Well, as you say below, Pro is someone who makes money at what they're doing. So I don't think it much matter what they are shooting, money is money. Whether they do it "well" is another matter.
You miss the distinction. A "Pro level" sports camera will have different features than a "Pro level" fashion camera- so the marketing distinction you're trying to make by calling something "Pro level" completely misses the point of professional equipment. That is to be "Pro level" the tool needs to match whatever purpose the profession has for it- by not doing so, you miss the mark out of the gate.
However, Im not too keen on the idea of telling people that something they do isn't art simply because it won't hang in a gallery. Art is about audience ... not money.
I go to the National Gallery of Art in D.C. quite often- I rarely see art there that has anything to do with money in terms of being displayed other than the fact that at some point someone with some purchased the work and either donated it or allows it to be exhibited for some period of time, so I'm not sure what money has to do with it- perhaps you could elaborate?
I make a value judgment because, for the most part, that is how society views it. And the fact that some "Pros" in this very forum often tend to spin their comments towards "Pros only" only fortifies my position.
Perhaps it's your value judgments that cloud your perception of such comments...
Incorrect. That is WHY artists spend so much on their brushes. Camel hair is not the same as Mole hair which doesn't equal synthetic materials. However,
The word "equivalent" doesn't mean "exactly the same." There aren't a bazillion properties to a paintbrush- how much paint it holds, how long a line it will hold paint for, how much it will hold its shape, the "feel" of the bounce- feel doesn't affect the function as much as the enjoyment of the tool user- holding more or less paint generally simply means going back more often, and all materials that are acceptable for brushes are going to hold their shape for some period of time, simply changing out often one reshapes or replaces the tool. FWIW, "Camel hair" brushes are generally made from squirrel tails.
Ahh, thanks, I didn't realize that fine art, and art in general, only started at the 11" x 14" and up range. Someone should tell those Polaroid collectors
For photography, the high-end in the galleries I've been through in the last few years have generally been larger works- but again you miss the point- the "pro" tool will have characteristics which make it right for creating "pro" work- or "pro level" work if you prefer. It's just like shooting stock for an agency that doesn't have specific camera requirements- you can use anything you like to shoot with, but your chances of acceptance go up astronomically if you're using equipment with the same or better capabilities than that of others submitting work to the same agency, especially in the same categories. Therefore, your ability to produce stock photos may not be much impacted by your choice of tool, but your ability to make a "Pro level" living at it (for whatever value of living is still in stock) will be much less than if you use a larger sensor.
who spend thousands a year. And da Vinci ... I bet he is red faced with that minuscule Mona Lisa thing. This part of the argument is laughable really, no where in my forum posts did I mention anything about printing huge sizes from a Point and Shoot. I did, however, say that if someone makes money from a print, it doesn't really matter that it was taken with a Point and shoot in the end. If you selling large prints is your game, awesome. I will completely concede that you need something more than a point and shoot. If, however, your an photog that routinely sells 8x10s, you cannot tell me that some of the new high end PnS cameras are going to be inefficient.
No, I most certainly *can* tell you that high end P&S cameras are going to be inefficient. It's easier to illustrate with large prints, but the concept is exactly the same-- when you have to enlarge more, the resulting image quality is going to be less until you reach the limits of the viewer's ability to resolve details at the viewing distance for whichever size you're displaying.
Even in Fine Art Nature, when people are looking at display prints, 5-8 times out of 10 they're influenced by the level of detail in a print. I find that lots of customers will remark on and purchase images of birds with very fine feather detail in person that don't sell anywhere near as well online- reduce the sensor size and you lose that detail as you enlarge the image, even at 8x10 I'd say that at least 2/3rds of my prints that tend to get such remarks and sales wouldn't do so were they shot from a P&S sized sensor.
In using the term "Pro level" you introduce a criteria which includes the ability to withstand more scrutiny simply because you're talking about a market which will have competition and standard quality levels. Both of those things mean that the tools need to be able to produce work that is normally inside the boundaries delineated by those earning a living from their work to be "Pro level." Otherwise, you're simply at "really good P&S."
Note also that the requirements for "Pro level" in the art market are not the same as the requirements for "art." Unless you can build a social cachet that generally escapes most living artists, or produce volumes that also escape most artists you're going to go a lot hungrier selling small prints than selling larger prints.
In the business part of fine art, it's interesting to note that a customer who likes an image for what it is will purchase the smallest size available better than 60% of the time. That's one of the biggest reasons I don't sell prints smaller than 8x10- 5x7 prints priced competitively simply don't pay for multi-thousand dollar lenses in a short enough timeframe. So, while you may be able to make adequate sales off of 5x7-8x10 prints from a P&S, you'll do so much better selling larger high-quality prints- even if you can get 5% of your clientele to upsize to 11x14 or most especially evern larger sized prints it's not funny, since you'll be selling into sweet spots for both volume and unit price (the margins are so much higher on large prints it's not funny.)
Finally, da Vinci didn't make anything on the Mona Lisa since he never delivered on the commission, but I doubt he'd have been paid less commission for a larger portrait at the time.
Paul
