Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?

[RichA]

There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.

I've been asked numerous times by people to shoot weddings or
portraits and I'll never do it. I'm not a pro photog and I can't ask
the prices they would so I won't degrade their profession's reputation
by doing a job I have no training or major experience doing. It's not
as dire a someone without a medical license practicing medicine, but
the results to the particular profession are just as bad, maybe
worse.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices#comments

[R. Mark Clayton]

Well if they didn't book to many jobs on the day, over-charge massively, boj
the job and take the **** over copyright, then I might feel sorry for them.

"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b0572b5-5d2d-43f8...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

[Mxsmanic]

RichA writes:

> I've been asked numerous times by people to shoot weddings or
> portraits and I'll never do it. I'm not a pro photog and I can't ask
> the prices they would so I won't degrade their profession's reputation
> by doing a job I have no training or major experience doing. It's not
> as dire a someone without a medical license practicing medicine, but
> the results to the particular profession are just as bad, maybe
> worse.

I've done two or three weddings after being pestered a great deal to do them,
but I've never been happy with the results, and I daresay the people who
wanted me to shoot the weddings weren't happy with the results, either.

Sometimes people say "oh, I like the style of this photo, could you shoot my
wedding the same way," but they don't actually mean that. If you really do
shoot the wedding in that style (photojournalistic or whatever), they turn out
disappointed, because they don't have all the standard photos that dedicated
wedding photographers produce. They think they want to be different, but they
don't. Sometimes it's hard to convince them that wedding photography is a very
specialized type of photography, and it's not necessarily a good idea to
experiment in other styles of shooting for an important once-in-a-lifetime
event.

I have signed over copyrights and negatives in cases where I've done weddings,
as a consolation prize, but I still think they were disappointed. They got
interesting photos, but not the ones that they truly, subconsciously wanted.

[Mike]

On 27/01/2012 2:15 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Well if they didn't book to many jobs on the day, over-charge massively, boj
> the job and take the **** over copyright, then I might feel sorry for them.
>

Please explain that statement, as it makes no sense at all.


--
Mike

[Robert Coe]

Quite right. To do weddings properly, you have to be good at both portrait and
event photography. They're different skills; and if you don't have both, you
have no business passing yourself off as a wedding photographer.

In the past five years I've shot two weddings as a friend or family member,
and I think my pictures turned out pretty well and were appreciated by the
participants. But in both cases there was a professional wedding photographer
on scene. I wouldn't have done it otherwise.

Bob

[Mort]

Robert Coe wrote:
> In the past five years I've shot two weddings as a friend or family member,
> and I think my pictures turned out pretty well and were appreciated by the
> participants. But in both cases there was a professional wedding photographer
> on scene. I wouldn't have done it otherwise.
>

Exactly. When asked by friends or relatives to shoot a wedding, I tell
them to hire a professional wedding photographer with good credentials
and recommendations, to do the standard poses that people really do
want. I then volunteer as an additional hand, to take pictures that
might not be done otherwise: some human interest occurrences, close-ups
of the wedding cake and the invitations, some brief interpersonal
interactions, etc.. In that way, I have not really refused a dear friend
or loved one, and they get their pro pictures plus my additional human
interest shots.

Regards,

Mort Linder

[Rich]

Mort <mo...@cloud9.net> wrote in news:4f2313e6$0$2007$607e...@cv.net:

> Robert Coe wrote:
>> In the past five years I've shot two weddings as a friend or family
>> member, and I think my pictures turned out pretty well and were
>> appreciated by the participants. But in both cases there was a
>> professional wedding photographer on scene. I wouldn't have done it
>> otherwise.
>>
>
> Exactly. When asked by friends or relatives to shoot a wedding, I tell
> them to hire a professional wedding photographer with good credentials
> and recommendations, to do the standard poses that people really do
> want.

I guess one way to earn something from this situation would be to align
with a wedding photo or two (perhaps with different styles) and then just
do as you say and refer people to them. Referral fees could add up. You
may be useless as a wedding photog or portratist, but they will trust
your judgement because they've seen some other work that you do do well.

[Mr. Strat]

In article
<9b0572b5-5d2d-43f8...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
> Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
> jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
> the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.
>
> I've been asked numerous times by people to shoot weddings or
> portraits and I'll never do it. I'm not a pro photog and I can't ask
> the prices they would so I won't degrade their profession's reputation
> by doing a job I have no training or major experience doing. It's not
> as dire a someone without a medical license practicing medicine, but
> the results to the particular profession are just as bad, maybe
> worse.

I've been doing photography in various forms for over 45 years - 16+
operating my own portrait studio. I estimate that I've photographed
600-700 weddings which isn't much compared to some in the biz. But it's
still a lot.

What passes these days for professional photography is mostly crap. I
hate the crooked horizons and washed out trendy junk. Nobody learns
about light and shadow, musculature, posing, etc.

And with digital, the craftsmanship is gone. Today, all you have to do
is press a button, and you'll probably get something well-exposed and
in focus. You don't have to spend time in a darkroom sloshing around
chemicals...using the right combination of film, paper, and chemistry.

I'm glad I got out of it when I did.

[Bruce]

My sentiments exactly. I think wedding photography is one of the most
stressful jobs I have ever done. I am *so* glad that I don't do it
anymore. It was good while it lasted, but even better when it
stopped. ;-)

I think the idea of buying 20 inexpensive digital cameras and giving
them to the wedding guests is a very good one. Whoever then has the
job of collating and editing the results into a coherent record of the
event will soon realise that wedding photography is rather more
difficult than it might first appear, especially when the formal shots
that people want (despite their prior protestations to the contrary)
do not appear among those taken.

[Mxsmanic]

MC writes:

> Because owning a camera, in one guise or another, has become as common
> as owning a phone, other areas of photography are also affected. For
> example, everybody is now a photo journalist.

But that is much more true than everyone being a wedding photographer, because
so much of photojournalism is fortuitous. In wedding photography, there is
very little that is left to chance, so acquired skill is more important.

> I think it is a trend that will not reverse. Owning a top of the range
> DSLR, it seems, makes you a pro photographer and friends and family are
> hoodwinked into thinking this. I mean, if they own such a camera
> surely they must be good, right?

That perception exists in many domains.

If having good equipment made you a good photographer, I'd already have a
shelf filled with Pulitzer Prizes and Oscars, since at one time I had really
good equipment. Alas! It doesn't work that way.

> Setting yourself up as a pro is also a lot cheaper than it was. For a
> start you do not need a darkroom or access to one. As long as you can
> use a computer you are away.

On the other hand, you can no longer pass on the post-production costs to your
clients. They expect you to do all the digital darkroom work for free.

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:55:04 -0800, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com>
wrote:
: I've been doing photography in various forms for over 45 years - 16+

: operating my own portrait studio. I estimate that I've photographed
: 600-700 weddings which isn't much compared to some in the biz. But it's
: still a lot.

Certainly.

: What passes these days for professional photography is mostly crap. I

: hate the crooked horizons and washed out trendy junk. Nobody learns
: about light and shadow, musculature, posing, etc.

I'm sure some do, but I suppose you're basically right.

: And with digital, the craftsmanship is gone. Today, all you have to do

: is press a button, and you'll probably get something well-exposed and
: in focus. You don't have to spend time in a darkroom sloshing around
: chemicals...using the right combination of film, paper, and chemistry.

But so what? Craftsmanship isn't what matters; results are. If some things
about modern photography are easier or quicker, what's wrong with that?
Doesn't it give you more time to spend on artistic judgement, rectification of
mistakes, exploitation of special effects, etc.? Or to take a different point
of view, to get more work done in a given time and be more price competitive?

: I'm glad I got out of it when I did.

If the shoe fits, wear it. But I'm probably as old as you are, and I'm glad to
be getting my toe in the water now. When photography was added to my duties at
work, I leapt at the opportunity; in the film era I might have ducked it. Time
will tell whether I made the right choice, but I'm happy with my decision so
far.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

I've been to two or three weddings where they did that, but I believe there
was always a professional photographer there too.

Bob

[tony cooper]

I've never seen this done at a wedding, but I've frequently seen it
done at the reception. Reception shots are entirely different from
wedding shots. The wedding photographer generally doesn't know who to
photograph when there's a large number of guests. The disposable
camera-on-the-table allows all the guests to be photographed.

The wedding shots are formal, but the reception shots are candid and
reflect what goes on at the reception. When my daughter was married,
a pro shot the wedding but she was not engaged for the reception.
Disposable Instamatics were on each table. My daughter treasures the
candids as much as the formal wedding album.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Mxsmanic]

It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people can take
good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with hours in
darkrooms and thousands spend at labs.

What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have a decent
camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that, to a greater and
greater extent, the only thing that separates pros from amateurs is the
photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter, and doesn't help.

[Bruce]

It's a great idea as a supplement to a competent pro, but not as a
replacement. 20 guests will inevitably capture some shots that a pro
working alone or with an assistant could not.

But the major challenge of wedding photography isn't getting the
shots, it is getting the people organised, alone, in couples, in
families and in larger groups, in all the correct locations. That's
the most stressful bit, and it really helps if there is a family
member who can assist in getting the people together in the right
order at the right time. Once that has been achieved, getting the
images is relatively straightforward, weather permitting.

For amateurs who want to have a try, there are many good books, DVDs
and online tutorials which set out what needs to be done. However,
reading them is one thing. Doing it all on the day is something else
altogether. The ability to stay organised and keep a cool head when
things go wrong - which they almost always do - is more important than
photographic ability. A missed shot is much worse than a poor shot.

I enjoyed doing it, but I don't miss it at all. I cannot think of any
circumstances in which I would ever *choose* to do it again.

[Mxsmanic]

MC writes:

> But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has
> given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good.

Well, for many years, expensive equipment has also given really bad
photographers the false impression that they were good. So has anything really
changed?

> This leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs ...

Mediocrity has been the rule for as long as photography has existed. The
gearheads who were willing to work with glass plates and mercury vapor weren't
any more artistically talented than photographers today.

> ... which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that
> the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate
> photographic services as being the norm.

But that has been true for ages, too. Look at the success of Olan Mills.

> Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand
> what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived.

Well, if very few people know how to make a good photo, then it follows that
nearly as many wouldn't be able to recognize a good photo, either.

[Mxsmanic]

MC writes:

> Yes. In this world of digital technology there are a darn sight more
> of these "misguided" people. Once upon a time you could, at least, see
> the good through the bad but these days there is so much rubbish to
> wade through it is not an easy task to find the decent stuff.

I see more photos, but most of them are simple documentation, not attempts at
art. I see very few people attempting to produce art with photography, not
many more than there were in the days of film. And they aren't any better or
worse than they used to be. Old men, tree bark, cats, sunsets, and flowers
look the same when photographed digitally as they did when photographed on
film.

> No, but they were probably more technically savvy and they knew how
> light works. They had to, it was very expensive to ruin a plate.

So they produced properly exposed photographs of tree bark. The same is true
for digital photographers today. It's just easier to do.

You seem to be implying that the more work a person has to put into producing
a photo, the better it will be, and that's just not true.

> I refer you to my "ignorant and unaducated" comment :o)

Olan Mills cried all the way to the bank.

> The whole point of this thread was to draw attention to the fact that
> the properly trained and experienced professionals are being ignored by
> clients in favour of some really awful, mediocre rubbish merely because
> the clients tend not to see further than the flood before them.

Maybe, but it's not a difference in equipment or technology that is
responsible for this.

Good photographers remain good even if they are surrounded by bad
photographers. The ease of use of digital equipment doesn't threaten them, no
matter how many amateurs it encourages. However, bad photographers who
depending on large investments in expensive equipment to limit the competition
are in serious trouble these days, as anyone can produce technically clean
photos today with a very small investment.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems MC <a...@any.any> wrote:

> But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has

> given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good. This
> leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and
> photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that

> the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate
> photographic services as being the norm.

> Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand
> what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived.

Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good
photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good
photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the
problem with satisfying it?

The people who can tell the difference between good and bad
photographs will naturally want to hire a good photographer, so what
are the good photographers complaining about? Surely not that they
used to get paid for good photographs by people who would have been
happy with cheap bad photographs but the technical difficulties and
costs of photography made it difficult for cheap bad photographers to
exist?

--
Chris Malcolm

[David J Taylor]

> Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good
> photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good
> photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the
> problem with satisfying it?
>
> The people who can tell the difference between good and bad
> photographs will naturally want to hire a good photographer, so what
> are the good photographers complaining about? Surely not that they
> used to get paid for good photographs by people who would have been
> happy with cheap bad photographs but the technical difficulties and
> costs of photography made it difficult for cheap bad photographers to
> exist?
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

Many people will hire a "pro" because:

- they had a recommendation.

- they hope the pro won't mess things up, and you will get a set of
photos.

- the pro has the authority to discipline those present into groups, which
a friend of the family might not.

- the pro knows what the expected shots are, and will be able to work to a
checklist.

- it's a pay and forget approach, and something less to worry about on the
day.

I suspect that the quality of the gear or of the images is not high on the
list of reasons! Mind you, it's not a circle I move in these days, so I
may be quite wrong.

Cheers,
David

[Mr. Strat]

In article <mto8i758rqb22h9br...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My sentiments exactly. I think wedding photography is one of the most
> stressful jobs I have ever done. I am *so* glad that I don't do it
> anymore. It was good while it lasted, but even better when it
> stopped. ;-)
>
> I think the idea of buying 20 inexpensive digital cameras and giving
> them to the wedding guests is a very good one. Whoever then has the
> job of collating and editing the results into a coherent record of the
> event will soon realise that wedding photography is rather more
> difficult than it might first appear, especially when the formal shots
> that people want (despite their prior protestations to the contrary)
> do not appear among those taken.

A lot of what I see are images taken outside. Here in the Pacific
Northwest, we have rain nine months out of the year. Since none of
these amateurs knows how to use more than one flash, I wonder how they
do it.

And you're right...they want to do all these artsy things but ignore
the basic bread-and-buttter shots that people want (and buy). Eh...just
give 'em a CD or DVD and call it good. Very bad business plan.

[Mr. Strat]

In article <2419i7hht3agbhh0f...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

No, I'm bitter that people with no talent or understanding of the
basics are screwing people out of their hard-earned money.

[Mr. Strat]

In article <xn0htnpd...@news.virginmedia.com>, MC <a...@any.any>
wrote:

> But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has
> given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good. This
> leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and
> photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that
> the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate
> photographic services as being the norm.
> Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand
> what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived.

Ka-ching! We have a winner here.

[Mxsmanic]

MC writes:

> But the thread was originally talking of, as am I, paid for pro photo
> services like wedding photographery, not mere "art" photography.

Wedding photography is documentation, not art. But it requires skill and
discipline to properly document events with photos, albeit not necessarily
talent. Amateurs lack the necessary skills, and often lack the discipline as
well.

> But today you can snap away until it is right, costing next to nothing
> in skill and money.

If you lack talent, you can snap until Doomsday and it will never be right.
You'll just have more photos that are wrong.

> Back then they had to try and make sure every photograph was correct.
> They did this by understanding the technicality of it all.

They did that to limit costs. It didn't necessarily improve the quality of the
photos if they had no talent.

> OK, so there may have been
> errors along the way but uderstanding the physics and machanics of what
> you were doing was paramount to limiting these errors.

You limited technical errors, but you didn't necessarily get good photos.

> Does it make him good though?

Lots of people seem to think that he's good.

> Like I said, the ignorant and uneducated
> will employ anyone if they are cheap enough and the images turn out to
> be "passable" as the current norm.

So there's a market for poor, cheap photography. It might irritate talented,
professional photographers, but they are out of the loop, anyway, so that
doesn't matter.

> It has a major, major role to play.

The only role played by advancing technology is that it has made good
photography more and more dependent on the skill and talent of the
photographer. All of the well-heeled poseurs who hid behind thousands of
dollars of equipment are now being pushed out into the open, and they are
finding that anyone can produce the same photos that they used to produce,
provided that they have similar talent. The talent-free pros are thus falling
by the wayside. The talented pros continue to do okay--although they have to
deal with much more intense competition from equally talented amateurs.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris Malcolm writes:

> Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good
> photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good
> photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the
> problem with satisfying it?

Exactly.

[Mxsmanic]

Mr. Strat writes:

> No, I'm bitter that people with no talent or understanding of the
> basics are screwing people out of their hard-earned money.

But they aren't, as long as their clients are happy with their work.

What has really happened is that anyone can be a photographer now. It is no
longer possible for mediocre photographers to pretend to be good just because
they've spent a lot on equipment.

Likewise, photographers with talent but no money now have a chance to use
their talent, whereas before they were locked out by the high cost of
equipment.

[PeterN]

On 1/29/2012 12:33 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems MC<a...@any.any> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>> It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people
>>> can take good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with
>>> hours in darkrooms and thousands spend at labs.
>>>
>>> What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have
>>> a decent camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that,
>>> to a greater and greater extent, the only thing that separates pros
>>> from amateurs is the photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter,
>>> and doesn't help.
>
>> But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has
>> given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good. This
>> leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and
>> photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that
>> the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate
>> photographic services as being the norm.
>> Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand
>> what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived.
>
> Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good
> photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good
> photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the
> problem with satisfying it?
>

Agreed

> The people who can tell the difference between good and bad
> photographs will naturally want to hire a good photographer, so what
> are the good photographers complaining about? Surely not that they
> used to get paid for good photographs by people who would have been
> happy with cheap bad photographs but the technical difficulties and
> costs of photography made it difficult for cheap bad photographers to
> exist?
>

Neither. Photographers are complaining about substantial changes in the
nature of the business. Obtaining a stock image is considerably less
expensive than hiring a photographer to do a location shoot. There is a
proliferation of good to excellent stock photographs that are easily
reviewed for acceptability. There are a substantial number of potential
customers who are able to satisfy their needs with this stock. The work
still has to meet a certain standard, whatever that is, to be accepted
by a stock house.



--
Peter

[Robert Coe]

That argument can be pushed only so far, though. Better equipment makes almost
any photographer better. The more skilled a photographer already is, the more
difference better equipment makes.

Bob

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"MC" <a...@any.any> writes:

> Mr. Strat wrote:
>
>
>> What passes these days for professional photography is mostly crap. I
>> hate the crooked horizons and washed out trendy junk. Nobody learns
>> about light and shadow, musculature, posing, etc.
>>
>> And with digital, the craftsmanship is gone. Today, all you have to do
>> is press a button, and you'll probably get something well-exposed and
>> in focus. You don't have to spend time in a darkroom sloshing around
>> chemicals...using the right combination of film, paper, and chemistry.
>

> Exactly. Many of those who own such cameras think that the camera
> alone will make them a pro. It does take some learning, admittedly, to
> use the depths of photoshop but for slight retouching only a miniscule
> amount of skill and time is required.

It's much easier now to take a decently-exposed sharply-focused
picture than it was 30 years ago, certainly.

But that's a GOOD thing; anybody telling you anything else has money (or
maybe prestige) riding on the outcome.

Besides, wedding photography is done for specific clients. Doesn't
matter what WE think of the results, it matters what the clients think
of the results.

Some people don't especially *like* old-fashioned, static compositions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Mxsmanic]

Robert Coe writes:

> That argument can be pushed only so far, though. Better equipment makes almost
> any photographer better. The more skilled a photographer already is, the more
> difference better equipment makes.

Examine the correlation (if any) between the world's best known and most
praised photographs and the equipment used to produce them.

[Whisky-dave]

On Jan 29, 1:21 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> >On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:15:31 +0000, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >: "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> >: >In article

> >: ><9b0572b5-5d2d-43f8-9cd5-9763fac2f...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,

Yes on teh coup[le of times I've asked to volenteer I*'ve mnade that
the point that someone else organises the people, I'll organise the
camera :-)

> and it really helps if there is a family
> member who can assist in getting the people together in the right
> order at the right time.  Once that has been achieved, getting the
> images is relatively straightforward, weather permitting.

On tweo occasions were the couple, have had pro photographers
I''ve found myslef in their way.
Once I was kneeling down getting the fluffy clouses and the tower in
teh right place
and noticed a shadow behind me, it was teh pro photographer setting up
his tripod
so I moved out the way. Another tinme I kept hearing the words "Amego
move away ......"
I was doing my friends wedding in Spain and again I seemed to be in
the way.
At this wedding they had to employ two photographers, one for the
church and another for the reception.

[Robert Coe]

You mean Alfred Eisenstädt's late-model Leicas? Ansel Adams's handmade view
cameras? Weegee's Graphic, the universal choice of newspaper photographers at
the time? Vivian Maier's Rolleiflex? Jun Miki's Nikons (not as famous as the
other photogs, but I actually spent an afternoon with him once)? Adams'a
Brownie? (Oh, wait; that was when he was twelve years old. Well, ...)

What's your point?

Bob

[Mxsmanic]

Robert Coe writes:

> You mean Alfred Eisenstädt's late-model Leicas? Ansel Adams's handmade view
> cameras?

No.

> What's your point?

That equipment cannot substitute for talent, although talent can often
substitute for equipment.

[Mr. Strat]

In article <morfi7997nlcupfr1...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic

<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That equipment cannot substitute for talent, although talent can often
> substitute for equipment.

There is no magic in the box.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
> used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
> think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
> professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.

Well, Eisenstadt might has used Leicas, but they weren't necessarily the best
possible equipment. Would his photographs have been any better if he had used
better equipment? Would they have been any worse if he had used lesser
equipment? Would people have forgotten his famous photo of Goebbels if he had
used a Brownie instead of a Leica (or whatever he actually used)?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
>> used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
>> think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
>> professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.
>
> Well, Eisenstadt might has used Leicas, but they weren't necessarily the best
> possible equipment. Would his photographs have been any better if he had used
> better equipment? Would they have been any worse if he had used lesser
> equipment?

What better equipment do you have in mind? I'm doubtful there was
anything clearly better than what he used, or that he wasn't using his
first choice most of the time. And I'm very doubtful that we should
second-guess his choice, if he really was using his first choice
equipment.

> Would people have forgotten his famous photo of Goebbels if he had
> used a Brownie instead of a Leica (or whatever he actually used)?

I'm not finding anything on what he used for that photo, but 1933 is
late enough for early Leica models, and Eisenstadt is the quintessential
Leica photographer, so I guess that's likely.

That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
good lens might have done better.

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> What better equipment do you have in mind?

A Hasselblad. Or a view camera. Both would produce better images.

> That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
> moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
> have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
> good lens might have done better.

So it was the photographer who made the photo, and the equipment really didn't
matter.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:57:14 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>>
>>> I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
>>> used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
>>> think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
>>> professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.
>>
>> Well, Eisenstadt might has used Leicas, but they weren't necessarily the best
>> possible equipment. Would his photographs have been any better if he had used
>> better equipment? Would they have been any worse if he had used lesser
>> equipment?
>
>What better equipment do you have in mind? I'm doubtful there was
>anything clearly better than what he used, or that he wasn't using his
>first choice most of the time. And I'm very doubtful that we should
>second-guess his choice, if he really was using his first choice
>equipment.
>
>> Would people have forgotten his famous photo of Goebbels if he had
>> used a Brownie instead of a Leica (or whatever he actually used)?
>
>I'm not finding anything on what he used for that photo, but 1933 is
>late enough for early Leica models, and Eisenstadt is the quintessential
>Leica photographer, so I guess that's likely.
>
>That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
>moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
>have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
>good lens might have done better.

I don't think it was the camera that mattered but the opportunity.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9911/icon02.htm
"In 1933, I traveled to Geneva for the fifteenth session of the
League of Nations. There, sitting in the hotel garden, was Dr.
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda.... Sunddenly
he spotted me and I snapped him. Here are the eyes of hate.
Was I an enemy? Behind him is his private secretary and
interpreter. This picture was published many times throughout
the world. I have been asked how I felt photographing these men.
Naturally, not so good, but when I have a camera in my hand I know
no fear."

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

There are some people who have the ability to bring a subject's
personality, and/or character out in a photograph. I know two, neither
of whom can explain how they do it.


--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Eric Stevens writes:

> I don't think it was the camera that mattered but the opportunity.
>
> http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9911/icon02.htm
> "In 1933, I traveled to Geneva for the fifteenth session of the
> League of Nations. There, sitting in the hotel garden, was Dr.
> Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda.... Sunddenly
> he spotted me and I snapped him. Here are the eyes of hate.
> Was I an enemy? Behind him is his private secretary and
> interpreter. This picture was published many times throughout
> the world. I have been asked how I felt photographing these men.
> Naturally, not so good, but when I have a camera in my hand I know
> no fear."

Goebbels was probably peeved by the photo because he was disabled (he had a
club foot) and was very sensitive about that. That's also probably why he was
seated. I rather doubt that it was hate in a general sense, just irritation at
the photograph, like the famous photo of Churchill with a cigar in his mouth.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:morfi7997nlcupfr1...@4ax.com...

> That equipment cannot substitute for talent, although talent can often
> substitute for equipment.

Sure some people will prefer an "art" photo from a pin hole camera, to a
"happy snap" from a Hasselblad, but BOTH are necessary for TRUE quality!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:v0ngi7tg0ulvjd9pu...@4ax.com...

>> That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
>> moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
>> have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
>> good lens might have done better.
>
> So it was the photographer who made the photo, and the equipment really
> didn't
> matter.

Nope, a pin hole camera probably wouldn't have been nearly as good.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> Nope, a pin hole camera probably wouldn't have been nearly as good.

A view camera would have probably been orders of magnitude better, in terms of
image quality. So what?

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> Sure some people will prefer an "art" photo from a pin hole camera, to a
> "happy snap" from a Hasselblad, but BOTH are necessary for TRUE quality!

That depends on how you define quality, and how important it is to you.

I see a lot more good photographs than quality photographs (in terms of image
quality).

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:02jhi7h74s9rg4j28...@4ax.com...

So the camera *IS* important to some extent! How important depends on the
viewer and purpose of the photo.
Similarly there are many opportunistic shots taken by many poor
photographers that are still important because of the subject matter and
lack of alternatives. This is becoming very common these days where photo
quality AND composition etc. are often considered irrelevent to the subject
matter, and phone camera's in the hands of those who can't even spell
photography, still surfice.

So maybe your statement should be BOTH camera AND photographer ARE less
important than subject matter to most people in many cases, or many people
in most cases.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> So the camera *IS* important to some extent! How important depends on the
> viewer and purpose of the photo.

There are very few photos for which image quality is paramount.

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 27/01/2012 07:47, RichA wrote:
> There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
> Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
> jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
> the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.

And everybody now has a recording studio in their bedroom. And is
shooting Hollywood movies on their daddy's camcorder.




--
Illegitimi non carborundum

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> What better equipment do you have in mind?
>
> A Hasselblad. Or a view camera. Both would produce better images.

Only if the subject would give you time to set them up, though, and hold
still long enough for a sharp exposure. That's why the 35mm revolution
was so fast and such a big deal; it produce much more realistic photos.

>> That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
>> moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
>> have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
>> good lens might have done better.
>
> So it was the photographer who made the photo, and the equipment really didn't
> matter.

Or it was an f/8 and be there moment, and neither one really mattered.

[Mxsmanic]

Joe Kotroczo writes:

> And everybody now has a recording studio in their bedroom. And is
> shooting Hollywood movies on their daddy's camcorder.

So you've seen _The Blair Witch Project_ and _Paranormal Activity_?

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:g7lhi7hu4ndsisog5...@4ax.com...

As always you forgot the all important, IN YOUR OPINION.
All commercial photographers, and many amateur photographers would beg to
differ.

Trevor.

[Whisky-dave]

On Feb 2, 9:52 am, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Actually I don't think I agree with that.
I don;t seem many award winning pictures of lens resoultion test
charts.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

MC <a...@any.any> wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:

>> It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people
>> can take good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with
>> hours in darkrooms and thousands spend at labs.

>> What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have
>> a decent camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that,
>> to a greater and greater extent, the only thing that separates pros
>> from amateurs is the photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter,
>> and doesn't help.

> But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has
> given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good.

Being good almost never meant having a sort-of OK exposed photo
which is sharp. You probably could train an ape or a clever dog
to manage that.

Which means that it's a skill, not very different from driving
a car and arriving without an accident.

If your claim to fame was just that ... well, you never were good.

> This
> leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and
> photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that
> the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate
> photographic services as being the norm.

And what's wrong with that? Most people don't drive first
rate luxury cars, wear first rate watches, have first rate
supercomputers, live in first rate mansions, have first rate hair
cutters, own first rate lenses and first rate cameras, wear first
rate clothes, fly first class, etc.

Why should they employ first rate photographic services? It's more
expensive and doesn't give *them* anything of value.


> Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand
> what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived.

Anyone can take scissors and cut hair, but very few
understand what makes a good haircut (only what a not-lousy
haircut is) ...

-Wolfgang

[Shawn Hirn]

In article
<9b0572b5-5d2d-43f8...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
> Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
> jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
> the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.
>

> I've been asked numerous times by people to shoot weddings or
> portraits and I'll never do it. I'm not a pro photog and I can't ask
> the prices they would so I won't degrade their profession's reputation
> by doing a job I have no training or major experience doing. It's not
> as dire a someone without a medical license practicing medicine, but
> the results to the particular profession are just as bad, maybe
> worse.
>

> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices#c
> omments

I shot two weddings. The first was unannounced. I was invited to attend
a wedding as a guest for a very young wealthy couple. I figured there is
nothing I could buy them that they couldn't buy themselves, so I took my
camera gear to the wedding and I decided to make them a photo album. I
was careful not to get in the way of the photographers they hired to
shoot the wedding. I shot my photos as unobtrusively as I could.

The day after the wedding, I used Photoshop to adjust the photos I liked
the most. I created a printed photo album using iPhoto on my Mac and
gave it to the married couple, wrapped in a nice box. This was roughly
two weeks after the wedding. I asked the newlyweds to pick out the photo
they liked best from the album and I told them I would make a blown up
copy of it and frame it for them. They were thrilled! They said I did a
better job than the expensive photographer they hired and much quicker.
The only lighting I had was one off-camera flash and the reception was
in a poorly lighted room at a ritzy country club.

I shot that first wedding as an experiment in preparation for my
sister's wedding, which was a few weeks later. My sister and our parents
turned on the pressure and insisted I shoot their wedding. I was
resistant, but I relented. I invited a friend who's a wonderful people
photographer to help me. We both read up on wedding photography before
my sister's wedding.

I spent roughly 200 hours to post-process the photos I liked; some that
I shot; some that my friend shot with her camera. I then gave my sister
and her husband a DVD with roughly 100 of the best photos. They selected
the photos they liked the most. Their favorites ended up in a printed
and bound album, which I printed online via iPhoto. From their
favorites, I gave them a surprise and I picked ten of those and made a
separate album for our parents and the groom's parents. That went over
really well. My sister and her husband, and all four parents loved the
results.

Me? I hated every minute of shooting both weddings, esp. my sister's.
Since I was the photographer at my sister's wedding, I didn't enjoy the
event. I was working, not socializing or being the brother of the bride.
Doing a good job was a lot of pressure on me. I do phography for fun,
not to be pressured into it. So, I have never shot another wedding and I
never will. Although everyone was happy with the wedding photography I
did, I promised myself I would stick with fine art photography.

[Trevor]

"Whisky-dave" <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8425376b-42bb-4a60...@v14g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

> > There are very few photos for which image quality is paramount.
>
> As always you forgot the all important, IN YOUR OPINION.
> All commercial photographers, and many amateur photographers would beg to
> differ.
>

}Actually I don't think I agree with that.
}I don;t seem many award winning pictures of lens resoultion test
}charts.

If you think that's all commercial photographers and serious amateurs shoot,
I'm not sure what you are even doing reading these newsgroups? There must be
some relevent to the subjects you are actually interested in, if any.

Trevor.

[Bruce]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>If you think that's all commercial photographers and serious amateurs shoot,
>I'm not sure what you are even doing reading these newsgroups? There must be
>some relevent to the subjects you are actually interested in, if any.

Are there newsgroups abut alcohol?

The problem is, all the participants would be similarly befuddled.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> If you think that's all commercial photographers and serious amateurs shoot,
> I'm not sure what you are even doing reading these newsgroups?

That's about all that gearheads shoot. Great equipment, terrible, terrible
photos. Nothing but test shots, tree bark, old men, sunsets, cats, and
flowers.

[Mxsmanic]

Shawn Hirn writes:

> They said I did a better job than the expensive photographer they
> hired and much quicker.

But you can bet that if you had been the "official" photographer and had not
produced the standard photos that he shot, you'd never hear the end of it.

> Since I was the photographer at my sister's wedding, I didn't enjoy the
> event. I was working, not socializing or being the brother of the bride.

One of the golden rules of good photography is that you cannot participate and
take good photos at the same time. And one reason why so many amateur photos
are so bad is that amateurs often don't understand this rule.

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:11:31 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Shawn Hirn writes:
>
>> They said I did a better job than the expensive photographer they
>> hired and much quicker.
>
>But you can bet that if you had been the "official" photographer and had not
>produced the standard photos that he shot, you'd never hear the end of it.

Yes, and friends rarely say "Thanks for the photos, but they aren't
nearly as good as the pro's."

>> Since I was the photographer at my sister's wedding, I didn't enjoy the
>> event. I was working, not socializing or being the brother of the bride.
>
>One of the golden rules of good photography is that you cannot participate and
>take good photos at the same time. And one reason why so many amateur photos
>are so bad is that amateurs often don't understand this rule.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[George Kerby]

On 2/3/12 2:08 PM, in article 4kfoi7tqknmemi82p...@4ax.com,

Yep. Those subjects sure pay the bills, you bet.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4kfoi7tqknmemi82p...@4ax.com...

> That's about all that gearheads shoot. Great equipment, terrible, terrible
> photos. Nothing but test shots, tree bark, old men, sunsets, cats, and
> flowers.

Nothing like a maniac to make such inane generalisations.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > That's about all that gearheads shoot. Great equipment, terrible, terrible
> > photos. Nothing but test shots, tree bark, old men, sunsets, cats, and
> > flowers.
>
> Nothing like a maniac to make such inane generalisations.

Where can I view your photo portfolio? I'd like to see how seasoned, talented
pros do it.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:p29pi7dfurl743r31...@4ax.com...

>I'd like to see how seasoned, talented pros do it.

I thought you already knew it all, that's what you've been telling us
anyway.

Trevor.

[PeterN]

You have a better chance of seeing Mothman's portfolio.

--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> You have a better chance of seeing Mothman's portfolio.

What type of equipment does he use?

[Robert Coe]

His imagination, mostly. But he rails on about the inestimable advantages of
cheap superzoom P&Sses and thinks we're all fools for owning DSLRs.

Bob

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:25:51 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>PeterN writes:
>
>> You have a better chance of seeing Mothman's portfolio.
>
>What type of equipment does he use?

He has a point-and-talk camera...he points his finger at a moth and
then talks about what great picture it would have been if he would
have taken one. He also has a Compact SuperBlur camera that he used
to take a picture of a moth or a cat's hairball. We couldn't tell the
difference.

[Ray Fischer]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
>Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
>jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
>the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.

>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices#comments

Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
forces driving down costs"?

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Eric Stevens]

On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
>>Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
>>jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
>>the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.
>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices#comments
>
>Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
>forces driving down costs"?

Whatever it is, its not capitalism. How about a variation of 'bad
money drives out good'?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[PeterN]

In any business there are businesses that compete solely on price, or
perceived low price. e.g. Big Box Hardware carries a perception of lower
prices, but it is not always the same merchandise I get at locally owned
hardware.
So it is with the business of photography. Also, the OP's prejudicial
swipe at third world people, was a typical comment from him/it, and was
not unnoticed.



--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Ray Fischer writes:

> Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
> forces driving down costs"?

Only a very shortsighted capitalist would drive jobs overseas.

[Robert Coe]

On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

: RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
: >Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
: >jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
: >the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.
:
: >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices#comments
:
: Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
: forces driving down costs"?

Careful, Rich will call you a communist for saying that. ;^)

Bob

[Robert Coe]

Then the U.S., at least, has a lot of shortsighted capitalists.

Bob

[PeterN]

Like GE, IBM, most major clothing, toy and drug manufacturers?

--
Peter

[PeterN]

On 2/4/2012 8:59 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

<snip>

> Careful, Rich will call you a communist for saying that. ;^)
>

To change the topic, when is Martha's birthday?

<http://www.buy.com/prod/1-1-ef-70-200mm-7d-coffee-cup-mug-for-canon-lens-new/219203527.html>


--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Robert Coe writes:

> Then the U.S., at least, has a lot of shortsighted capitalists.

Yes. That's why the U.S. is in trouble.

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> Like GE, IBM, most major clothing, toy and drug manufacturers?

Essentially all publicly-owned corporations, yes. That's one of the problems
with corporations that have a large number of owners who care only about
making money for the next quarter.

[PeterN]

Not at all an accurate statement. You may check discussion boards on
management compensation.

--
Peter

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:54:56 -0500, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net>
wrote:

<guffaw!!> Not for almost a year, but I see your point! But how could a mug
that shape stay upright? It looks *WAY* top-heavy. :^)

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:58:54 -0500, I <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
: On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:54:56 -0500, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net>

And after what happened to that top-heavy cruise ship, I don't think I want
the risk of having coffee all over my floor!

Bob

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:svhri7ds5un83iqeb...@4ax.com...

>
> Only a very shortsighted capitalist would drive jobs overseas.

That would be the *vast* majority of big corporations then.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> Not at all an accurate statement. You may check discussion boards on
> management compensation.

Management compensation is based directly on management's ability to generate
profits for the next quarter, even if it means destroying the company over the
longer term.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

> That would be the *vast* majority of big corporations then.

The problem afflicts all publicly-held corporations, because their
shareholders care only about ROI for the next quarter.

[Robert Coe]

It's worse than that. CEOs sit on each other's Boards of Directors and help
jack each other's compensation up, using the entirely spurious argument that
"we have to do it to hold onto such a skilled and valuable executive". It's a
plus if the company actually is profitable, but it usually isn't a
requirement.

Not generating profits can get a CEO fired or his company merged out of
existence, but then he leaves with a huge golden parachute that his cronies
from the other companies have quietly put in place.

Bob

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:21:19 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Northwestern University's graduate school of business failed to
properly educate me, I guess. I wasn't taught that corporations were
required to compensate management personnel on a quarter-by-quarter
profitability scale. I left under the impression that all
corporations are free to determine management compensation according
to their own goals, and that those goals could be long-term.

[PeterN]

Some years ago I went into a research library carrying my coffee mug.
The librarian gave me that stern librarian look while informing me that
only spill proof mugs were allowed. I said this was, and proceeded to
demonstrate by turning it upside down. I soon realized that I had
forgotten to tighten the top. The librarian, recognized my embarrassment
and told me that empty mugs were OK.



--
Peter

[PeterN]

So, that is not a shareholder decision.

--
Peter

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:55:33 -0500, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
wrote:
: On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:21:19 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>

Two quarters without "expected" earnings and Bain Capital will have you in
their gun sight.

Bob

[Mxsmanic]

tony cooper writes:

> I wasn't taught that corporations were required to compensate
> management personnel on a quarter-by-quarter profitability scale.

It is not required by law. It is simply a de facto business standard. And,
unfortunately, it's not a very smart one.

> I left under the impression that all
> corporations are free to determine management compensation according
> to their own goals, and that those goals could be long-term.

In practice, the goals are set by anonymous shareholders, and they are always
short-term profit goals.

The only time you see long-term goals is when a company is controlled by a
majority stockholder with a keen personal interest in the long-term health and
success of the enterprise. This is the case with many privately-held
companies, for example.

[Mxsmanic]

PeterN writes:

> So, that is not a shareholder decision.

On the contrary, it is ultimately a shareholder decision.

[tony cooper]

No, it's not a shareholder decision, but it is a shareholder-driven
decision. The company wants the share price to remain up or to
increase. That doesn't mean that all decisions are based on
short-term profitability, though.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:17:50 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>tony cooper writes:
>
>> I wasn't taught that corporations were required to compensate
>> management personnel on a quarter-by-quarter profitability scale.
>
>It is not required by law. It is simply a de facto business standard.

Oh, bullshit. You either don't understand the word "standard" or you
don't have a glimmer of understanding of corporate business.

>And,
>unfortunately, it's not a very smart one.
>
>> I left under the impression that all
>> corporations are free to determine management compensation according
>> to their own goals, and that those goals could be long-term.
>
>In practice, the goals are set by anonymous shareholders, and they are always
>short-term profit goals.

Where do you get this? A corporate office-holder can be a share
holder, but in any large corporation the shares are distributed so
widely that no shareholders have significant input. Certainly not
input into ongoing business decisions.

>The only time you see long-term goals is when a company is controlled by a
>majority stockholder with a keen personal interest in the long-term health and
>success of the enterprise. This is the case with many privately-held
>companies, for example.

Certainly, any business's objective is to be profitable both short-
and long-term. There's nothing wrong with pursuing short-term
objectives. There are rapidly emerging markets that produce short
term profits, and there are temporary markets that produce short-term
profits. Some temporary markets produce short-term profits but the
profit picture flattens out as competitors get into the market.
Management's dilemma is determining how long the market will last as a
profitable area.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:18:19 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>PeterN writes:
>
>> So, that is not a shareholder decision.
>
>On the contrary, it is ultimately a shareholder decision.

When you make ridiculous statements, there's an obligation to back
them up with some basis for your claim. You haven't.

[PeterN]

On 2/5/2012 11:17 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> tony cooper writes:
>
>> I wasn't taught that corporations were required to compensate
>> management personnel on a quarter-by-quarter profitability scale.
>
> It is not required by law. It is simply a de facto business standard. And,
> unfortunately, it's not a very smart one.
>
>> I left under the impression that all
>> corporations are free to determine management compensation according
>> to their own goals, and that those goals could be long-term.
>
> In practice, the goals are set by anonymous shareholders, and they are always
> short-term profit goals.

Where is your data to back up that statement?

>
> The only time you see long-term goals is when a company is controlled by a
> majority stockholder with a keen personal interest in the long-term health and
> success of the enterprise. This is the case with many privately-held
> companies, for example.

--
Peter

[Ray Fischer]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
>>>Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
>>>jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
>>>the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.
>>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/27/Wedding_photographer_explains_prices#comments
>>

>>Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
>>forces driving down costs"?
>

>Whatever it is, its not capitalism.

Of course it is.

> How about a variation of 'bad
>money drives out good'?

That's capitalism. Free market.

Nobody said that capitalism, by itself, is smart. Unregulated
and unmoderated capitalism can be extremely destructive.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Ray Fischer]

Really? If I make myself a millionare why would I care about driving
jobs overseas? If the local economy tanks I still have the resources
to move to somewhere pleasant.