I have a debate going on, I am having a problem on any real info. that would set tle this debate. Is the field of LF shooters, is it made up of more pro's or am utures? I guess some say is how you derermine what a pro is. Just thought I w ould ask here if anyone has info or thought on this matter, just a stupid debate , but it has been interesting.
James
I don't make my living from photography but it certainly a significant source of income. Thr true origin of amatuer is someone who LOVES their craft. kw
Quang is running a survey at www.pub15.bravenet.com/vote/stats.php. According to this, 53% of respondents derive 10% or less of their income from LF revenues. There are other results there as well.
I realize that one of the beauties of a forum like this is that it can serve as a quick and dirty exchange of information, but isn't there some virtue in taking the care to shape something like proper sentences with properly spelled words?
Anyone see this recent magazine ad:
A man with a salt-and-pepper beard looking at a large spread of B&W fiber-based prints on the floor of a studio, a few prints and MF contact sheets tacked to the wall, MF camera in the background and a woman in a doorframe in the back of the room, an 8x10" wood field camera mounted on a wooden tripod is prominent in the foreground. The plane of focus runs clearly from the front-right of the frame to the rear-left, so the 8x10" camera, the photographer, and the main window light are in focus, and the woman and MF camera are out of focus (so whoever shot the ad, at least, is using a camera with movements).
Caption: "Jack's second career may not be as profitable as his first. A fact which Jack's money is prepared for." Then later: "Contact a Merril Lynch Financial Advisor...."
There was also an ad for Chase Financial Services some months back, maybe on television, showing a man with his son on a grassy hill with a 4x5" wooden field camera--clearly a leisure-time activity.
There are many levels of competency within all the worlds of photography whether amature or pro. Some specialize in the techniques or craft of it while others fly higher into the world of real art.No matter how good the technique is... if the person has nothing to say and no deep perception... it wont be art...but it will be a technical demonstation.
I make my living shooting weddings and some portraits. That pays the bills and I love the the life it affords me and it supports my 8x10 sheet film habit. But if someone refered to me as a professional photographer I think I'd crack up. "Pro" like "Fine Art" are words that are so over used that they tend to lose their value. Regardless, I very sincerly love this craft in most of it's shapes and forms.
apologeeeeez for marginal sentence structure or speeling.
e
All of us who love doing this, want at some time or another at least some of our work to be considered for a Gallery show. We're all fine artists in that sense who are attempting something that exudes craft, craftmanship, artisty, a sense of something well thought out and perfectly executed.
There's no such thing as 'bad' fine art. If it's lousy, it's lousy, it's not fine, and it isn't art. You mention that your images are intended for the Gallery or for exhibition, if they're well executed images done with imagination and perhaps panache, there is a chance they will end up in a gallery, but that goes for everybody.
You make some kind of distinction between your work and other folks work which may be for hire. There's really no distinction, you're for hire the same as they are, only yours may end up in a gallery. Because you want or intend your images to go directly to a gallery doesn't change the fact that the images have to be of something and then we go back to whether it's a people shot, portrait, landscape and so on. My point is that there is no such thing as 'crossover'.
If you weren't for hire, then you'd shoot your stuff and enjoy it for it own sake, admire it, and that would be enough. I stand on what I said, I've missed no point, there's no getting around it, calling yourself a fine art photographer is a backdoor way of say you're great. Everybody wants to be in a Gallery, wanting to be in a Gallery isn't a justification for calling your work fine art, that's for someone else to say.
Galleries are boring....so are museums for that matter...way too much paint by the numbers. I like coffee houses...libraries...events centers where many kinds people gather. Having said that I'm still glad museums and galleries exist...aside from the politics and the commercialism masqueraiding as fine art...occationally something good slips in.
My perception has always been that there is no difference in the skill level between an Advanced Amateur and a Professional. A Professional IMHO is paid to do what he already loves doing anyway, or for doing a project for a client the way the client wants it done.
I don't see how you could be either one without having a great love for photography, although I know people who unlike Edward, do weddings and events with everything on automatic just for the money.
I think Advanced Amateurs and Professionals should be grouped together, and in terms of your question it would be interesting to know how how many beginners and hobbyists, are into LF along with the Pros and Advanced Amateurs.
A lot of people call themselves Fine Art Photographers, and they are like the folks in Graphic Art who call themselves "creatives", they label themselves as 'Hey I'm Great!'. That's a bit silly. Labels aside IMHO there's just people who love Photography.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks