Whats the difference?
Discussion
I've been thinking a lot about the difference between being a professional and amateur photographer recently. It seems that everyone out there with a dslr is trying to make a fast buck in one way or another. Having made the transition in September last year (although i still earn money from other sources), and with it being a new year, I suppose I feel like I'm at a point to reflect on what I've learnt and observed, over what has been a fairly interesting time for me.
As a caveat I can obviously only comment on what I've experienced as an editorial car photographer, so here are my haphazard thoughts...
Equipment
You'd think that pro's would have the best kit out there, but thats not necessarily true. In fact, I recon many a monied amateur will be using the same basic equiment. I think your priorities change when you have to make it profitable. For example, im more concerned with my kit arriving on the baggage carousel in one piece now (on the way to america my rig got bent in half) than I am with f2.8. 6 months ago I would never have contemplated the logistics of getting all my camera equipment to wherever. Another key difference here is that a lot of amateurs buy kit because they think it will make them better, (it usually doesnt) or because its sexy.
Business is business
In many ways, doing the work is the easy part. Getting the work and "making a living" is the difficult bit. VAT returns, insurance and self promotional skills are just as important as taking good photos. Its far less meritocratic than most would imagine. Successful photographers are good businessmen.
Quality and consistency
There are loads of people (several who use this forum) who take photos that wouldnt look out of place in magazines, so its not necessarily the ability thats the separating factor. The differences is that you must produce acceptable results whatever the situation. I did my first two car shoot in america last october (it still hasnt been published). I was really nervous, then we lost a day because of delivery logistics and we were there at midnight (local time, god knows what time zone we were in) setting up another rig shot in the pouring rain. All we wanted to do was go home. I suspect that when it arrives in print it will look like we just had a good laugh for a few days, and that, I suppose is the difference.
Glamour
Flying to Japan for one day then coming home sounds very jet set, particularly when its to watch Honda make their "Impossible Dream" advert. Its not. It just means you have to do everything when you are knackered. Having lunch with Sebastien Loeb was great. Running over a sheep, and having a blow out half way up a mountain in Wales with a 5 hour drive home in front of me wasnt. The harsh reality is you spend most of your time on the motorway (which in an '89 Astra Tiffany with a dodgy radio isnt great) and for me, at this stage in the game, crapping yourself about whether the work is good enough, did I shoot everything on ISO 1600, what if my hard drive breaks, etc!
I just thought some might find this interesting.
thanks!
Matt
As a caveat I can obviously only comment on what I've experienced as an editorial car photographer, so here are my haphazard thoughts...
Equipment
You'd think that pro's would have the best kit out there, but thats not necessarily true. In fact, I recon many a monied amateur will be using the same basic equiment. I think your priorities change when you have to make it profitable. For example, im more concerned with my kit arriving on the baggage carousel in one piece now (on the way to america my rig got bent in half) than I am with f2.8. 6 months ago I would never have contemplated the logistics of getting all my camera equipment to wherever. Another key difference here is that a lot of amateurs buy kit because they think it will make them better, (it usually doesnt) or because its sexy.
Business is business
In many ways, doing the work is the easy part. Getting the work and "making a living" is the difficult bit. VAT returns, insurance and self promotional skills are just as important as taking good photos. Its far less meritocratic than most would imagine. Successful photographers are good businessmen.
Quality and consistency
There are loads of people (several who use this forum) who take photos that wouldnt look out of place in magazines, so its not necessarily the ability thats the separating factor. The differences is that you must produce acceptable results whatever the situation. I did my first two car shoot in america last october (it still hasnt been published). I was really nervous, then we lost a day because of delivery logistics and we were there at midnight (local time, god knows what time zone we were in) setting up another rig shot in the pouring rain. All we wanted to do was go home. I suspect that when it arrives in print it will look like we just had a good laugh for a few days, and that, I suppose is the difference.
Glamour
Flying to Japan for one day then coming home sounds very jet set, particularly when its to watch Honda make their "Impossible Dream" advert. Its not. It just means you have to do everything when you are knackered. Having lunch with Sebastien Loeb was great. Running over a sheep, and having a blow out half way up a mountain in Wales with a 5 hour drive home in front of me wasnt. The harsh reality is you spend most of your time on the motorway (which in an '89 Astra Tiffany with a dodgy radio isnt great) and for me, at this stage in the game, crapping yourself about whether the work is good enough, did I shoot everything on ISO 1600, what if my hard drive breaks, etc!
I just thought some might find this interesting.
thanks!
Matt
Very interesting reading Matt. Funnily enough the story is the same for many so called "glamourous" occupations, people think because you are getting paid to do what you love it must all be a walk in the park, more often than not to be succesful in any field you have to work your bollox off.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
Very interesting observations Matt.
The kit logistics issue had not occurred to me until recently when I read some comments about the post 9/11, etc., issues with hand luggage carry on latitude and then thought about the big lenses that the sports specialists use and worked out the costs of the kit and the potential coasts of the freight for any trip involving flying.
Ludicrous, especially if you are a professional paying for the rights to attend one of Bernie's bonanzas for example. Really ludicrous as ever more people end up with 2Mpix cameras in their mobile phones.
Watching a couple of Pro's working at Donington last year I also realised how fit one has to be to fulfil a whole day assignment at a track. Still, I guess with the Pro kit lenses you get some engineering that is strong enough to act as a stool as well as a camera when you need a rest!
Just a couple of days ago I noticed the price of lenses for medium format cameras. Awesome. It is really just as well that hardware is not necessarily the start and end of the game.
Thanks for sharing your observations.
The kit logistics issue had not occurred to me until recently when I read some comments about the post 9/11, etc., issues with hand luggage carry on latitude and then thought about the big lenses that the sports specialists use and worked out the costs of the kit and the potential coasts of the freight for any trip involving flying.
Ludicrous, especially if you are a professional paying for the rights to attend one of Bernie's bonanzas for example. Really ludicrous as ever more people end up with 2Mpix cameras in their mobile phones.
Watching a couple of Pro's working at Donington last year I also realised how fit one has to be to fulfil a whole day assignment at a track. Still, I guess with the Pro kit lenses you get some engineering that is strong enough to act as a stool as well as a camera when you need a rest!
Just a couple of days ago I noticed the price of lenses for medium format cameras. Awesome. It is really just as well that hardware is not necessarily the start and end of the game.
Thanks for sharing your observations.
fergusd said:
What, exactly, is ludicrous about having to comply with carry on baggage regs ?
Fd
Nothing, unless you get some sort of jobsworth who's a stickler for any mm oversize in a single dimension.
The "ludicrous" comment was related to the necessity of the travelling pro photographer (and a few well equipped amateurs as well no doubt) to carry the costs and risks of committing several grand's worth of kit to the vagaries of baggage handlers at far flung locations and perhaps have to do so several times a year. And after that still have to pay a commercial fee, for example, to obtain the rights to make a living.
Of course this is my observation as a hobbyist snapper who would feel very uncomfortable having a few grand's worth of kit in the boot of a car let alone the hold of a plane.
You're learning. Here are some other thoughts on the differences:
True, In the same way as being able to afford a Stradivarius will not make me into a concert violinist. But, more often than not, the pro will have the best kit that he can afford. Having said that, buying the best costs money... a lot of it, and that does eat into profit. There can also be some psychology going on. Having the best, most expensive kit can help to justify higher prices. Not that it makes any difference to the end result. I can take some truly awful snaps on the most expensive kit
. It is said that a pro will take the better picture with a pinhole camera and a candle than the amateur with all the most modern kit. It' also doesn't help when the the client, who is be a keen amateur, proudly boasts that he has the same camera, although he most probably has the cheap Unigate lenses on it (hasn't happened to me yet). Speaking personally, I'll always try and buy the most expensive, not because it's expensive, but because that bit of kit is a joy to use, makes my life easier, is the best build quality so won't break down so often. It just happens to be that the best things in life cost the most. Buying second best is a false economy. The quality is remembered long after the price has been forgotten and all that.
True. There have been some really great image makers go bankrupt because they can't run a business. I'm sure this also applies to many other artistic professions. Likewise, some really mediocre snappers can make fortunes if they have a good business head screwed on.
True. Taking a great picture, as ably demonstrated by the contributors to this forum, is not uncommon. The difference is being able to do it again, tomorrow, the day after, the week after, year after year, on time and within a client's budget. It's about having duplicate equipment, or back up, so when it all goes tits up (and believe me, it will) you can carry on shooting. Maybe the most important difference is that you are taking the picture for someone else, not you. Sure, you may want to take the shot a certain way but if the art director doesn't want it or the marketing director for his client doesn't like it, you'll have to do it another way. He who pays the piper calls the tune and if you want more, repeat, work from that client, you'll have to play his tune. Amateurs have the luxury of only having to satisfy themselves. If they don't like what they've got they can have another go next week.... or when they feel like it.
The variety of subject matter is another difference. Unless you specialise in one thing like cars, fashion, food, weddings and portraits etc, you may often be commissioned to take pictures of mundane boring crap that you wouldn't do out of choice, but you still have to get he shot for your client. It's also about diversity of technique. Photographing cars requires different skills than food, fashion, glassware, roomsets, on location or in a studio etc. etc.
There's a lot more to professional photography than bolting on a lens, getting the exposure right and pressing the button. A lot of it comes about through experience (like everything). It's about understanding optics, light, composition. In the old days it was about picking the right film and process, now it's about picking the right software, forever learning new software or newer versions. It's knowing the best way way to achieve the desired result. Whether to get the shot in camera or manipulate it digitally. Beyond the the process of taking and processing a picture, it's understanding design, you maybe shooting 3 or 4 pics to go on the same page, how will they all work together, how to make the picture fit a given space or shape. It's about supplying the right file format, colour management, having an understanding of CMYK. Problem solving, people management, how to get the best out of models or members of the public..... blah blah, I'm sure you get the idea.
True again. When I started out I was an assistant in a large studio company (or rather studios, London, Manchester, Chicago & Arizona), In my last year there I worked with a fashion photographer and used to spend up to a month on location. Testing kit endlessly before you go (only to see it fail when you get there anyway), packing, shipping equipment, dealing with customs, carnets, sun burn (the photographer I used to assist died of skin cancer) Now, I'd much rather do the travel and have a nice holiday when I get there. Having said that, spending a month in the sun with a constant flow of beautiful young ladies (mostly naked when not modelling) did have it's compensations
. Oh, all right then... some of it is glamourous.... happy days.
Cheers
Paul
matt gravy said:
Equipment
You'd think that pro's would have the best kit out there, but thats not necessarily true. In fact, I recon many a monied amateur will be using the same basic equiment.
True, In the same way as being able to afford a Stradivarius will not make me into a concert violinist. But, more often than not, the pro will have the best kit that he can afford. Having said that, buying the best costs money... a lot of it, and that does eat into profit. There can also be some psychology going on. Having the best, most expensive kit can help to justify higher prices. Not that it makes any difference to the end result. I can take some truly awful snaps on the most expensive kit
. It is said that a pro will take the better picture with a pinhole camera and a candle than the amateur with all the most modern kit. It' also doesn't help when the the client, who is be a keen amateur, proudly boasts that he has the same camera, although he most probably has the cheap Unigate lenses on it (hasn't happened to me yet). Speaking personally, I'll always try and buy the most expensive, not because it's expensive, but because that bit of kit is a joy to use, makes my life easier, is the best build quality so won't break down so often. It just happens to be that the best things in life cost the most. Buying second best is a false economy. The quality is remembered long after the price has been forgotten and all that. matt gravy said:
Business is business
In many ways, doing the work is the easy part. Getting the work and "making a living" is the difficult bit. VAT returns, insurance and self promotional skills are just as important as taking good photos. Its far less meritocratic than most would imagine. Successful photographers are good businessmen.
True. There have been some really great image makers go bankrupt because they can't run a business. I'm sure this also applies to many other artistic professions. Likewise, some really mediocre snappers can make fortunes if they have a good business head screwed on.
matt gravy said:
Quality and consistency
There are loads of people (several who use this forum) who take photos that wouldnt look out of place in magazines, so its not necessarily the ability thats the separating factor. The differences is that you must produce acceptable results whatever the situation.
True. Taking a great picture, as ably demonstrated by the contributors to this forum, is not uncommon. The difference is being able to do it again, tomorrow, the day after, the week after, year after year, on time and within a client's budget. It's about having duplicate equipment, or back up, so when it all goes tits up (and believe me, it will) you can carry on shooting. Maybe the most important difference is that you are taking the picture for someone else, not you. Sure, you may want to take the shot a certain way but if the art director doesn't want it or the marketing director for his client doesn't like it, you'll have to do it another way. He who pays the piper calls the tune and if you want more, repeat, work from that client, you'll have to play his tune. Amateurs have the luxury of only having to satisfy themselves. If they don't like what they've got they can have another go next week.... or when they feel like it.
The variety of subject matter is another difference. Unless you specialise in one thing like cars, fashion, food, weddings and portraits etc, you may often be commissioned to take pictures of mundane boring crap that you wouldn't do out of choice, but you still have to get he shot for your client. It's also about diversity of technique. Photographing cars requires different skills than food, fashion, glassware, roomsets, on location or in a studio etc. etc.
There's a lot more to professional photography than bolting on a lens, getting the exposure right and pressing the button. A lot of it comes about through experience (like everything). It's about understanding optics, light, composition. In the old days it was about picking the right film and process, now it's about picking the right software, forever learning new software or newer versions. It's knowing the best way way to achieve the desired result. Whether to get the shot in camera or manipulate it digitally. Beyond the the process of taking and processing a picture, it's understanding design, you maybe shooting 3 or 4 pics to go on the same page, how will they all work together, how to make the picture fit a given space or shape. It's about supplying the right file format, colour management, having an understanding of CMYK. Problem solving, people management, how to get the best out of models or members of the public..... blah blah, I'm sure you get the idea.
matt gravy said:
Glamour
Flying to Japan for one day then coming home sounds very jet set, particularly when its to watch Honda make their "Impossible Dream" advert. Its not. It just means you have to do everything when you are knackered.
True again. When I started out I was an assistant in a large studio company (or rather studios, London, Manchester, Chicago & Arizona), In my last year there I worked with a fashion photographer and used to spend up to a month on location. Testing kit endlessly before you go (only to see it fail when you get there anyway), packing, shipping equipment, dealing with customs, carnets, sun burn (the photographer I used to assist died of skin cancer) Now, I'd much rather do the travel and have a nice holiday when I get there. Having said that, spending a month in the sun with a constant flow of beautiful young ladies (mostly naked when not modelling) did have it's compensations
. Oh, all right then... some of it is glamourous.... happy days. Cheers
Paul
Well observed Matt and good luck in your new profession.
I think that Bacardi has summed it all up with :-
Taking a great picture, as ably demonstrated by the contributors to this forum, is not uncommon. The difference is being able to do it again, tomorrow, the day after, the week after, year after year, on time and within a client's budget. It's about having duplicate equipment, or back up, so when it all goes tits up (and believe me, it will) you can carry on shooting. Maybe the most important difference is that you are taking the picture for someone else, not you. Sure, you may want to take the shot a certain way but if the art director doesn't want it or the marketing director for his client doesn't like it, you'll have to do it another way.
And there's the rub; there can be loads of stress and sometimes little satisfaction; photographing something
with which you have no sympathy, at a time you don't want to do it, in a place that was problematic to get to and where you don't want to be, with people who want you to go against all your image instincts.
But on many occasions there's little to beat the job!
I think that Bacardi has summed it all up with :-
Taking a great picture, as ably demonstrated by the contributors to this forum, is not uncommon. The difference is being able to do it again, tomorrow, the day after, the week after, year after year, on time and within a client's budget. It's about having duplicate equipment, or back up, so when it all goes tits up (and believe me, it will) you can carry on shooting. Maybe the most important difference is that you are taking the picture for someone else, not you. Sure, you may want to take the shot a certain way but if the art director doesn't want it or the marketing director for his client doesn't like it, you'll have to do it another way.
And there's the rub; there can be loads of stress and sometimes little satisfaction; photographing something
with which you have no sympathy, at a time you don't want to do it, in a place that was problematic to get to and where you don't want to be, with people who want you to go against all your image instincts.
But on many occasions there's little to beat the job!
Bacardi said:
Speaking personally, I'll always try and buy the most expensive, not because it's expensive, but because that bit of kit is a joy to use, makes my life easier, is the best build quality so won't break down so often. It just happens to be that the best things in life cost the most. Buying second best is a false economy. The quality is remembered long after the price has been forgotten and all that.
I think that is generally very true and the problem with being an amateur is that we might know that the kit exists and desire the performance it can achieve but there is no way on earth most people can justify the expense of owning the best kit for any eventuality, although no doubt a few can if they so choose.
I've been reading some of the Luminous Landscape reports on his workshop shooting trips in the last day or so and it is rather eye-opening. IN fact if you start with somse of the early expeditions in the old days of film (about 2001!) and then compare them to the requirements of current expeditions it gets very interesting indeed.
However, somewhere along the line I was distracted by a link and ended up reading this article on the Galbraith site.
www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
about Alex Majoli who mostly works these days with 4 Olympus point and shoot digitals. For him it meant winning the U.S. National Press Photographers Association's Best of Photojournalism Magazine Photographer of the Year Award and the U.S. Overseas Press Club's Feature Photography Award.
Now those cameras and kit may indeed be the most appropriate (and perhaps the most expensive in their market niche) for the sort of work he does and be completely useless for professional requirements in any other photographic sphere. But the point made in the article is that the kit can, and sometimes should, be important because it is suited to the circumstances rather than because it is the best that can be purchased.
For instance I think it would be fascinating to try to emulate the sort of moving vehicle shots that Matt takes but using a remote controlled lightweight point and shoot camera (especially if there existed one with tilt and shift functionality!).
In that scenario it would be possible to fit the entire kit into a jacket pocket.
It might reduce the sellers market for the photos somewhat though, if almost anyone could afford the camera gear to set something up that would give them 'adequate' results. It might also make amateur snapping a bit pointless as well really.
>> Edited by LongQ on Monday 9th January 02:08
Theres a reason why rangefinders are(where?) so popular with journo's out in the field I guess.
A pro has to make money, so he needs the right tool for the job, or one 'that'll do' if the right one is to much money.
He has the disadvantage of financialy justifying a purchase, yet the advantage of being able to just buy a piece of kit needed (and financialy covered) for just one job.
A pro has to make money, so he needs the right tool for the job, or one 'that'll do' if the right one is to much money.
He has the disadvantage of financialy justifying a purchase, yet the advantage of being able to just buy a piece of kit needed (and financialy covered) for just one job.
RobDickinson said:That's why so many professionals Hire gear that they don't
He has the disadvantage of financialy justifying a purchase, yet the advantage of being able to just buy a piece of kit needed (and financialy covered) for just one job.
think they will need on a regular basis.
I'm a bit late to the thread, but this might be of interest -
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/081744050X/qid%3D1137067536/026-4184812-4143650
OK, so it's covering a particular niche, but I'm sure most of it would translate well to other areas.
(I don't have it, but I do have some others by the same author)
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/081744050X/qid%3D1137067536/026-4184812-4143650
OK, so it's covering a particular niche, but I'm sure most of it would translate well to other areas.
(I don't have it, but I do have some others by the same author)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff