Do you agree or disagree?

Question

with the vast numbers of amateur images about now due to the digital revolution, does this make the professional ones shine more?

ara mojo Dr, fantastic work!!

Answer 1

Alice - Read Andrew's answer and stop eating the mushrooms. There is a lot of mediocrity out there. For instance, how many people would have been approached to "do a wedding" before the digital revolution?

I think that there are some amateurs who stumble across a few nice pictures because of the digital age where one can take 1,000 pictures for free. There are some who actually learn from this experience and cut the ratio of bad to good over time.

Even things that a professional would toss in the recycle file would make me very happy.

~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL
~~~~~~~~~~

See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmkySTIV4BbN.522F8OhJ_GNxQt.?qid=20070808152712AAYNr3D just to see how easy it is for an amateur to believe that their photography is "worth something."

Answer 2

This is an interesting question, Antoni.

My short answer would be yes, depending on who is doing the viewing. But the public at large is getting duped into believing mediocrity is greatness, or at least above par. Now that everyone can snap, and more importantly, share, thousands of images, artistically uneducated viewers begin to thing that poor is OK, and fair is wonderful.

Just look at all the posts here on YA for critiques. Most of the images are poorly composed and over Photoshopped to the point of ridiculous, but most people seem to love them and comment on how great they are. Now, I know that a lot of this is youngsters, but still...Many people who should know better can't tell the difference between a great photo and crap.

It is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but public appreciation for classic beauty and style seems to be flying out the window, or maybe it's going down the YouTube.

Answer 3

Awesome question, Antoni. There is a noticable difference in images taken by an amateur, and images taken by someone educated in the art of photography. And that is my opinion, this thing that we do, you and I and Dr. Sam, and fotoace, and everyone else here, regardless of our respective skill levels, is an artform. And we are all artists in our own right. Photography is much more than just picking up a camera and snapping a picture. If one takes care in what they take a photograph of, takes time to compose it properly, takes time to edit it in photoshop, they are an artist as well. Some take it more seriously than others, some are vastly more skilled than others, but I feel that we all strive for a sense of accomplishment in what we do. Some of us make money doing it, some of us do it in our spare time, but we all have the same passion for it, otherwise we would not all be on here talking about, and at times, arguing about it.

That is what separates us from your average soccer mom who picks up her bargain basement digicam and snaps pictures of her son running up and down the field. Not to say that isn't special to her, but to illustrate that there is indeed a difference between what we know of what an amateur is, and the difference between a snapshot, a picture, and a photograph, in the figurative sense.

I consider myself an amateur with some skill. But the difference between someone who just wants to take pictures, and I is my endeavor to become the best photographer I can be.

I do agree that an amateur can take a photograph of the same caliber as a professional, maybe not with all the fancy schmancy equipment and lighting effects, but can compose just as well given the presence of some skill.

I'm no pro, like some of you guys, in that I don't earn a living doing what I do with my camera but I can hold my own. What I really need to understand is the real difference between an amateur photographer and one that calls his or herself a professional. Is it time dedicated to the trade? If so, how much? Is it education in the artform? If so, how much? Is it making a living from it? If so, how do you do it? And how long does it take? Or, is it having a passion for it? If so, how do you quantify that?

Answer 4

I think the technical skills are merely evident. That pretty much goes without saying.

An artist starts with a blank canvas.. an architect starts with a client brief and a blue screen (these days)... but from there something comes from their imaginations to resolve, explore and express their program. Dude, an architect will sketch images of a structure in its mind .. these are visualisations of future photographs... images to present to clients/agents/city councils and eventually, once realised, the architect will commission a technician with a camera to capture those images again from teh realised works ... but the artist in those shots is invariably the architect to a great extent for having the foresight to visualise those images before there was a building there for a technician to photograph.

The artist in this digital revolution may or may not have any technical skill. But it is merely a question of time for those with some real artistic talent to increase their technical knowlegde isn't it? This shouldnt mean that they abandon their artistic visions!

Answer 5

Most amateurs learn pretty fast that there is a lot more to taking photos than snapping away; even with all the latest gear. A friend of mine is a semi-professional, and we can take the same photo, using the same equipment and the same settings; yet hers will always be a cut above mine. Very frustrating!

Answer 6

I would say that yes, the plethora of amateur images does make professional images look better. Too sleepy to elaborate.

Answer 7

I disagree, I've seen some photos from amateur that hell of lot better than some Pros.

Answer 8

I don´t think that there was ever anything difficult in taking pictures, so no not really, not unless a complete idiot gets ahold of the camera, but even then an idiot can get lucky...

Answer 9

" beauty is in the eye of the beholder"