Re: [Leica] Re: Definition of a Professional

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Ted Grant wrote:
>.....snip...
> The unfortuane side to the auto cameras is the people who think the pros
> are over blown and over paid simply because they themselves have a "camera
> like that and I take pretty good pictures with it.  Heck I might as well
> take the company annual report photos this year."

Over blown? Maybe. Over paid? I do not think so ;-)

> Then when the annual report looks like crap sometimes they learn the
> differecnce between themselves and the experienced professional. Often they
> don't!

Ted,

When the company reports do not look like crap, they often seem to be
made from the same mould. With typical color grainless (MF at least)
purposefuly hard shadowed portraits of CEO, CIO, CFO showing 'calm
determination' with dark blue suits and a hint of red in the tie against
a black background, then a dozen (smaller) pics of 'typical' employees
with a very sophisticated balance of activities, ages, sexes and skin
tones, then an aerial photograph of the (large) plant or a 19mm
distorted 'spectacular' pic of the entrance of the neo-classical glassy
but compact HQ building of the not-so-big-but-so-dynamic ERP consultancy
company.

Add a few pack shots of the successful products, a snap from the day
George Bush was paid 20.OOO bucks to say hello to the board and an array
of graphs and pies in the middle of statements written with
exotic-but-serious fonts and signed in magnificent caligraphic curves...

My guess is that they are outsourced to (good) pros from a to z, under
the supervision of a vampiric communication agency ! Are they crappy ?
Oh no: they fill the 'dikke nek' purpose of the client. Are they good ?
Irreprochably aseptised. Could the local EOS-3 amateur have made better
pics? Don't know. But knowing the company from the inside, taking
non-invoiced hours to test and try, he just might be in a position to
produce something more interesting. But who wants interesting pics in an
annual report?

Alan