for other pro photographers....?

[jake..]

what do you consider other photographers? do you consider them competition? or what?

also how do you deal with everyone thinking they are a pro photographer just because they have an good camera or dslr?

in my are you see it all the time... someone gets a dslr and there trying to do portraits and there photos are not really "pro quality"

for example almost every pro photographer has a twitter or facebook page now adays...

there is one girl here that is calling herself a "pro" and shoots with a point and shoot camera, and her photos lack quality (there really grainy or poorly lit) and she is charging 200 for a session.... and has tons of follows.... they must all be friends... while there are people who really are a pro and have been doing there business for 20 years that charge 250 or 300.

i guess i just kinda get annoyed with people who think they are a "pro" just because they have a fancy camera... dont get my wrong i do have great respect for the "real pro's"

your opinions? experience with this issue?

[Hondo]

If you are really a professional, that stuff wouldn't bother you...

[James Tilley]

The market determines the pricing. Obviously the girl you described is doing her job well enough to be making money, so good for her. From a business standpoint all other photographers are competition, but that doesn't make it your place to put out negativity towards them. Ask yourself what you could improve on as an artist and a business person, and use the success and failures of others to make yourself better. Gear and experience don't determine whether one is a "professional".

[bighen885]

I myself and am amateur and do shoots for free or very low cost ($50), just so I can practice my skills, learn more ect. But I see "Pros" charging 200-300 for crappy photos all the time & yes it shocks me! Just yesterday a friend showed me proofs from her recent senior shoot, out of 100 pics maybe 2 where ok quality. My friend was in tears over the quality...and the shocker is she spent $750 on the photos! I think the biggest problem is knowledge, people see a website where the photographer is charging 200-800 or whatever it is & just assumes well if people spend that much they must be good.

[Tez]

Same question as yesterday, You need to lighten up, if you are a professional photographer and your work is good then why would inferior work by others bother you? If the girl you mention makes £200 a session good for her, either her work has artistic appeal you can't see and people like it enough to pay for the service or she is simply good enough at what she is doing to get paid or maybe you are jealous because you have all the equipment and aren't getting £200 a session, it doesn't really matter.
You seem to have a snobbery about the equipment used as yesterday you asked the same question almost word for word apart from the part about the girl with the point and shoot, instead suggesting that somebody with an entry level DSLR or IPhone cannot be a photographer which is a ridiculous notion. I started taking pictures with an old crappy point and shoot I got off my dad, it wasn't even worth £20 but I went out taking pictures whenever I could. The point here is photography, was my hobby, it's what I did whenever I could but I wasn't being paid, I was 6 for gods sake but I was still a Photographer.

Roll on 30 years I am now a "real pro" photographer and have been for quite a few years, all that phrase means is I get paid for taking pictures, big deal it is no great achievement and deserves no snobbery or fanfare, I did not have to get any sort of qualification to call myself a professional photographer, go on any sort of course or get any sort of formal training whatsoever nor did I, I learned my trade from reading and doing. All I needed was a quality of work people would be happy to pay for, which I do provide more than adequately, and I can still honestly say that David Bailey with a £20 kiddies point and shoot could produce better work than me with my pro equipment, why TALENT.

The camera is a tool nothing more, a good camera may make taking a good picture a little easier but a cheap disposable camera in the hands of a good photographer is always going to produce better work than a £2500 DSLR in the hands of somebody with no eye for a shot.

[Vulture]

im not a professional photographer by any means, but i do a fair bit of photography. i dont do sessions or charge for it, its just for my own entertainment really. mostly all i do is photograph snails anyway... http://13thmurder.deviantart.com/

but really, im using a point and shoot. i think im reasonably good with one, in all honesty. im going off of comments ive gotten asking about my camera, and surprised reactions when i mention im only using a canon powershot.

but... there are tons of people out there who invest in a $2000 camera, and try to start a business doing professional photography having never practiced, or even taken pictures of anything before except maybe the camera on their phone. it makes me rather sad seeing grainy bathroom mirror profile pictures done with cameras i only wish i could afford. (yeah, they are still grainy on account of them being taken without flash in a rather dark room...)

but the worst part is, there are lots of people who pay for this. the people paying for it know nothing of photography, and dont realize their mistake until after they've done it. they assume photographers are all amazing highly skilled camera operating machines, and that all of them have been trained by the omnipotent camera wizard.

these idiots with shiny cameras, i assume, don't have much in the way of repeat business or referrals, however they do like filling my inbox with spam...

[voicelessvegetable646]

My advice: Worry about you. The time and energy wasted on worrying about them doesn't affect them in the least and takes away from energy you could be putting into your own work.