The new world of widespread quality digital cameras does make the distinction between pros and enthusiasts smaller -- but it is still there.

One big benefit of this new world is that true talent has a greater opportunity to shine through. Amateurs and enthusiasts with passion, the right eye, skill, and commitment can aspire to getting work in the field when they couldn't before. I know some of them.

Yes! So glad to see some new material on here. Great thoughts, and very important points to be made about digital photography. And - as always - amazing photography. For a moment I thought the St. Louis Arch was some kind of small indoor sculpture.

While there clearly is a lot to be said for film, the debate reminds me of the vinyl versus CD, and now CD versus MP3 (or loss-less file, or...) debates. Purists refuse to admit the strengths of new technology for what often seems are emotional or traditionalist reasons, but at some point one has to make concessions - your previous post demonstrated how powerful a tool even a Powershot G9 can be.

I'm constantly shocked by some of the breathaking photography on Flickr - as with any platform without a gatekeeper there's a lot of garbage floating around - but it seems that more and more there are epic amounts of some really brilliant images.

Hope I don't have to wait as long for your next post.

I hear the argument about amateurs and digital cameras all the time, but simply don't find it to be true - especially for photojournalism. What's affecting photojournalism is a decline in print media, not the perceived ease of creating a technically competent photo.

I know that digital pictures are extremely versatile, but you gave a great article with beautiful pics. Thank you!!

thanks for the post david..
on the amateur vs pro in news photos.. these days who cares? the newspapers do not - when it comes to spot news.. neither do the public.. picture quality is of secondary importance to catching the event and perhaps that always been the way.. the more cameras the more chance of catching an event and digital means to be a photographer there is no need for lab time.. trips to the post office.. anyone can make the time to sell photos and most at least carry a camera phone in the west.
where i think the distinction between am and pro is keenest is where bodies of work are concerned.. projects over time.. a photographer working in a lifetime on one or two decent and thorough bodies of work will always shine above someone who only has a good eye.
lets face it, everyone can be trained to have a good eye.. and practice.. no one can be trained in the passion and focus to pull off a couple of solid bodies of work over a lifetime.
personally i used to love seeing the magazines with my work.. when they dropped through the letterbox i would scan them quickly.. and then after 10 years or more they now remain in the wrapper for the most part.. and it's the negatives (yes, negs:o) that i spend all of my time with. the area of print journalism i worked in suffered heavily and once interesting articles pitched by colleagues and i have been replaced with more advertorial pieces, dedicated only to gaining ad revenue... but i still have the negatives and the intent for my work.

One thing I always hope that I bring to my photographic work is a passion and drive that is relentless. That fuel that can have you working from sun up to way past sun down, miles away from the comforts of home and family, and still not get tired of hearing the click of the shutter.

That passion, combined with reliability and professionalism when dealing with clients is something that I think can help separate pros from the amateurs. Vision is not limited to those of us who make a living with our cameras - surely we all had to start with a vision when we were amateurs in order to become professionals. But consistently showing that vision on time, on budget and with as friendly and helpful an attitude as possible will mean you can proudly call yourself a professional.

Which is why I'm content to shoot for me, and no one else. I don't have to "compete", and the only opinion that matters is mine.

There are millions of artists and only one Picasso. There are billions of cameras and millions of photographers and only one "you". Professionals do the time are paid for it and respected for it, passionate photographers have all that and harvest their dreams. You can teach a person to have a good eye - they may lack the art. You can teach them to use the camera - they may get overwhelmed by set-up and miss the moment. I have lived my life as a visual and commercial artist for almost 30 years and have always been intimidated by camera jargons and attitudes. Well, for my birthday my wife got me a digital camera - so, what will a 49 year old visual artist do with a Canon G9? Try to get his picture on the cover of the National Geographic of course, but if that doesn’t happen - I'll just have a fun time trying and develop my own photo essays of what moments I can seize! (MeHi)

These are magnificent as would be expected. I love the one with the rainbow. I wonder how many rainbows these stones have seen?

I've taken a lot of amateur photos over the past fifty or so years - far too many to actually print.

Digital has been a great inspiration - I now get to see everything I shoot - and also how I often manage get something slightly wrong. A lesson has been that even a keen amateur probably can't take too many photographs of any subject. My guess is that the pros have always known this.

Importantly for me however, via my daily blog I can put online my recent work and provide an accompanying essay, albeit for a very small audience. It's a very satisfying hobby, but somehow I can't see myself as a threat to any competent pro.

I'm posting this as a comment because I can't find another way to contact you. I'm writing about the "Viewer's Choice" winner for Place in the 2008 contest. The caption says:

Places Winner
These shallow waters are mainly famous for flamingos at Nal Sarovar near Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The picture shows the reflection of clouds on water.

This photo is clearly photoshopped, as the "reflection" in the water is not a reflection but rather an extension of the clouds - a reflection would mirror the clouds above. How did you guys miss this and allow this image into the contest? It's clearly a manipulated image and in violation of your rules.

There is a distinct difference between amateur and professional digital photography. The technological advances in digital SLRs, D3/D700 Nikon’s are operational superiority in extreme environments, where consumer digital drops the ball! Understandings elements of photography at the basics (film), helps develop operational superiority in digital provided the capability is there? I cringe at the notion that anybody can take a picture, and call themselves a professional? Have them explain the shot, if they can? Or was it automatic/point and shoot imagery. A professional engineers the images to perfection. The initial image generated correctly, with specific results/concepts in mind.
There is photography and then there are snapshots. There is a distinct difference.

I struggle with this film vs. digital, amateur vs. professional when I instruct my teenage students in B&W film photography. I have to be patient with many of my students today because they been raised with/by computers. Teaching the film process requires them to slow down and use their hands and minds. It may be a dying process and fading teaching strategy, but for now, I value its ability to transcend the instant gratification digital media provides.

As convenient as digital is, it cannot replace the patience and faith that a professional photographer develops over time and the “knowing” that he/she got the shot without taking a digital shotgun to it. For me, having delayed gratification and trust in one’s skills is a magical and satisfying experience. That patience goes beyond just knowing exposures. It is a valuable component when working on personal projects and building relationships with subjects. When you possess that confidence, I feel you can call yourself a professional…regardless of the type of camera or media one chooses to use.

perhaps someone has cheated in your competition..

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/12/national-geographic-heres-your-prize.html

Hi All,
Recently, i open a free stock photos website,
My goal is to share my moments I've experienced while taking those photos and supply some fresh photos to whom might need it.
I have the same tough decisions to make about the kind of photos to share, would love to get some attention from you and have a nice critic.
BR
Adi

adi..
i like the site.. layout and that.. however i am utterly bemused as to why you would want to give away photographs for any purpose without any license agreement.. why give away what you could be charging for?

also - what effect do you think your approach has on photography as an industry, and working photographer who are finding it more difficult by the year to make a survivable living?

and finally - is thyis a model of work which is intended to get you a published folio, or is it an intention to stay fee-free over time?

Adi,
There will be issues with Copyright/Trademark on some of the images in your samples web page. To give the work away is illogical? Unless of course you are independently wealthy. You would have to expand the range of subjective topic images. To do so would be counter productive and not cost effective. Without compensation is un heard of. Then there is the vast resources of stock photo houses which sell images similar to yours, but for a price. I would rethink your concept for something that will generate income.

Wonderful article. After reading parts one and two, I have to say it still takes a huge amount of talent and skill to knock down a quality shot. I believe there are so many other aspects to picture taking that occur outside of the camera. I'm pure amatuer, and learning. One thing I've realized is that no matter how much post processing you throw at a digital shot, you just can't turn a piece of coal into a diamond.

Thanks for the encouraging words in your article(s). I'm off to study lighting and composition. Two key ingredients for a good shot :o)

Lighting and composition are relative to the eye and technology? In some cases lighting becomes: lack of lighting. Where, for the sake of the subject, and limited assistence of the use of flash (natural light). I learned with film, how to augment the lack of lighting in chemstry (push). Digital is much the same with several outstanding differences: The higher the settings H1 & 2 (25,600 iso), the less light is required to image a subject in limited lighting.
Therefor it becomes a matter relative to the conditions presented in front of the camera? For me the less the light, the better! Lighting and composition become relative to time and space. However; I have the technology able to capture those conditions. However; at L1 (100 ISO), that same subject takes on a new meaning, requiring more light or exposure values, while rendering an image unlike any under photographic extremes (100 ISO in the dark of the night)..again relative conditions.
Keep at it, you will find the correct combinations in generating flawless diamonds (images).
W