mentality is rife even here with people declaring that every pic they shoot has to be edited before it is fit for the world to see it. So many having never shot film don't get that you shoot the pic right in the first place like one did before the digital age. I hear all the time of people taking weeks to edit a shoot and each image taking 10-30 min to edit and I wonder how the hell they have the patience. If I had to Photoshop every pic I took, I'd give up! For the last few years this has been an important point in what I do. I have learned the difficulty of competing with every man and his dog, even if they are at different levels to what you are doing. I look for the Niches but they are getting fewer and other people are also looking to get into the less serviced markets. I have been lucky so far but that won't last forever.

Glort,

I will disagree with you on Photoshop and editing. The question of is it better to shoot .jpg and get it right in camera or edit in PS after the fact is not a valid question.

I know you deal with high volume event photography. For that type of photography shooting .jpg and doing the ABSOLUTE minimum in post is key to making a profit. Learning to get the best possible image straight out of camera is critical.

However no matter how good you are shooting jpg the cameras and sensors have there limits. For example we can increase the dynamic range of an image beyond the sensors capability by opening the shadows in PS.

I will wager you a case of that nasty food like substance Vegemite I can produce a better image shooting RAW and using PS than you can shooting .jpg and not using any post. It doesn't matter how much better you are.

The key here is shooting RAW and capturing a great image in camera can with PS become a fantastic image. Shooting RAW and getting a crap image and using PS will only get you a processed crap image.

Different workflows for different types of photography and clients.

Sam

I suppose i'm one of those people who is, actually, glad that this was posted..
I needed a reassurance in my "skills"..

Although I understand why some may feel "threatened", I think it's great for the industry (to some extent). Bring on the competition. I'll need to re-think my services, my equipment, marketing, etc. If I get priced out of the market/lose potential clients, that's my fault.

Originally Posted by Glort The thing I hear all the time from wannabe shooters all the time is how great photo shop is at fixing pictures up. That mentality is rife even here with people declaring that every pic they shoot has to be edited before it is fit for the world to see it. So many having never shot film don't get that you shoot the pic right in the first place like one did before the digital age. I hear all the time of people taking weeks to edit a shoot and each image taking 10-30 min to edit and I wonder how the hell they have the patience. If I had to Photoshop every pic I took, I'd give up!

No offense intended and I don't want to come across as flippant, but common "Photoshop" processes like dodging, burning, Gaussian blur, an so on and on and on... are in reality nothing more than carry over terms from the dark room. To suppose that Ansel Adams got it right in one click in the camera is a bit naive.

Originally Posted by Dreadnote No offense intended and I don't want to come across as flippant, but common "Photoshop" processes like dodging, burning, Gaussian blur, an so on and on and on... are in reality nothing more than carry over terms from the dark room. To suppose that Ansel Adams got it right in one click in the camera is a bit naive.

True.

But I'll bet he didn't go correcting mistakes that should have been fixed before the shot was taken.

Lots of Johhny come latelys do a lot more than a bit of dodging and burning. They basically re- create the shot. If I see another shot of a girl where she looks like she has a face like a wax dummy, I'll throw up.

If a shot is not worthy of being shown without Photofiddling, then to me its a dud.
Improvements are one thing, spending 30 min recreating it to something decent is something else.

Honestly, I love seeing trash photos (and websites), bc all it does it increase the value of my products by comparison. I'm certainly not going to lose any clients to this or other similar photographers. People who would sign with these types of photographers also get their pictures taken at Walmart.

it's obvious she's getting some contracts in, which means that some people like her work :)

people buy no name brands all the time. granted that quality is way less, but people buying them know exactly what their getting. what's wrong with that?

why do car manufacturers produce cheap-$hitty cars? well, because some people will still buy it for the price alone even if they know they won't last long.