More Americans Becoming Serious Photographers

<p>http://news.yahoo.com/more-americans-becoming-serious-photographers-193239546.html</p>

<p>Are you a more serious photographer simply by shooting with a dslr?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"There is a shift overall in the industry from casual to enthusiast," said Hilton. She also found a big jump in people going from enthusiasts to semi-professionals who earn money as part-time photographers."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This trend is very apparent in the wedding photography forum. </p>

<p>I don't even know what a photographer is anymore</p>

<p>I have a big camera, and and even bigger lens--so I MUST be good! Ha!</p>

<p>Actually, with the "I can fix it in 'photoshop' "mentality that is becoming so prevalent, I'd argue society is becoming less serious. Ditto the ever-present smartphone camera for truly casual shooting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are you a more serious photographer simply by shooting with a dslr<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only in the same way that you are a more serious driver if you own a BMW 5 series or a more serious golfer if all your clubs are hand forged out of titanium (or whatever the most expensive clubs are made from).<br>

<br>

People are becoming (or trying to become) part time "photographers" because cameras are getting smart enough that the old "you push the button, we do the rest" slogan is becoming true. Being a photographer is equivalent to being a driver. Pretty much anybody can do it.</p>

<p>I can't tell you (you all probably know) how annoying it is when someone says to me "You must get really get good shots with that." It gets really bad when I have one of my bigger lenses. </p>

<p>Worst is when some clown who doesn't even know how to hold his dSLR wants to be my buddy - because we are both "real" photographers. Usually they haven't even figured out how to keep the flash from popping up or turn off the beeping. Sheesh.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Chute of IDC said that people are also starting to buy a once-obscure type of lens (outside professional circles), called a "prime," that doesn't zoom at all. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not know that. They must be getting REALLY serious...a lens that won't zoom - can such a thing exist?</p>

<p>Perhaps a better way to group all SLR owners is to call them "people who take photography seriously", which is not quite the same as calling them "serious photographers." That might be a bit vague for some people to understand the difference, but it makes sense to me. You can take your photography more seriously than the masses, yet not be a serious photographer. I have a prosumer level DSLR, 3 lenses, some filters, and just got a prosumer level monitor for editing and color management. Does that make me a serious photographer or still just a guy who takes his photography seriously?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't tell you (you all probably know) how annoying it is when someone says to me "You must get really get good shots with that." It gets really bad when I have one of my bigger lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would that bother you? Isn't getting the best images possible the reason why you have those things? What else would you possibly use them for? Picking up chicks?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I have a prosumer level DSLR"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that like a near-luxury car?</p>

<p>opposite is true IMO</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So photographers will pick the best prime lens for what they are shooting and use what Chute calls "sneaker zoom" — stepping forwards or backwards — to frame the photo. Working within the constraints of a prime lens forces photographers to think about how they compose a shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whenever I read or hear "sneaker zoom" or "zooming with your feet", my stomach tightens into a knot. Using the phrase is a very clear indication that the one using it hasn't mastered photography at all; framing isn't the only reason people use a zoom or different focal lengths.</p>

<p>Also - people using zooms are apparently not thinking about how to compose a shot? Seriously?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"people who take photography seriously", which is not quite the same as calling them "serious photographers." That might be a bit vague for some people to understand the difference, but it makes sense to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Picking up chicks?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I was wondering what it takes. Thanks for passing on the info.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whenever I read or hear "sneaker zoom" or "zooming with your feet", my stomach tightens into a knot. Using the phrase is a very clear indication that the one using it hasn't mastered photography at all framing isn't the only reason people use a zoom or different focal lengths.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just because someone refers to the framing aspect in such a way doesn't mean they are unaware of other benefits of prime lenses. Indeed, the article itself cited one of the reasons primes are being used, namely, "higher image quality". Such quality, we know, includes sharpness, depth of field, speed to get a shot if needed ect. While the article does discuss physical positioning as a means to compensate for a lack of zooming, it notes composition improvement as an incidental benefit and clearly indicates performance (quality) as the general motivation for using a prime.</p>

<p>You write funny stuff on the internet.</p>

<p>You must have a really good keyboard.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for passing on the info.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so fast. We're still waiting for Joel to enlighten us on that issue. Although his mention of reactions to his big lenses might be a clue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Worst is when some clown who doesn't even know how to hold his dSLR wants to be my buddy</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Why do you care how someone else holds their camera? I find it works better to think about what I'm doing rather than putting down other people. If they get the photos they want, where's the problem?</p>

>>> Ditto the ever-present smartphone camera for truly casual shooting.

 

What's wrong with that?

<p>I have never considered myself a serious photographer. </p>

<p>I find more people at least those approaching me in my area are probably made more interested in DSLR's by their noticing DSLR user's behavior, different body language, intense focus and slow and deliberate searching about and viewing through the viewfinder that P&S'ers and cell phone-togs don't seem to exhibit.</p>

<p>Several times people (mostly those well educated) have come up to me asking why I'm not using a tripod or flash shooting in theirs or other's dimly and badly lit establishment or when shooting store fronts, churches and restaurants from the street at night. They ask how do I keep from getting a blurry, dark shot or messed up colors. Then they pause for a while and say..."Is it a skill you've developed?"</p>

<p>And I say...Uuuh...Yeah? That and on body anti-shake and plenty of post processing on the computer.</p>

<p>I see a lot of "casual" DSLR users while I'm out these days. A common conversation I've had involves the DSLR owner indicating they have a new baby and they bought the camera "to get really good photos". The majority I have observed are simply using the camera in its full auto mode like a point and shoot. </p>

<p>I am not American, but i can say that i have become a much more serious photographer since i have stopped using my DSLR, I am back to using a fully manual camera.<br />The issue for me is that so many people think they are photographers because they have a DSLR, truth is you have to understand photography first and foremost. To Many people relying on a tool that does it all for them, and as one person said overusing the Photo processing tools. the result is absolute garbage. <br />Its garbage because garbage in = garbage out. Cameras without " true photographers" create garbage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The majority I have observed are simply using the camera in its full auto mode like a point and shoot."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing wrong with that. Some cameras beloved by "serious" photographers also feature excellent point and shoot auto modes that deliver results folks like. Per KR's advice, I really like Nikon's green Flexible Professional mode and use it a lot. Makes it easy to bias the apparatchik and shudder speed by twiddling the thumbscrew, and the explosion compensation via the front twirly thingie.</p>

<p>Right, Lex...and remember to pack spray to eliminate those shudderbugs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The mark of "serious" photography, going back to the film days, has always been the single-lens reflex, or SLR, camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The mark of "serious" photography, is a seriously good photograph. Numerous combinations of skill, talent and gear can get you there, or not. I've seen very serious people with the latest and greatest gear consistently turn out crap images and I've likewise seen casual shooters with limited gear and knowledge create some fine images.</p>

<p>That advancements in cameras make it harder to take bad photos is a good thing. If taking fewer bad photos inspires some people to learn how to use the tool then some of them will eventually take good photos, which is a good thing.</p>

<p>Big fluffy dogs are much better chick magnets than fancy cameras or good photos.</p>