Get this straight

[Dirt_Bike_Ryda]

He means they could still get pretty much the same photos from a cheaper body. as they know how to work their tools.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by PowerPix

Osmo, I'm a little worried.....would you like for me to explain more in detail???

My uncle has been shooting weddings for 15 years, his son has been helping him for 5, and I've been helping him for a few as well. He's a pro, but he's also family. Your blanket statement in your original post was somewhat over-reaching.

I qualified my statement by saying that, while he uses 1D and 1Ds series cameras for work, his "family" camera is a 20D/450D: theyre cheap cameras, but they give him all the power he needs to make great pictures.

I just find that your original statement was a bit too broad.

[bhursey]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

My uncle has been shooting weddings for 15 years, his son has been helping him for 5, and I've been helping him for a few as well. He's a pro, but he's also family. Your blanket statement in your original post was somewhat over-reaching.

I qualified my statement by saying that, while he uses 1D and 1Ds series cameras for work, his "family" camera is a 20D/450D: theyre cheap cameras, but they give him all the power he needs to make great pictures.

I just find that your original statement was a bit too broad.

I agree with Osmosis it really is not the level of slr that makes the picture, or if its a family member, it is the person who is taking it. I am that family member, right now I am a so called weekend warrior simi-pro photographer and surprisingly most of the people who ask me to do shoots are my wifes extend family and their friends. I also have church members and people from my wifes school. They consider me a professional even though im either a friend or a family member because of the quality of my work, and they are willing to pay me for that work. I made wonderfully professional quality photos on my 350d sure it took more button clicking and more work, before moving to a 20d. In some definitions it could be consider a cheep camera. However it gives me all the same base controls as with any other camera. The only reason I upgraded was the ability to change manual setting quicker with my 20d because of the back wheel.

[PowerPix]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

My uncle has been shooting weddings for 15 years, his son has been helping him for 5, and I've been helping him for a few as well. He's a pro, but he's also family. Your blanket statement in your original post was somewhat over-reaching.

I qualified my statement by saying that, while he uses 1D and 1Ds series cameras for work, his "family" camera is a 20D/450D: theyre cheap cameras, but they give him all the power he needs to make great pictures.

I just find that your original statement was a bit too broad.

I was being sarcastic in my quote. Of course there are people that can take great photos with even the cheapest camera. I am not denying that. My statement in general covers the way the majority of people think. Evidenced by the fact of a boatload of complaints around here about clients. That's all.

[OsmosisStudios]

Your sarcasm is very poorly presented, in that case.

[PowerPix]

Oops, sorry, I'll make it clearer next time!!!!

[Photoboothguy]

This actually sounds like a rant more geared to the client than the photographer.

And actually, if you read all the complaints about clients, they do follow a general trend. The majority of the complaints (if not all) have to do with one thing...releasing the rights for the client to copy, display, or print their own photos. Very few times is actually about quality.

We hired a photographer for our wedding that would give us the digitals...not a wedding photographer, but a newspaper photographer. Great photos.
My friend hired me because he wanted the digitals for his wedding. Plastered all over Facebook now...instant advertising.
Another friend was completely dissatisfied with his wedding photographer because he didn't get the digitals. Think she'll get a referal?
Another friend hired me to do baby portraits because I'd give them the digitals. Again, free advertising all over facebook.
My sister-in-law stopped going to baby photographers because...guess what? They wouldn't give her the digitals.

So many photographers on here keep saying they need to "educate" their clients on copyright law and what they can and cannot do with their photos. If the client's expectations are not in-line with the photographers, maybe they're not the ones that need the education.

Btw, this isn't the first industry to have this issue. The same thing happened to the music and movie industry, and is soon to hit the book industry as well. Those that adapt quickly (like Apple and Amazon) will soar...those that live in the past (Circuit City, Blockbuster) will remain there.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by rt80639

This actually sounds like a rant more geared to the client than the photographer.

And actually, if you read all the complaints about clients, they do follow a general trend. The majority of the complaints (if not all) have to do with one thing...releasing the rights for the client to copy, display, or print their own photos. Very few times is actually about quality.

We hired a photographer for our wedding that would give us the digitals...not a wedding photographer, but a newspaper photographer. Great photos.
My friend hired me because he wanted the digitals for his wedding. Plastered all over Facebook now...instant advertising.
Another friend was completely dissatisfied with his wedding photographer because he didn't get the digitals. Think she'll get a referal?
Another friend hired me to do baby portraits because I'd give them the digitals. Again, free advertising all over facebook.
My sister-in-law stopped going to baby photographers because...guess what? They wouldn't give her the digitals.

So many photographers on here keep saying they need to "educate" their clients on copyright law and what they can and cannot do with their photos. If the client's expectations are not in-line with the photographers, maybe they're not the ones that need the education.

Btw, this isn't the first industry to have this issue. The same thing happened to the music and movie industry, and is soon to hit the book industry as well. Those that adapt quickly (like Apple and Amazon) will soar...those that live in the past (Circuit City, Blockbuster) will remain there.

Im sorry, but it's exactly this kind of thing that is killing the field. If you give our your digital files to everybody and dont expect any kind of extra compensation or an adherence to copyright law, you're simply propagating the problem.

[TAGfan]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Im sorry, but it's exactly this kind of thing that is killing the field. If you give our your digital files to everybody and dont expect any kind of extra compensation or an adherence to copyright law, you're simply propagating the problem.

Well if you do end up giving out digitals, and I have, its basically the customer buying the copyright - I wash my hands of those images. I guess I am confused how that 'kills the field'. The alternative is that your clients would have to come back to you in order to get reprints made if they wanted - and how often does that happen?

Maybe you are just referring to giving out the digitals for free?

[Photoboothguy]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Im sorry, but it's exactly this kind of thing that is killing the field. If you give our your digital files to everybody and dont expect any kind of extra compensation or an adherence to copyright law, you're simply propagating the problem.

It's not killing the field...it's where the field is going.

Some may see it as "propagating the problem". MBAs call it a "competitive advantage".