----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Johnston"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: Professional
The words "professional" and "amateur" make a
big difference to some
companies and very little difference to others.
Some companies apply them
strictly and others indiscriminately. Kodak, for
instance, has separate
professional and amateur divisions. The two have
separate advertising
budgets, even.
Among photographers, there are many ways of
defining "pro" status. Everybody
has their own way of doing it. At _Photo
Techniques_ I defined "pro" as
somebody who has made at least 80% of a viable,
sustainable personal or
family income for a minimum of three years from
shooting and selling
photographs on assignment or commission,
excluding art photographers. A pro
is definitely _not_ somebody who just
occasionally makes a little money from
photography.
"Professional" in a 35mm SLR means that:
--It offers whatever the current
state-of-the-art in terms of features and
technology is believed to be;
--It's made for a large number of shutter cycles
(typically 150k, vs. 5-10k
for an entry-level SLR and 2-5k for a p/s) and
high reliability and
toughness;
--It is part of a comprehensive system that
makes available every accessory
and lens that a wide variety of pros might need,
especially a comprehensive
line of flash equipment and top-quality fast
zooms;
--The company has a Professional Services
division that actively courts high
level pros and services all pros' needs. This
ranges from loaner equipment
and fast turnaround on service to on-site
support at major events such as
the Olympics. It costs maybe $8-10 million to
launch a PS division, and many
camera makers simply can't or won't make that
investment. To even be
eligible for PS membership, a photographer needs
to satisfy a list of
criteria that includes multiple
tearsheets--published advertising or
editorial photographs that they've been paid for
(i.e., not just contest
winners or vanity publications).
--High visibility. This includes name
recognition among clients and a
presence at places where photographers
congregate, meaning lots of
photographers using the eqiupment at places like
sporting events, government
press conferences, runway fashion shows, etc.
--Good used and rental availability, and good
repair service availability
both official and independent.
What this leave out is the number of working
pros for whom all the geegaws are at best an
irritant getting in the way of their work.
Most of my paid work was in the studio (I no
longer classify as a pro photographer by Mike's
standard, I would point out). I shot small
products, especially jewelry and ag-tech
components. For me, the whole idea of using 35mm
was ludicrous. I always seemed to need features
that 35mm did not provide, such as a large
negative (a necessity if you want good images
anyway), or a flexible camera for depth of field
control. The ability to provide usable Polaroids
was also important from time to time.
What is needed for this type of work is a box
that will fire a flash and that will hold a lens
and film. Nothing more. Multipoint AF, and 54
metering zones with 32 different ways to set the
auto exposure is not only useless in this type
of shooting, but the interface that supports it
is a prime irritant.
For tabletop photography, the money tends to be
in the lighting and the lens.
Truthfully, the K1000 would be a good choice for
this stuff if the first two criteria can be
ignored, and if you can get one with an accurate
viewfinder (I have owned 3, none of which had
properly aligned finders).
Its funny, that as 35mm films have gotten good
enough to be usable, the cameras have drifted
away from usable for many pros.
William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
