Re: Professional Results, What Are They?

[Michael Greer <mgreer@cwixmail.com>]

Rafe B. wrote:

> At 02:10 PM 6/10/99 -0700, Mike Greer wrote:
>
> >Getting paid is the only objective standard that exists.
>
> Jeez, Mike, I wouldn't have expected that comment
> from you.  Another poster recently made the statement
> a few days ago that:  "PROFIT IS KING!!"

Don't get these 2 things confused Rafe.  They're totally different. When
I write that getting paid is the only objective standard, it's only in
regard to defining a yard stick for "professional results", or
"professional quality". In oher words, if your work is worthy of
somebody paying for it, then it is of "professional quality". Note, I
made no comment about how discerning the paying customer might be.
That's up to them.

But that wasn't the point of my post. I just provided the definition to
highlight that no universally acceptable definition exists. It's the
definition I use to evaluate my work. I ask myself, "would anybody pay
for this?".  If "yes", then in my mind I rate it as professional
quality. If "no", I don't. When the "experts" pontificate about what is
"necessary" to produce "professional quality", it's bunk because the
term has no accepted definition. That was the point of the tirade.

> Which provoked the same rather sick and queasy feeling
> in my gut.

Sorry about your feeling. I hope you understand the meaning behind why I
use that definition for me. In all walks of life, whenever the term
"professional" is use, it implies a paid service. In Webster's,
"professional" is defined as participating for gain or livelihood in an
activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amatuers. Clearly, the
term is meant to seperate paid activities from unpaid activies.

I hope the meaning of my post doesn't get misunderstood. It was
anti-elitist. It was meant to convey that much of what many people
(amatuers) do on this list for fun and enjoyment, is worthy of pay.
Therefore, in my opinion, their work is of "professional quality". Even
though they might not be using what many "pros" consider to be
"necessary" tools. Even though the tools they may be using only cost a
fraction of what "professional" tools cost, they can still produce
"professional" level work. That was the point of the post.


> Perhaps, in the realm of "professional" work, your
> standard is appropriate.

But Rafe, it is with the "professionals" that I've had this argument
before when discussing "professional" tools. Most of them reject the
definition, but they don't provide an alternative.

> In that case, I'm happy to NOT consider myself in that category.

I'm afraid you may have missed the point. I'm on the side of the guy who
wants to produce high quality work for his enjoyment, but is not sure of
what he needs to do so. He reads that he "needs" all of the most
expensive tools in the various categories because the pros/experts
write, "for professional results you need blah, blah, blah". Therefore,
he becomes convinced that he "needs" to spend "x" thousands of dollars
to produce results that he can be proud of. This is total nonsense. I've
come across this time and time again. I've actually had to inform people
that already own Corel Draw, that the little paint program that also
comes in the box is actually a powerhouse that can do what they need.
One guy thanked me for informing him of this because by reading the
various forums he had become convinced that he needed to spend an extra
$600 for Photoshop. When I instructed him on what to do in Photo Paint
to get done what he needed, I told me he had no idea that Photo Paint
was so capable. THAT makes me sick because I know what it's like to be
ignorant about something and depend entirely on somebody else for
insight.

Before other people have a baby and claim that I'm bad mouthing
Photoshop, I'm not. The point is not to convince somebody to buy/use
this product other that product. The point is to objectively inform
people of their options with all of the pluses and minuses for each
option. Then THEY can make an informed decision on what's best for THEM.

--
Mike Greer

Come visit my web site on digital photography and other
interesting topics at http://www.greer.simplenet.com .
I have been extremely lazy, so many of the topics are
not finished yet. But they will be, some day.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.