Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ohkphoto" data-source="post: 4078" data-attributes="member: 1573">I think digital is allowing for more interesting art in photography.&nbsp; Digital images can still be &quot;timeless&quot; and &quot;original&quot;.&nbsp; This is like saying &quot;average joe&quot; is the best artist and better than Rembrandt because he has a more expensive and bigger paintbrush.&nbsp;This is called &quot;evolution&quot; --and part of capitalism and business enterprise.&nbsp; If you're catering to the wedding industry, then you keep up with the trends or sink.&nbsp; It doesn't mean you lower your standards.&nbsp; That's the first law of nature . . .adapt or perish.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here we go (again) with the pro vs amateur.&nbsp; Brides are not stupid.&nbsp; They want their special moments captured and presented in a format that their children and grandchildren will have access to.&nbsp; It does not matter to them whether the &quot;photographer&quot; calls him or herself an amateur or professional, or even &quot;certified&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; They want QUALITY delivered.&nbsp; I have yet to find a bride who asks about what kind of equipment I use.&nbsp; But they do want to see samples of my work.&nbsp;So my final take on this is that wedding photography as an industry will survive and the wedding photographers (pro or amateur!) who will keep it going and who will thrive will be the ones who have learned to read what a bride wants, be able to deliver it, and keep up with the trends.&nbsp; Wedding photography is dictated by trends.&nbsp;And as far as the masses having access to all this digital photography, more power to them.&nbsp; It shouldn't threaten any good photographer.&nbsp; There are still publications and consumers, etc.&nbsp; who know the difference between a good photograph and snapshot.&nbsp; Just like &quot;cream&quot;, good photographers rise to the surface, whether it's in the wedding industry or elsewhere.&nbsp;Just my humble opinion . . .&nbsp;Incidentally, who do you think photographed Chelsea Clinton's wedding?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ohkphoto, post: 4078, member: 1573"] I think digital is allowing for more interesting art in photography. Digital images can still be "timeless" and "original". This is like saying "average joe" is the best artist and better than Rembrandt because he has a more expensive and bigger paintbrush. This is called "evolution" --and part of capitalism and business enterprise. If you're catering to the wedding industry, then you keep up with the trends or sink. It doesn't mean you lower your standards. That's the first law of nature . . .adapt or perish. [COLOR=blue][/COLOR][COLOR=blue][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR] [COLOR=black]Here we go (again) with the pro vs amateur. Brides are not stupid. They want their special moments captured and presented in a format that their children and grandchildren will have access to. It does not matter to them whether the "photographer" calls him or herself an amateur or professional, or even "certified" They want QUALITY delivered. I have yet to find a bride who asks about what kind of equipment I use. But they do want to see samples of my work.[/COLOR] So my final take on this is that wedding photography as an industry will survive and the wedding photographers (pro or amateur!) who will keep it going and who will thrive will be the ones who have learned to read what a bride wants, be able to deliver it, and keep up with the trends. Wedding photography is dictated by trends. And as far as the masses having access to all this digital photography, more power to them. It shouldn't threaten any good photographer. There are still publications and consumers, etc. who know the difference between a good photograph and snapshot. Just like "cream", good photographers rise to the surface, whether it's in the wedding industry or elsewhere. Just my humble opinion . . . Incidentally, who do you think photographed Chelsea Clinton's wedding? [/QUOTE]

Verification