Winston said:
Yes, I agree with Larry that Photography is a skill, however, like doctors and lawyers. There are also GPs who charge $16 and specialists who charge $1000+.
Like there are professional photographers who charge X and Y.
Ask yourself the question, why does a GP only charge $16? Either because his work doesn't merit more money and if he charged more his customers would disappear, or because he's earnt his money and he's doing it for charity. As you yourself have been at pains to point out, market forces will dictate what you charge, hence there is a reason your GP is only charging $16. Either that or Government subsidies, but see above.
No disrespect to that GP. There might well be other reasons but I'm just suiting the example to help my argument!
I think I should clarify at this point:
I am not anti-amateur, and I am not pro-professional.
I'm simply arguing that people who have no capability to do the job, whether amateur or professional, should be responsible enough to not do the job, rather than do the job for free, or for less money.
That's all. I want fair competition. I'm happy enough for an amateur to come into the market, be able to do the job, charge whatever he likes, and do the job well. That's fine. If he's capable and knowledgeable, he won't sell himself short either and the pricing will take care of itself.
I stress again, the problem is people who undercut professionals (even amateurs) because they can; because they have a day job that pays their bills so photography is a bonus; because their parents have bought them their camera and their parents are putting them up and feeding them.
so the couple who spend millons on wedding who go get themselves the best, and the garden party wedding couple can ask a newbie to do it for $50 (or what ever)
No problem with that. But does the newbie know what he's doing? Is he responsible and a good photographer? If the answer was yes, would he be charging $50? Because clearly that's all he thinks his time is worth, OR that's all he thinks he can get away with charging because there'll be someone else out there, with far less skill, who'll do it for the same amount otherwise. Your example newbie is getting shafted himself by this poor perception of the profession.
I have seen some couples who look at the shots the newbie photograhers take and say "very good, it's good enough for me" and they may not even be able to identify which photograph was taken by a pro and which was not, so does it warrant him to pay for a pro when he cannot see the difference?
No it doesn't. As I've pointed out above. Like branded goods, many people can't tell the difference if not for the label. But in as much as anything else, as we've pointed out above, that's if you get a decent, competent amateur. Not necessarily good, just competent. But what if you get a bumbling fool? I know of an instance where someone took on a couple of assignments and he didn't understand the least bit about flash. And because he's in this country rather than aforementioned Singapore, he's using a Pentax MZ-M and a manual flash gun. Oh dear.
Next point is, that's as much down to the pro's fault, in your little scenario. It's up to the pro to distinguish himself. Do you get people thinking, oh I'll hire this guy off the street to do my operation because I won't be able to distinguish his result from the surgeon next door? No. Back to my whole point about perception, people need to appreciate the photographic skill. I don't mean, *think* a pro photographer is better than a newbie, I mean, be able to see it.
And it's up to us as photographers, ALL of us, to educate the public into a better appreciation of the photographic art. As well as arts in general. Like it or not, Singaporean society does not accord it its due status, whether performing art or fine art.
Evian mineral water and the bottled mineral water from indonesia (VIT) taste the same to me, and I also opt for cheaper ones (sometimes, even Free from the taps, since singapore tap water is safe to drink by WHO standards), does it means the cheaper mineral water or the free tap water are depriving Evian of their market share?
Yes!
I get what you're trying to say, and I agree with you. Some people will still buy Evian. But look at it my/our way of thinking. If there was no tap water and no VIT, would Evian's market share not be a LOT higher because the options are cut down. Everyone who drank tap water and VIT would have to switch to Evian. Market share goes up.
I'm not trying to champion a monopoly. That's not good for the market either. But I'm warning against untreated water that is not safe for consumption flooding the market because they promise to *pay* you 2 cents per litre. It just undercut tap water, VIT and Evian all in one. Same with photography, let legitimate professionals and amateurs earn their money, do their jobs. Don't let riff raff who don't know the slightest bit about photography aside from the fact that their camera has 11 megapixels undercut the market.
and did you say the nurse were :lovegrin: