I think we should also bear in mind that if we post with a specific title or theme in mind we should either a) explain it to the viewers or b) select shots that show and reflect this theme. Some times not doing so opens oneself up to alot of possibly unwanted criticism (note this is meant to be general and not attacking anyone specifically). For example we don't want to post something called the birth and then show an unhatched chicken egg...people might be wondering what is up with you.
What culture is it here??!!
- Thread starter nikontiger
- Start date
- Status
Yes, may not be better -- BUT who GOT more Stress to complete the job in good time and deliver in minimum stated quality & quanity ? ...
When One shoot for a living ( and reputation ), he is deem Better, by those whom are paying for it.
Don't believe -- try to pitch it to the buying market on your "Concept of hobbyist is better photogs than a Paid Professional" :bsmilie:
. I like this concept, gives room for new creative ideas.The professionals are those who can reproduce consistently works that are up to the commercial standards. Many hobbyists are able to do that too, but they are not as pressured by these parameters, realistically speaking.
which is why although a picture can say a thousand words, without some guiding language it may (or may not) end up as thousands of words without legibility :sweat: of course the intention of the artist can always be to allow the work to be read in thousands of ways unrelated to what the artist had in mind ... that's another story altogether :bsmilie:
Well a pro is only considered a pro because he gets paid to do photog. At least that's how i see it. Photojournalist on the other hand....:think:
yup that's what Joe Satriani does with his song Ten words. He left the meaning of it up to his audience and it viewers from listener to listener.
i'm telling you that what you're implying, that people who critic but are not paid for it are but critiquing for the sake of critiquing, and therefore not worth that of paid critics, is an over-generalisation.
art critics, being people who intentionally concern themselves with art, make as much contribution to art as artists themselves, and to be concerned in art is not the priviledge of institutionally recognised artists and critics.
For example,
When a international brand of products consultant is looking at a photoshoot for his next targeted worldwide Ad campaign. There are major publications and media deadlines to meet. And the penalty for missing the publication dates can run into millions of dollars -- Blank Ad Space, without the insertions will still be billed to the clients.
Therefore, do you think the Consultant is taking the chance of some hobbyist to take the shot, if he misses the deadline or screwed-up, could the hobbyist pay the penalty of million of Dollars to the agency, including legal cost ?
This would also apply to small-scale jobs, which at the end of the day, it is NOT whether the hobbyist can produced the 'better" shots than the Pros, but the reliability and reputation of the Photogs and team that take the JOBs. :devil:
Careful, the fire in hell is hot hot hot...muahaha
Been to hell and back so not scared :blah: besides hell is what you make of it and it exists right here on earth :sticktong
- Status
Similar threads
