With digital, frankly "photography" now means a lot of different things. And "professional" is a fuzzy term, and one that often is thrown around in a pejorative manner. I certainly don't get paid only for shooting pictures - but I do end up as de facto "staff photographer" and videographer. Does that make me "professional?"
Sorry, I missed this. But let me clarify what I am talking about there- I am talking about photographers with over 30 years of experience with big clients and/or photographers with a bachelor of arts or master degree in photography from CalArts (which is like saying a bit like "MIT" in engineering here in the USA). Some of them qualified to teach (and do so) the art of photography and they do work in photography.
People who made it their #1 profession and most of them studied it with a degree and exercise it.
Hope that made that part more clear
And I am not counting the many world acclaimed photographers that have also commented accordingly.
As for chasing new gear, a week after buying the A7 I ended up having theverge.com run four of my photos online. Coincidence? Luck? Rationalization? Maybe. I'd like to think that it was a combination of having good gear and being inspired by the toys enough to concentrate a bit more on the craft. One could argue that I should have the self-discipline to do that with any piece of kit, but humans often don't work that way.
Photography (and videography) is a mix of art and science. With digital, the science part has taken on new proportions, so in some sense it isn't surprising that there is more churn. It is odd because you have a relatively old art (photography) combined with relatively new technology (digital). That counterpoint makes for some odd situations and combinations. Good glass is good glass - except when it isn't with a particular sensor and processor. And the best hardware now can be left wanting due to computer code. That dynamic didn't exist in the film days, though one could argue that film formulations and developing had some aspects of that. But we now have orders of magnitude more choices and complexity at our fingertips. And that will be confusing for many.
The tools may be made by science but photography itself as the art is not. At least not in the bigger % of any mix. It may have some but not the mix in the quantities implied. Simple case- why is it that most of the accomplished photographers like Andreas Feininger makes the point the camera doesn't matter? Why did Ansel Adams when asked about which lens is sharper and what not replied pretty much which "all contemporary lenses are more than good enough" (paraphrased)?
The "good glass is good glass" shows part of the problem - there are photographers who have used a plastic Holga for a job, because for a particular project gives a certain look. It's pretty bad glass
plastic and all with leaks but it works for something they were going for.
Others just like to check out new toys. GAS is a real thing. For some it is the only thing and that's...OK. I get it. My #1 passion is playing music and I see it all the time with music gear. And have GAS myself. I've got way more in bass guitars than I do in camera gear. But I also play over 100 gigs a year in five different bands, just released and album, and am working on the next one. So I figure I've earned my instruments. That said, I don't begrudge anyone who buys nice stuff yet isn't a "pro." Some of my students are in that category. Their money, their choices. And to their credit, one reason they're taking lessons is to get better. I view getdpi as one of my places to "get lessons" on the art of photography as well as some of the science. Since I'm knee-deep in tech for my day job I worry less about that end of my expertise. But I can always learn new tricks and get a new perspective. And if new gear leads me to those places - then it was worth the money.
Anyway I just wanted to comment on the first point. Truth is I have no right to tell anyone what to do with their money. And of course GAS is real- it's a type of addiction. I certainly don't consider it a virtue
Believe it or not (as ridiculous as this may sound) I am trying to help when I make those comments I made - because it's kind of sad to see a group of people who could to me be doing better just upgrading to the next latest great thing and their photography with some rare counted exceptions seems stuck at the same level it was with the previous camera.
Because picture this- working within constraints, with limitations is what gets the art flow going. More and more options is just bad. There's even research now that backs this up a bit. It's knowing a particular tool and working it to its edge what gives you a "grammar" if you will to write a particular poetry with a certainly style. In the end it's up to the writer of course.
But again, I'll promise to shut up on this. I really mean well when I make those comments even if I may come across as a bit confrontational.
Sorry everyone
- Ricardo