As for the democratizing of technology, the process is hurtling along far more rapidly than the original processes. As little as 50 years ago, the advance of technology went from the more advanced, knowledgeale, and well to do consumers. This allowed refinements to be researched and trickled out through the market. In between about 1954 and the early 70's, the majority of average Americans did not have color TV. As the tehcnology was proofed, rolled out, and manufacturing became less expensive, the amount of color began to rise.
Today, the life cycle from initial introduction, to newer technologies can be measured in months! The is partly due to planned perceptional obselence, and partly to our need to keep up. The sad thing is that this doesn't just apply to technology, it's applicable to everything, even our socialization. Today, we stay home and socialize over the 'net and never meet each other. Letter writing is a lost art, as is decent communication. I see the younger folks today even talking in text!
It can be a great thing for the consumer who is at the average income, or slightly below. It even allows the rich man to try it out without spending $7000 for gear he may never use, although funding is withheld and research redirected due to lower income generation. The problem comes in when he tries to move into the professional realm before he's ready. That applies to anything, not just photography. I do think, though, that being given honest and respectable feedback allows us all to improve. I wouldn't be here if that wasn't true, and I'm sure most of us feel the same.
I suggest to those who are the MWAC crowd, learn your gear and the basics. Then learn to see, instead of copy. You will set yourself apart and be someone who can hold your own against others who haven't given any thought to their work.
And so you know, I'm no pro. I just want to make my photos sing! As for the voices in our heads, mine says "Don't worry about it!" The other one says "Double check, just in case!"
Posting a link to your images in your signature and a photo of yourself as your avatar make one narcissistic and an egomaniac?? Guess I am then.
We post here because we're into photography. It makes sense to me to share links to our photos so we can see what each other does. The avatar photos are way too small to share any meaningful photography and putting our photo there gives the reader a bit of a visual of who he is interacting with, that's all. Of course little icons relevant to our interests or sense of humor or whatever are common too, anything that makes a bit of a visual personal impression.
Seems pretty normal to me.
As a mom who's been using a camera since she was about 5, I'm putting in a vote here to stop blaming "MWACs". I see it coming from males on photo.net and elsewhere at least as often and I doubt that moms have cornered the market on underpricing themselves or over-rating their abilities.
As for why some of us put a photo of ourselves as our avatar and a link to our website in our signature line, I'm with those who said we want to share them with other photographers. I have no illusions that anyone except another APUGer is likely to ever look at my website, but there's always the chance of someone passing it along to a friend (I've sent links to others before). My images also give them a reference point of what I tend to shoot. And having a photo of me as my avatar shows someone who they're "talking" to on the web (and it's an example of a good friend's photography and a rare occasion I got talked into modeling).
Bethe - I too have had enough of folk on the net vilifying the fabled 'soccer mom who thinks she's a professional cus she's got a $800 Nikon/Canon with that kit zoom'. I know many soccer moms and none of them think they are pros or could photgraph a wedding. It's just convent for photo folks online to rant about all the blogs and flickr streams that some women (many times who've kids) share with their friends/fam. More power to them, least they are 1) photographing 2) helping preserve memories 3) sharing 4) creating happiness in this world
Good grief, I too have had enough of this garbage of these soccer moms who've supposedly stollen the whole market of photography.
Let me make a historical contextual point, back in the 40's, 50's, etc - who was the one that Kodak marketed to so much? Yep, that's right women, "The Kodak girl" anyone remember. Yep these were folks who took family photos and put them in books to memorialize family/friend fun times....
Today, little has changed, except the books are now online for all to see and some to rant about....
There have always been egomaniacs in the photo industry...
There have always been amateurs undercutting the pros...
Social media can be tools to promote your business, or all consuming...
I have been known to rant sometimes, but in the end I realize that it is unproductive.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Oddly enough I had a female friend who is a stay at home mom (but not soccer) and pretty decent digital photographer shoot my wedding. No way was I paying the usual pro rates. Not saying y'all aren't worth it, I'm saying it wasn't worth it to US. She normally hates weddings and won't do them much less solicit them (she does have some lighting equipment and does a bit of paid portraiture, and pretty decently) but did ours as a favor. We're actually quite happy with the results.
Even an average pro would have probably added at least 50% to the total cost of the wedding. I think expensive weddings are a very silly extravegence. YMMV on that of course. We all have our ideas what is worth paying for and what isn't. Heck, I thought the wedding we had was a bit over the top but my bride thought it was modest and simple, though just what she wanted. Different cultural backgrounds there. In any event we compromised - we did it her way.
Last edited by Roger Cole; 10-04-2013 at 05:17 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I agree 100% about the gender of those doing such. I was probably wrong to use the term MWAC. Of the 80ish such folks around our region, 70ish are female, so the term stuck. It's not meant to be misogynistic. And it's true, the best ones are women, as well.
Originally Posted by winger
As for several others who are upset about the MWAC/Soccer Mom "bashing," the simple fact is these folks don't seem to be hurting the studios. I'm not blaming them for ruining anyone's business. We have a few studios here, and they do great work and are not complaining about the competition. Folks know who to go to for good photos and who to avoid.
As I said, I'm not a pro. My photos are not the best around. I did point out that we show our work, especially where like minded folks gather, to get feedback and to grow in our photography.
Speaking of women and narcissists (that is what we're talking about?) - http://www.beyondwords.co.uk/p/1569/...self-portraits
60 self portraits of Vivian Meh!
'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde
50 years photographing.
Originally Posted by batwister
most Never printed.
1.2 self portraits a year.
Not really a poster girl for narcissism.
"There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).
^Yeah I sure hope Bat was kidding....
Maier is the ultimate outsider artist...