[Leica] Professional photographers?

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

Hi Ted! Maybe next time I should say: "you know how everybody says they're a 
photographer? Well some people really are!"
It's like once way back in the funny farm on a little island there's a guy 
dressed up like Napoleon. And he really is Napoleon! Somebodies gotta be!
Just ran into another iPhone mega shooter the other day totally enthralled 
by their multitudinous cell phone grabs but the idea of using a camera or 
printer so far from their mindset it was like I made an ass of myself to 
even bring it up.
It's bugged me more and more this everybody feeling "photographer" is part 
of their title. 
They would not say "gardener" if they ever mowed a lawn. And I can do twenty 
minutes on moving lawns. My edging was weak and there was no dental.
I've wondered if on the "I'm a photographer" thing the purpose is really not 
to inflate themselves but deflate those of us who use the title to reflect 
the real focus of our lives. Too diabolical I'm sure but I keep getting 
those kinds of vibes.
As the hippies once said " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're 
not trying to kill you". 
Photography is fair game for some reason; a dumping ground. People love 
trivializing it any way they can. I think it stands alone in that regard. I 
can't think of another avocation/ vocation where that kind of thing goes on.
"I don?t just collect stamps I designed half of them!".
They love to pull the "paparazzi" word on you as if they didn?t know it was 
an insult and as if they didn?t know it was not you.
So I go through this tacky song and dance so they really know that I'm not 
some stock trader with a new camera he just won on eBay.
One of the first stops I made showing my first portfolio around the guys 
told me I have to not be afraid of "selling myself". And by that they meant 
dropping a few soundbites out of their resum? to impress people. Which they 
did and it certainly had that effect on me. But then they for sure knew I 
was a photographer, up and coming maybe. But I had only a couple of 
soundbites to drop at the time. 

-- 

Mark William Rabiner
Photographer

?On 9/20/18, 1:09 PM, "LUG on behalf of Ted Grant via LUG" 
<lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of lug at 
leica-users.org> wrote:

    Good morning Mark,
    Well my long time friend and good buddy, it sounds like the 
ramifications of the "new world of being a "Pro-photographer" is catching up 
to you as every brother and sister become a ""pro-photographer????"" with 
their new "I-phone" or whatever these contraptions are called???"Try talking 
to them about "LIGHT=ANGLES=COLOUR or B&W? SHOOTING FROM THE SHADOWSIDE?" I 
find many respond with? 
    "OH I DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. AS I USE AN I=PHONE.  THAT 
CORRECTS THE exposure, LIGHTING, DISTORTION, AND PRETTY WELL EVERYTHING ELSE 
THAT IT CORRECTS!!!"
    After my 65 years as a "photojournalist" :-) photographing about the 
world. Note I've stopped using the word "photographer! WHY? Because I'm 
tired of being lumped in with the world of PSUEDO "photographers?" by every 
cotton picking owner of A MACHINE that captures some kind of image while the 
user is on the phone or whatever?
    Yeah I know I sound like I'm whining about these new "photographer 
types?" But I'm not, as I come from a time when being recognized as a 
"PHOTOGRAPHER" meant something more than many of the dip-sticks OF TODAY who 
call themselves "professional photographer!!" :-(
    So my old buddy it's much easier to refer to yourself as a 
"photojournalist!" As it means something more realistic than "photographer" 
lumped in with all the pseudo photographers of today!"
    cheers,
    Dr. ted grant O.C.
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+tedgrant=shaw.ca at leica-users.org] On 
Behalf Of Mark Rabiner
    Sent: September-20-18 12:23 AM
    To: Leica Users Group
    Subject: Re: [Leica] Professional photographers?
    
    What I always did is check the yellow pages. If they were not in there 
then I didn't believe the "I'm a photographer" stuff which we all get all 
the time.
    For every person who is serious about photography or who heads off to 
the photo studio every morning as I did there's a million who just wants to 
get a shot of Aunt Martha during thanksgiving. But where this vocation is 
different is many of those people find it necessary to refer to themselves 
as photographers. It's really uncanny. If they collected glass unicorns it 
would not occur to them to say they were glass blowers.
    Photography will always be way more an avocation than a vocation, but 
with a bit more craziness involved.
    Now I'm not sure if there are yellow pages any more but there is this 
thing called the internet and in minutes you can see or not see the pix and 
easily know.
    It is a phenomenon the amount of people who will tell you they are 
photographers on top of trading stocks because they own a camera but this 
yet another convoluted troll we get periodically from this source which 
basically denies the legitimacy of an entire profession do to IRS income 
rules and whatever else is often a favorite of those who could simply just 
never make the commitment. Nobody else is allowed to be a photographer 
because they were not a photographer.
    I think many of the people I've known many who whom were photographers 
would love to know that the whole thing is really a bunch of baloney and the 
focus of theirs lives have been really just an illusion.
    For me the "I'm a photographer or also a photographer" stuff  is a 
really a pain because whenever people ask me what my occupation has been and 
I tell them their eyes glaze over. It's simply what half the people they 
meet say.
    
    Mark William Rabiner
    
    ?On 9/19/18, 1:19 PM, "LUG on behalf of Tina Manley via LUG" 
<lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of lug at 
leica-users.org> wrote:
    
        I still manage to make a living as a professional photographer.  I 
do it
        with a combination of stock sales and assignments.  It gets harder 
every
        year because everybody is a photographer these days!  I do go to a 
lot of
        places that most travelers do not and since they are places that are 
in the
        news today (Syria, Iran, Central America) the photos sell.  I also 
have
        access through the agencies I work with as a mission consultant that 
most
        people do not have.
        
        My husband is my business manager and he makes sure that I make a 
profit
        three out of five years.  He tells me when I can and cannot afford 
to add
        more equipment.
        
        I still find Leica equipment to be worth the expense due to the 
quality and
        durability.  I very much regret the one-year detour I made with 
Canon.  The
        new SL is the best camera I have ever used and the lenses are 
outstanding.
        I'm still able to carry them around all day, thank goodness!
        
        I am probably even more in the minority since I am a female 
professional
        photographer and Leica user!!
        
        Tina
        
        On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin via LUG <
        lug at leica-users.org> wrote:
        
        > When I mentioned the almost impossibility of selling figurative 
photos at
        > art and photo shows several LUG members suggested that I repost 
this note.
        > It was written half a decade ago and is still relevant today.
        >
        > "A couple of truths. Photography is not legally a profession in 
most parts
        > of the USA. Anyone can call themselves a "professional 
photographer." There
        > are no exams, no licenses, no boards of regulation, no educational
        > requirements. Your doctor, dentist, architect, lawyer, accountant,
        > podiatrist, and even your kid's kindergarten teacher are 
professionals.
        > Photography is either a hobby or a business. In some communities 
you must
        > have a business license to operate. But having a business license 
does not
        > mean that you are legally a professional. According to the IRS, if 
you
        > don't make money three years out of five, it is a hobby. The 
Bureau of
        > Labor Statistics data shows that there are 152,000 people in the 
U.S. who
        > classify themselves as photographers but only about 10% of those 
make a
        > living which puts them solidly in the middle class. If the 
practice of
        > photography is their only income, the rest qualify for food 
stamps. Many
        > LUG members who profess to making a nice living from photogr
        >  aphy are not free lancers but are or were gainfully employed by 
some
        > organization who paid them to take pictures.
        >
        > Second, photographic equipment has evolved to the point where 
little
        > technical knowledge is required to make adequate photographs. 
Anyone can
        > pick up a camera, point it at a subject and get a perfectly 
exposed, in
        > focus, image. It is all in knowing where to point the camera and 
that
        > facility is shared by many who do not classify themselves as 
photographers.
        > There is no long apprenticeship learning the fundamentals. The 
entry bar is
        > very low. This extends to commercial photography as well as 
pictures of
        > Aunt Julia. A national distributor of mechanical fasteners in my
        > neighborhood photographs all the pictures in his voluminous catalog
        > himself. "Why," he says, "pay thousands to a professional 
photographer. How
        > much skill does it take to make a picture of a bolt?"
        >
        > Third, professional quality equipment is cheap and readily 
available.
        > Canon expects to sell 26 million cameras this year. Two million 
will be of
        > professional level. Nikon, Sony, and even Leica will add to the 
sum,
        > perhaps 5 million pro cameras in total. Clearly there is no 
shortage of
        > equipment which can meet the highest standards for publication. 
And the
        > stuff is easier than ever to use.
        >
        > The LUG has over 1000 members all of whom have a high interest in
        > photography and probably possess professional level equipment. How 
many of
        > us make a living from photography alone? Just photography. No 
other day
        > jobs, investment, trust fund, Social Security, retirement benefits 
or
        > spousal income included. I mean a real living. The average middle 
class
        > income in the US is $40,000. The poverty level is under $20,000. 
Remember
        > you can make that much by frying hamburgers at Burger King. If you 
don't
        > make an adequate living income from photography, no matter how 
skilled you
        > are, you are practicing a hobby. Unless more than 100 LUG members 
are
        > gainfully employed in photography, I maintain that the 
"professionals"
        > amongst us are a distinct minority, unrepresentative of the 
interests of
        > the entire group. If we listen to them we might as well expect all 
real
        > photographers to only use Leicas.
        >
        > Larry Z
        >
        >
        > A couple of truths. Photography is not legally a profession in 
most parts
        > of the USA. Anyone can call themselves a "professional 
photographer." There
        > are no exams, no licenses, no boards of regulation, no educational
        > requirements. Your doctor, dentist, architect, lawyer, accountant,
        > podiatrist, and even your kid's kindergarten teacher are 
professionals.
        > Photography is either a hobby or a business. In some communities 
you must
        > have a business license to operate. But having a business license 
does not
        > mean that you are legally a professional. According to the IRS, if 
you
        > don't make money three years out of five, it is a hobby. The 
Bureau of
        > Labor Statistics data shows that there are 152,000 people in the 
U.S. who
        > classify themselves as photographers but only about 10% of those 
make a
        > living which puts them solidly in the middle class. If the 
practice of
        > photography is their only income, the rest qualify for food 
stamps. Many
        > LUG members who profess to making a nice living from photogra
        >  phy are not free lancers but are or were gainfully employed by 
some
        > organization who paid them to take pictures.
        >
        > Second, photographic equipment has evolved to the point where 
little
        > technical knowledge is required to make adequate photographs. 
Anyone can
        > pick up a camera, point it at a subject and get a perfectly 
exposed, in
        > focus, image. It is all in knowing where to point the camera and 
that
        > facility is shared by many who do not classify themselves as 
photographers.
        > There is no long apprenticeship learning the fundamentals. The 
entry bar is
        > very low. This extends to commercial photography as well as 
pictures of
        > Aunt Julia. A national distributor of mechanical fasteners in my
        > neighborhood photographs all the pictures in his voluminous catalog
        > himself. "Why," he says, "pay thousands to a professional 
photographer. How
        > much skill does it take to make a picture of a bolt?"
        >
        > Third, professional quality equipment is cheap and readily 
available.
        > Canon expects to sell 26 million cameras this year. Two million 
will be of
        > professional level. Nikon, Sony, and even Leica will add to the 
sum,
        > perhaps 5 million pro cameras in total. Clearly there is no 
shortage of
        > equipment which can meet the highest standards for publication. 
And the
        > stuff is easier than ever to use.
        >
        > The LUG has over 1000 members all of whom have a high interest in
        > photography and probably possess professional level equipment. How 
many of
        > us make a living from photography alone? Just photography. No 
other day
        > jobs, investment, trust fund, Social Security, retirement benefits 
or
        > spousal income included. I mean a real living. The average middle 
class
        > income in the US is $40,000. The poverty level is under $20,000. 
Remember
        > you can make that much by frying hamburgers at Burger King. If you 
don't
        > make an adequate living income from photography, no matter how 
skilled you
        > are, you are practicing a hobby. Unless more than 100 LUG members 
are
        > gainfully employed in photography, I maintain that the 
"professionals"
        > amongst us are a distinct minority, unrepresentative of the 
interests of
        > the entire group. If we listen to them we might as well expect all 
real
        > photographers to only use Leicas."
        >
        > Larry Z
        >
        >
        > _______________________________________________
        > Leica Users Group.
        > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more 
information
        >
        
        
        
        -- 
        Tina Manley
        www.tinamanley.com
        tina-manley.artistwebsites.com
        http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley
        
<http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html>
        
        _______________________________________________
        Leica Users Group.
        See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
        
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
    
    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information