> > ein> If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would > ein> buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. > ein> Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent > ein> the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality > ein> camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other > ein> professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't > ein> make any sense of my Ford Escort. > > Agree. I do resent the idea too, especially as it means we > photographers are losing money, when every "putz" thinks he can make > the pictures good for his brochure with his 300D and no > knowledge/feeling of photography or lighting. Well, that's the > changing market, and anybody wishing to continue will have to adapt. > But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane > mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but > anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the > profession's pride disappeared?
Bah! Youngsters today! :-) Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was very common for people to repair most minor problems with their own hands. (There was also far more economical incentive to do so; the reliability of cars has increased considerably over the decades). On the first car that I owned (a Morris Minor 1000 Traveller) I did most of the work myself, up to and including changing piston rings and grinding in new exhaust valves. That wasn't unusual for the time. Nowadays you'll still find vintage car enthusiasts doing all the work themselves, but apart from changing light bulbs, fuses, filters, brake pads and spark plugs there's very little you can do on a modern car; most other things are either good for the lifetime of the car or will require hooking up to the on-board computerised diagnostic readouts.
