[rawr]

I'm glad as well, that you have made millions, although I am not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand.

In Australia, everyone is a millionaire, especially in Sydney. It doesn't mean much.
Like most Australians, I light my cigars with $100 bills and bathe in Dom Perignon every day. Don't you?

[noelpolar]

I light my cigars with $100 bills and bathe in Dom Perignon every day. Don't you?

I live in Australia and am retired.....but I don't fit this profile.......as I don't bathe every day.....

[Rondec]

In Australia, everyone is a millionaire, especially in Sydney. It doesn't mean much.
Like most Australians, I light my cigars with $100 bills and bathe in Dom Perignon every day. Don't you?

Sounds like the life. I light my cigars (imported from Kentucky) with 100 peso bills.

I am afraid that my discussion with Christine just devolved into the fact that she is wealthier than me and that she values different things. Both of which I am OK with.

[Christine Tham]

It is common and a long-time practice too. At my wedding (which took place on the transition between film and digital) we bought 30 little throw-away film cameras and handed them out to the guests. It's the film equivalent of using an open album for guests to post their pics to. I must add, in addition I did hand my own digital gear to my friend also.

Giving guests disposable cameras is a great concept - I read it in a bridal magazine many years ago and immediately thought "Why did I not do that at our wedding?"

But yeah today's equivalent is smartphones and a shared album.

If I were to have a significant event, I will consider getting someone to use either my camera or their camera - I may even consider paying them. But I would only want them to press the shutter button. I would want to retain all rights to the raw images, select the photos I like, and do my own processing. I have done this for other people too - they say "can you bring your camera and take some photos on my memory card?" I say sure.

---------- Post added 04-01-2015 at 05:58 AM ----------

In Australia, everyone is a millionaire, especially in Sydney. It doesn't mean much.

It's almost true. I know plumbers and some specialist tradies that pull in hundreds of thousands per year.

Which is why it is kind of sad that photographers earn the same rate as contract cleaners.

Which is why I don't want to charge for my photos. Putting a price on them devalues the effort I have put in them - it cheapens me, the buyer, and my photos. However, I reserve the right to give away my photos for free, for any reason I see fit. Photos are a gift that I have the ability to give, not a commodity that I am willing to sell.

---

Last edited by Christine Tham; 03-31-2015 at 12:04 PM.

[clackers]

In Australia, everyone is a millionaire, especially in Sydney. It doesn't mean much.
Like most Australians, I light my cigars with $100 bills and bathe in Dom Perignon every day. Don't you?

Pro photographers? I own a dozen - I'm responsible and have them all tagged. They bring me my slippers at cognac time. :-D

[Rondec]

Giving guests disposable cameras is a great concept - I read it in a bridal magazine many years ago and immediately thought "Why did I not do that at our wedding?"

But yeah today's equivalent is smartphones and a shared album.

If I were to have a significant event, I will consider getting someone to use either my camera or their camera - I may even consider paying them. But I would only want them to press the shutter button. I would want to retain all rights to the raw images, select the photos I like, and do my own processing. I have done this for other people too - they say "can you bring your camera and take some photos on my memory card?" I say sure.

---------- Post added 04-01-2015 at 05:58 AM ----------



It's almost true. I know plumbers and some specialist tradies that pull in hundreds of thousands per year.

Which is why it is kind of sad that photographers earn the same rate as contract cleaners.

Which is why I don't want to charge for my photos. Putting a price on them devalues the effort I have put in them - it cheapens me, the buyer, and my photos. However, I reserve the right to give away my photos for free, for any reason I see fit. Photos are a gift that I have the ability to give, not a commodity that I am willing to sell.

Interesting point of view. I would have said that giving away your photos devalues the photos of professional photographers.

I think in reading what you have written, I believe a big difference between you and me is that you believe that your photos are of the same caliber as most pros out there, while I look at my photos and don't think they are at that level, at least not the level of what I would pay to have some one do.

That is why, although I take lots of photos of my kids, I also pay professionals to take photos at least once a year. Now, I pay a fee and at the end of it, the photos are mine, but it is valuable to me to do that.

[clackers]

That is why, although I take lots of photos of my kids, I also pay professionals to take photos at least once a year. Now, I pay a fee and at the end of it, the photos are mine, but it is valuable to me to do that.

My eldest stepson got married two years ago in the city Gallery, and it was always going to be a pro to do the shooting.

The pics were great and an 'Uncle Harry' - or forty of them - would not have got those results, even if you gave them Hasselblads for the day.

I don't know how much the cost was, but as I understand it Melbourne prices are routinely $1000-$5000.

[Christine Tham]

Interesting point of view. I would have said that giving away your photos devalues the photos of professional photographers.

I think in reading what you have written, I believe a big difference between you and me is that you believe that your photos are of the same caliber as most pros out there, while I look at my photos and don't think they are at that level, at least not the level of what I would pay to have some one do.

That is why, although I take lots of photos of my kids, I also pay professionals to take photos at least once a year. Now, I pay a fee and at the end of it, the photos are mine, but it is valuable to me to do that.

LOL - I could be devaluing the photos of professional photographers if I were in the habit of giving them away, but fortunately (for them) I don't give away my stuff that often.

I won't say my photos are of the "same caliber" as pros - just that they are different.

Maybe I am a philistine, but I don't really get excited about professional photography. Yes, they may be superficially impressive, and technically excellent, but that means nothing to me.

Often though, I am unimpressed. Compositional mistakes, over-processing - I see this all the time. No thanks.

Photography for me is a personal thing - I would rather see someone's blurry selfie taken on a phone than a glamour shot from a studio. Why? It means something to the person, and it tells me something about that person. That is what photography is really about (for me) - helping us understand each other and seeing things from someone else's perspective.

Handing out disposable cameras at a wedding would be very exciting for me - just to see what photos people would take, and trying to understand the context behind those photos (assuming of course they don't "cross the line" into inappropriate situations) - it's about the moment, and the person taking the photo as well as the people in the photo.

By contrast, the curated and processed output from a professional photographer? Meh. All the standard poses, lighting techniques and framing? So boring.

[wildman]

Photography for me is a personal thing -

I hear you.

Since I was about 15 (I'm now 76) I have had a serious interest in photography and photos as an art form but never as a commodity.

Just as some have kept personal and private diaries and journals I have, for the last 50 years or so, been keeping a sort of personal photo journal of life around me. I think I may understand very well where Vivian Maier is coming from and what her photography meant to her. My photography has also had the additional benefit of keeping my eyes open to all the visual possibilities out there and have allowed me to still see things in a fresh and novel way to this very day.

So for me the word "professional" is just an economic term that does not necessarily imply excellence.

[Rondec]

LOL - I could be devaluing the photos of professional photographers if I were in the habit of giving them away, but fortunately (for them) I don't give away my stuff that often.

I won't say my photos are of the "same caliber" as pros - just that they are different.

Maybe I am a philistine, but I don't really get excited about professional photography. Yes, they may be superficially impressive, and technically excellent, but that means nothing to me.

Often though, I am unimpressed. Compositional mistakes, over-processing - I see this all the time. No thanks.

Photography for me is a personal thing - I would rather see someone's blurry selfie taken on a phone than a glamour shot from a studio. Why? It means something to the person, and it tells me something about that person. That is what photography is really about (for me) - helping us understand each other and seeing things from someone else's perspective.

Handing out disposable cameras at a wedding would be very exciting for me - just to see what photos people would take, and trying to understand the context behind those photos (assuming of course they don't "cross the line" into inappropriate situations) - it's about the moment, and the person taking the photo as well as the people in the photo.

By contrast, the curated and processed output from a professional photographer? Meh. All the standard poses, lighting techniques and framing? So boring.

So we differ. I have my own shots and then I have the "pro" shots as well. It gives variety. Pretty boring to just have blurry selfies, even if those have more character.

I would say as well, that when you choose a photographer, they should have an online presence and a portfolio you can view. That is the best way to know if their shooting style fits with what you like. If someone has over processed or poorly composed images, then, as you say, it probably isn't worth using them. But it does seem like a wide brush to paint all professionals that way.

[Digitalis]

I don't think there is any paradigm shift.

I agree, all we are seeing is the cheapening of photographic tools and manufacturer facilitating this by developing cameras at lower cost with feature sets that appeal to the less experienced masses. Many people may not like this: but there will always be a place for(paid)highly skilled professionals in the photographic industry.

If we are seeing a true paradigm shift in the Thomas Kuhn* sense of the phrase, we wouldn't be aware of it until it has passed, like the concept of the technological singularity. We can try to anticipate changes that would happen, we can plan ahead to a limited degree by using past experiences. But afterward, our perceptions and depth of understanding will be shown to be more limited than we had originally thought.

What we are seeing is just another change - we aren't seeing a radical shift in perspective on the level of the collective global social consciousness, or even a technological revolution. All we are seeing is just a change that has been taken under the wing of the popular zeitgeist**. Call me a cynic, but from where I'm standing: it is just more of the same crap, It has all been done before.

*the person who coined the phrase in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
**Not all the different from the change from large format photography to smaller 35mm format photography. The same arguments existed back then Both for those who stood for and against it - and both formats continue to exist nearly 90 years afterward.

[Rondec]

I agree, all we are seeing is the cheapening of photographic tools and manufacturer facilitating this by developing cameras at lower cost with feature sets that appeal to the less experienced masses. Many people may not like this: but there will always be a place for(paid)highly skilled professionals in the photographic industry.

If we are seeing a true paradigm shift in the Thomas Kuhn* sense of the phrase, we wouldn't be aware of it until it has passed, like the concept of the technological singularity. We can try to anticipate changes that would happen, we can plan ahead to a limited degree by using past experiences. But afterward, our perceptions and depth of understanding will be shown to be more limited than we had originally thought.

What we are seeing is just another change - we aren't seeing a radical shift in perspective on the level of the collective global social consciousness, or even a technological revolution. All we are seeing is just a change that has been taken under the wing of the popular zeitgeist**. Call me a cynic, but from where I'm standing: it is just more of the same crap, It has all been done before.

*the person who coined the phrase in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
**Not all the different from the change from large format photography to smaller 35mm format photography. The same arguments existed back then Both for those who stood for and against it - and both formats continue to exist nearly 90 years afterward.

The question is one of payment. In the old days it was all about prints, while now, it is about facebook and things like that. Figuring out how to charge in a world where few people make prints is tough.

[Christine Tham]

I hear you.

Since I was about 15 (I'm now 76) I have had a serious interest in photography and photos as an art form but never as a commodity.

Just as some have kept personal and private diaries and journals I have, for the last 50 years or so, been keeping a sort of personal photo journal of life around me. I think I may understand very well where Vivian Maier is coming from and what her photography meant to her. My photography has also had the additional benefit of keeping my eyes open to all the visual possibilities out there and have allowed me to still see things in a fresh and novel way to this very day.

So for me the word "professional" is just an economic term that does not necessarily imply excellence.

Thanks for your post.

I am similar to you - photography for me is a way for me to challenge myself to see the world from different perspectives. One of the things I like doing is returning to the same scene or situation again and again to extract a different way of "seeing" or "interpreting" it.

As I mentioned, some of my friends are photographers, and one of the things I have realised is every photographer is different. Some are focused on technique or methods, some are focused on capturing the moment, some are constructing elaborate scenes or stories. One person I know simply uses photos as building blocks for constructing elaborate artwork.

All are valid.

But to return to our hypothetical "life event" (eg. wedding) and the use of a professional photographer. I have a philosophical objection to this. I realise others don't, and I am not trying to denigrate their views nor impose mine on them.

My objection is this: every photographer has a unique perspective - the very act of photography is filtering or interpreting a scene - either consciously or unconsciously.

Paying a photographer to capture an event gives you the photographer's view of the event. That may be what you want, but it is not what I want. The better the photographer, the more likely they will inject their "ego" or perspective into the output and the less willing they are in acting as a passive and impartial recorder.

I am not necessarily saying I want a passive view. However, the second problem I see is a macro application of Heisenberg's principle. The photographer, simply by being there, influences what is being captured. We are letting a stranger (photographer) look into us. For some of us, that is okay. But many people (myself included) find it uncomfortable when a stranger flashes their camera at us. That negatively impacts the resultant image.

So the end result is a filtered view of uncomfortable and posed situations. And that, apparently, is to be the official record of what is supposed to be the happiest day of a couple's lives.

Of course, you can say I am exaggerating the situation and the reality is not as bad. Possibly.

However, the crowdsourcing approach is one of many alternatives that addresses some of the above issues. Instead of one highly filtered and curated view, we get multiple views. Also it reduces the "stranger" intrusion by having a familiarity and a connection between the photographer and the photographed. Finally, we get better and more comprehensive coverage of the event. No single photographer (or even a team) can possibly cover all the significant moments in an event. A crowdsourced approach possibly covers a wider span.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I realise that some people are not bothered by any of the above. Good on them.

Technical excellence is the least of my worries. I assume a pro photographer is technically excellent - if they have a successful track record and portfolio. But I am not assuming amateurs necessarily have lesser skills, unlike some here. And I am more willing to forgive a less than perfect photo if I get a unique and interesting perspective on a moment.

My apologies for a long and somewhat unwieldy post - but I hope this goes some way towards explaining why I will never ever engage a pro photographer for any reason whatsoever. It has nothing to do with my ability to pay or my appreciation/recognition of their skills. In fact, the more skilled a photographer is, the less likely I am to want to engage. You may think my views are silly and unusual, but I would claim (without providing any evidence) that it is more common and more prevalent than you think - I have had quite a few conversations with various people and they have echoed similar concerns and thoughts.