[JohnBee]

You need to be more than 'good' in many areas. You can't be good, sit back and think you're going to rise to the top, or get a bunch of opportunities, it just won't happen.

And what about those who just love photography, get known and make money from it without any expectations or dreams of rising to the top? Truth is there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people who fit that category.

The biggest flaw with the mindset following the article or list is that it doesn't encompass those people and that they are anything but invisible to the outdated business models.

The argument seems impaired by a lack of vision and understanding with regards to the reasons behind the changes.

[FullertonImages]

Did you bother checking the guy out? Do you know Black Star? He's a long time pro, I think he has valid points - it's not just a rant.

I hear this perspective alot, about "so and so has been around for sooo long, therefore what he says is rellevant", and it just doesn't hold water. Don't get me wrong, experience is very important. It's is one of the most valuable tools one can have in photography, or any career for that matter. But experience is only worth something when it is paired with contemporary relevance, otherwise it's just outdated knowledge. The real truth is that EVERYTHING has changed in the photography world in the past 10 years. Some people are still trying to do business as if nothing has happened. Some people can't face the fact that there are newcomers that have more relevant knowledge than they do.

I know a guy who has been shooting weddings for a long time. He is what I would describe as an old schooler. I was talking to him about WPPI one day, and he started talking unfavorably about it, and saying that he would never go there because they have presenters that haven't even been shooting 5 years. I really wanted to say, "But their images look better than yours and they are making more money than you.", but I didn't. Why does it matter how long someone has been in the game? This guy couldn't face the fact that there were 5 year young professionals that were more in touch with what's going on and what people want than he did. It's like if they made a rule in the NBA that all games are now to be played on roller skates. All of the sudden it doesn't matter one bit how long you've been in the NBA or 'playing pro', because EVERYTHING just changed. The only thing that matter is how you play on skates.

To many long established Pro's are getting left behind because everyone else is on skates, and they're too attached to the way things used to be to change the way they roll.

[CWyatt]

I'm not saying someone is relevant just because they've been around a while.

What I'm saying is some who shoots:

3 books for the Smithsonian museum...
20 years with Black Star, a top agency...
Has run 60+ internships for young photographers...
Long term White House and Congress photographer...

I'd say he's pretty relevant. You might disagree with his points but it's not all made up mush or a doddy old photographer. He still does all these professionally.

[Ash]

Yep, experience matters - and that goes for just about any vocation.
It may even trump skill - as long as there's a devout following, then the experience is still valid.

[SuperAkuma]

I'm not saying someone is relevant just because they've been around a while.

What I'm saying is some who shoots:

3 books for the Smithsonian museum...
20 years with Black Star, a top agency...
Has run 60+ internships for young photographers...
Long term White House and Congress photographer...

I'd say he's pretty relevant. You might disagree with his points but it's not all made up mush or a doddy old photographer. He still does all these professionally.

If you are talking about John Harrington, yes he is on the "in" of the business of photography. He does have a lot of credible stuff to claim and he does know what he is talking about. I have one of his book and it is a great read. But that is NOT the only way to do business. His advice is great but it is not written in stone because EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. There is always an exception to everything.

I've done a few "free" gig and end up getting other paid gig because of it. Even though he said that I will be known as the "guy who shoots for free". It all depends on how you present yourself and EVERY SITUATION is different. Example, I did a "free" wedding for my cousin as a present to him. During the ceremony, I did a slide show of the engagement session. A lot of guess loved my work and asked for my business card and got a few paying gig from it.

[kytra]

For me the article in question is just a frustrated rant (or maybe a clever way to get traffic or both)

Why?

Because the picture taking is now for the masses, face it. One cannot maintain a closed guild of craftmans as picture taking tools get cheaper and better (almost by) the minute. In my opinion people that have free photogs at their events would be probably bad clients for a pro anyway (bargain hunters). For my wedding for example, I would choose based on the portfolio and try to negotiate prices taking into account the time, gear used and other services. Even if I would find someone working for free with a nice portfolio, I would offer them money because I believe that the involvment and sense of "professional" is there when your work is paid. Even if a friend would do it, I would pay.

[CWyatt]

I have one of his book and it is a great read. But that is NOT the only way to do business. His advice is great but it is not written in stone because EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. There is always an exception to everything.

I agree

[ds1848]

This is a very interesting discussion. On one hand the author of the piece dispenses advice which might seem outdated and ignorant of the conditions which aspirant photographers face in today's marketplace. It is one thing for a successful photographer with 40 years of experience to tell students not to undercut established rates, but it is another thing entirely for that same student, when faced with minimal opportunities, to pass up the exposure from a free assignment in favor of no assignment at all. From the critics perspective, the author is advocating something which, on the individual level, is untenable so long as others are out there offering their services for free.

On the other hand, the author does make a broader point. Although undercharging and offering free work might prove beneficial to the individual, in the aggregate such conduct is equally detrimental to the well being of other professional photographers. It is much like the advice you get from career counselors -- in order to get ahead you need to "distinguish" yourself, or acquire the skills which are "in demand". But this is an obvious fallacy of composition when applied to everyone. So what the author is really emphasizing here is that by accepting free work and undercharging, young photographers are undercutting the foundations of the very profession of which they aspire to be part of.

I think this really has a lot to do with how we see ourselves in the working world. Do we operate as individuals in a competitive marketplace, doing whatever we need to do to get ahead of the crowd? Or do we see our co-workers, fellow students, etc., as partners in a larger struggle where by acting in unison, everyone can be better off? Is our success a result of our superior seamanship, or the rising tide which lifts all boats?

The other interesting issue here is the role of technology. Many of the commentators make the point that the digital era has completely changed the nature of the business, and has put the amateur on more or less the same level as the professional. In essence, technology has broken apart the guild. Is this necessarily so? I am not so sure. In some respects it is easier -- no costly film, printing paper, darkroom etc. -- but in others -- photoshop, more feature rich cameras, etc. -- it is more complex. So is technology making it easier to be a professional photographer, or is it just raising the standard of what professional photography is?

[akanarya]

I think there are two sides of the article;
one side is to not underestimate yourself,
other side is an afraid of prof.s who earns their life from just photography.
people,who say i can do everthing for any cost, can disturb some pros. because
they undercut the market as said before.
but
life is not easy as you already know.
being amateur of professional is nothing more than necessity.
if you earn your livelihood and you have to, then you are pro. that's it. it is not
about your skills. skill tunes your income.
And to earn, you try every possible way. ways outlined in the article may be valid for you.

I think i mixed the topic.

[Rupert]

I still don't think the writer of the article makes a lick of sense. I am in the process of setting up a small studio in my Downtown gallery for the purpose of shooting Free Portraits. This will not be for everyone that walks in, but for those I know or are acquainted with that may want a portrait of themselves or their children, but just can't afford a Pro shooter. It will give them a decent portrait, and give me some much needed experience. There is nothing wrong with making money if you are a Pro, but life is not ALL about the money, there is as much inner reward from a free shooting as a paid one....or more. Even if I was a Pro, I would manage a lot of Free shooting, just for the Joy of it!
Regards!

[panoguy]

Jeez! Like many here, I read that article and at first thought "is this guy insecure or just trying to appeal to hack photogs?" On a second reading (well, a skim) I think the author isn't going to lose any work from low prices or freebies but is using his position as a pulpit to decry and lament the old "we've lost the good ole' days!" (Hey, these days that kind of post gets lots of web traffic - look at us discussing it!)

I was a pro fashion and product retoucher for 15 years, entirely digital. The digital part is key, because at first I worked on dedicate, half-million dollar(!) Quantel and Shima Seiki "digital paint computers, and you had to be a pro to even touch them. Ah, but then Photoshop v2.5 came out and really democratized *the tools* for retouching!

Oddly, I never worried that someone with a $3000 Mac and Photoshop could take work from me, even as things like the clone tool and layers started really changing the retouching game. I was good at what I did, and high-end fashion and advertising work demand more than a straight photo with some levels adjustment, no matter how good the shooter (and crew) is. Plus the deadlines will kill almost anyone who doesn't eat coffee beans and have a wacom stylus grafted to their hand!

Today I have a relatively relaxed job in software design (ahhh), but I can still photochop with the best of 'em. I know a few very skilled retouchers who are kept quite busy, but the line between "post-processing" and "retouching" has blurred enough that the simple stuff can be handled by anyone with some basic PS skills and a course or two from Lynda.com. Today you need to be really good (and dedicated) to distinguish yourself as a pro retoucher, and make a living at it. That's good, IMHO. Bad retouching bugs me (see Photoshop Disasters).

That said, I do "retouch for free" all the time for my own photos and my family's old scans. We wouldn't even think to hire someone to do this stuff! Now when it comes to my wedding or an event where I want great photos, I find and hire a professional photographer (no matter how much camera gear I have) and tell them "do your post-processing, but don't spend much time retouching extensively - it isn't worth the grief I'll give you if you do a mediocre job."

[CWyatt]

Even if I was a Pro, I would manage a lot of Free shooting, just for the Joy of it!

Apart from some things for close friends or family, not many pros I know have the time...

So is technology making it easier to be a professional photographer, or is it just raising the standard of what professional photography is?

First thanks for your post, interesting thoughts.
I'm not sure about the quoted part above however. On the one hand, it's now is undoubtedly easier to achieve technical passes on your photos - in focus, correct exposure etc etc. Therefore some think anyone with a camera can take a photo that's good enough to publish - a multitude of publications now give anyone a camera and publish the results, because it's cheaper than an 'unnecessary' pro photographer. That's just a reality that has to be dealt with.

However, in no way do I think the 'standard' has been raised because technical achievement is easier. I come from a documentary angle, so maybe it has in portraiture etc. Maybe your point is saying to be a 'pro' you have to be better than you had to be in past years, and that might be a fair point I think - perhaps average former pros are being whittled away by technically competent amateurs. And fair play to them. But overall the standard of photography doesn't seem to have gone anywhere because of this.

[Rupert]

"Apart from some things for close friends or family, not many pros I know have the time..."

Perhaps I should have better defined "a lot"....LOL! I am usually more careful with the words always, all, forever, a lot, never, etc...... In the case of "a lot", I concede that our actual attained goals seldom match our intentions.
Regards!

[Class A]

There are many examples of reporters being given cameras to shoot for their own stories, apparently because with modern cameras 'anyone can take a photo'.

I've experienced this first hand. The reporter seemed to be overwhelmed by the DSLR even on AUTO mode. Sad.

Did you bother checking the guy out?

I know the question was geared towards someone else, just wanted to add that I didn't check him out. His credentials aside, his article comes across as rather aggressive. Rather than using a helpful tone, he makes a lot of snide remarks, uses irony, etc. He really comes across as someone who doesn't like the pressure that is created by good photographers offering stuff for free.

And he basically just got one argument "If you do it for free once, you'll be expected to do it for free forever". And that is simply not true. You just have to say to a new client "Last time I made an investment for promotional purposes. Now, I'm busy doing paid jobs. I welcome your business but if you cannot pay me, I cannot make myself available."

I wonder how his advice extends to models. According to his position the whole TFCD business seems to be fundamentally flawed. Well done to those who can insist on getting paid full price (any discount is practically just as problematic as "free") without a portfolio to show.

There is probably a good hint or two for an aspiring professional photographer in his article, but he makes it very easy to be interpreted as someone who doesn't like that he has to compete against people offering stuff for free. If he wants to help others, he should use a helpful tone. If he uses an aggressive tone, he must accept as appearing to wanting to help himself.

[CWyatt]

I agree, a lot of the objection stems from the tone which isn't a good start.