5 Months Later

I came across this little blurb about this pretty cool article. Of course, it was written like forever ago but still.

So, it seems us "MWAC" are making headlines. The NY Times no less! Is it just me or is anyone else somehow not familiar this acronym?

Anyhoo-just thought you all might enjoy that.

*****************************************************

Edited to add-

Thanks Stacy for the link you your comment about the article and I would encourage you all to go over, read her post and be sure to read the comments as they begin a dialog I think is interesting. And many of the readers of this blog are readers of Stacy's blog so it makes it even better since we know one another.

Personally, I have conflicting thoughts on the article. It was not well written (so dry too) but I don't find it offensive. I don't feel it's passing judgment on MAWC. I think it's stating the facts. I think much of what this article is saying is true. With the exception of the reason why mom photographers charge less. It's not because they "can" it's because they usually charge what they feel comfortable with and that is usually a lot less than other more established professionals. That is true. While you're building a business, I think that's normal. And if you you choose to do it for free than that's your choice too. And, if the more established photographers are feeling threatened than that is understandable. I don't really get it because there are enough clients to go around and each client chooses the photographer that meets their needs both financially and personally. I don't see it as a competition but I can understand it for those that might.

Although I recognize that the article focuses on the SLR cameras keep in mind that it is an article in the business section and that the category of "your money" so as much as it's about MWAC it's about camera sales. No harm there. But, if you get the vibe that this writer is trying to take the stance that it's the camera that makes the photographer, she balances it out at the end with lines like-

"...the photographer’s eye matters much more than the camera, and that the ability to use technology and respond to light is what makes an image come to life. "

and

“Good photography is more about the photographer than the camera,” said Ms. Dawson, who has just started her business in Boston. “It’s about making people comfortable and finding the emotion in their faces. The camera is just a tool.”

We all know you can take kick-ass photos with a point and shoot but no one would ever start a business using one, right? SLRs do take better shots than point and shoots for the most part. Technology has made it that much easier for people to take better pictures and afford the equipment to help. That's the truth. I will never say that just anyone has what it takes to be a really talented professional photographer because I know it takes a lot of many different attributes to make that happen (above and beyond even taking great photos) but I will say that if you have what it takes to shoot photos and get paid for it, then more power to ya. It's not a judgment call here, is it?

Does anyone have anything to add? I find it a very interesting topic. It certainly ruffled some feathers. That usually means it strikes a chord, huh?  How did the article make you feel? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Comments

[Stacy]

I read that article when it came out and was a little offended by it. Here's the post I wrote on it:

http://the-kraft-family.com/WordPress/?p=428

I know Jodie Otte, who was quoted for the article, was offended by it. Basically, this line says it all: "...because many new photographers have either a full-time job or a husband with one, they can afford to charge less than professional photographers."

Apparently if you are a mom with a camera, you aren't a professional.

[melody is slurping life]

*gasp*

[melody is slurping life]

And this article leads me to ask, when will we see the premiere of SS? Saw the dot come from the BlogHer site. :)

[Stacy]

Thanks for adding your further perspective on it Tracey. Yes, the author did redeem herself in the last few paragraphs, but all in all is was an us against them type of article. The conotation to me was that moms that got a camera (with their husband's permission HA HA!) are not in similar quality to "professional photographers". It just didn't sit well with me, but it definitely pinpointed a trend.

There are lots of people out there, not necessarily just moms, that think by buying a DSLR they are now professional photographers. They don't take the time to learn, like so many of the ladies that visit your site do. I think we have seen through the work of these ladies, and occassionally men (not to be left out!), that you DON'T need a DSLR to get great quality and artistic photographs.

[Mandy]

I hadn't heard the term MWAC before, but I kinda like it. I think it's great that moms are developing their skills and good for them that many are taking it to the next level (I would very much like to). I agree with the article that it does take more than a camera, it takes a special person to really create the art of the photograph. And that comes with skill and knowledge. I don't understand why so many pro photographers are so stingy with their "secrets". I love that PP like Tracey and Stacy are so open and willing to help us MWACs get better. I agree with Tracey, there are more than enough people out there that have different needs and tastes with their photo needs. If anything, we moms are helping each other out by taking each other's kids/family photos to improve our own skills and to provide some affordable family treasures (hopefully!). Great topic for discussion!