Did you get paid, Did you get paid, Did you get paid????

Status
Not open for further replies.
Radiohead said:
Out of interest, how many amateur publishers do you know who are tooled up for printing books and magazines, along with the distribution channels to market. And who are working for free (hint: they won't be eating those costs for long).
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. There are printers going bust all over the place, just as there are magazine publishers too. At my old publishing company (Emap plc, now Bauer) hundreds of people have been made redundant, about 30% in the last few years, including me.

But thanks for ignoring the rest of my post and selecting one little bit out of context to support a wilfully perverse viewpoint.

Honestly Richard, I understand that it's in your nature to come along and be all controversial, but for someone who claims to love photography you take an awful lot of pleasure in the market being driven into the ground.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm being either willfully perverse or deliberately controversial. Just stating a few facts that are uncomfortable reading for some, but don't appear to be obvious to many. You have to look beyond the end of your nose.

Under the circumstances, I think you will know that I've thought about it quite a lot. And it gives me no pleasure at all to upset anybody.
 
menthel said:
Perhaps because the end consumer knows no different? The editor is then happy to palm them off with whatever they can get for free.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The public can only buy what they are presented with, and most won't care a gnat's chuff for high end photography. Depends what the market is though.
I did a job for the new Xfactor magazine on Monday. My pictures were of course, fantastic, ;), but imagine most of the brain dead chavs that will be buying the mag, do you really think they will care or even tell the difference between the range of pics you get in many publications, many of which will be and are 'free'....

P.S. Note the use of the word 'job' above. ie I will get PAID (and not enough I might add, at all, because of the very issues being talked about in this thread)
 
Last edited:
A case in point. Genuine PR request seen today:

"We need a photographer to shoot a 4 star hotel. The position is unpaid"

Do you deem that reasonable?
 
menthel said:
Perhaps because the end consumer knows no different? The editor is then happy to palm them off with whatever they can get for free.
Click to expand...

Dissing the consumer won't help (and that's you and me BTW). They know what they want, and they know its value. Ultimately, it's the consumer that decides - not editors or publishers - and they pay for everything we earn. That's the main point I'm trying to make.
 
Years ago it wasn't generally possible for the majority to get their own good pictures, the pros had the right kit and the developing/printing skills and 'joe public' had what they could get from their Brownie.
Now anyone can get their hands on a half decent digital and email or upload the output to all and sundry, e.g. BBC weather pics, Sky News and the local rag just for the 'high' of seeing their name.

I think you could extend this scenario over many 'unregulated' trades today.
Used to have to serve an apprenticeship to become a plumber or electrician, now you can 'do a course' in a few weeks and come out 'qualified'.
Alarm systems were the province of the likes of Securicor, Thorn or Chubb, now you can buy your own bits from B&Q and get the local neighbourhood watch coordinator to fit it from a datasheet.
Don't know how to do something?
Why get a tradesman in, there's always a forum with someone to tell you how to do it for free or a bloke down the road who will knock it in for cash after work.
Times have changed folks but is it for the better?
 
Radiohead said:
"We need a photographer to shoot a 4 star hotel. The position is unpaid"

Do you deem that reasonable?
Click to expand...
Of course it is reasonable - everyone knows what is happening.

You know how it works, it's a crappy little simple job that the PR needs a couple of shots for a presentation (or whatever). They are miles away (or in another country) and look for an aspiring photographer to do the job and add the work to their portfolio. PR agency gets the pics and the world moves on.

This is quite different to organisations appropriating free images and profiting from them.
 
HoppyUK said:
Dissing the consumer won't help (and that's you and me BTW). They know what they want, and they know its value. Ultimately, it's the consumer that decides - not editors or publishers - and they pay for everything we earn. That's the main point I'm trying to make.
Click to expand...

Its not a 'diss', its a simple statement of fact that most won't know the difference, they don't know what technically makes a good photograph but know what asthetically pleases them. We probably could tell the difference technically but would be in a minority.
 
Radiohead said:
A case in point. Genuine PR request seen today:

"We need a photographer to shoot a 4 star hotel. The position is unpaid"

Do you deem that reasonable?
Click to expand...

Clearly it's reasonable to whoever made the request, and equally to anyone who accepts it. Likewise the end consumer will apprecaite a small reduction in their bill. It's only unacceptable to someone who, in the past, might have been paid to do the job.

This is not a problem across the whole of professional photography at all. High level commercial work, eg advertising, where the amateur cannot hope to compete for all sorts of reasons, continues unaffected.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Clearly it's reasonable to whoever made the request, and equally to anyone who accepts it. Likewise the end consumer will apprecaite a small reduction in their bill. It's only unacceptable to someone who, in the past, might have been paid to do the job.

This is not a problem across the whole of professional photography at all. High level commercial work, eg advertising, where the amateur cannot hope to compete for all sorts of reasons, continues unaffected.
Click to expand...

It's more nuanced than this IMO.

PR company thinks they can get someone to do it for free. They probably can. Photographer delivers images, client is unaware and pays the same as they did. PR company then rinses and repeats next time they want something doing. Photographer is delighted because they've been used. Builds portfolio and then thinks about doing this for a living. Suddenly realises there is no living to be paid. Stops doing work for free. New photographer arrives to take his place. Repeat ad nauseum.

Problems occur when the photographer is unable to deliver consistent images to deadlines, under pressure. PR agency panics and has to find someone who can. That costs. Oh dear.

There are lots of amateurs who are just as good as many pros, and some better. But the difference between an amateur and pro? The latter can deliver when he doesn't feel like it.

I work in an area that has constant new entrants working for free, but I don't worry about them as I know I'm better and can do it every week. The sort of couples valuing their wedding photography enough to spend £2000 with me aren't looking at someone who's just bought a D40 and kit lens and fancies a crack. But that doesnt mean I don't see the problems with publishers and PR outfits swinging the lead because they know they can get away with it.
 
whiteflyer said:
It should not be "Did you get paid" but "Did you ask to be paid"
If a publication is unwilling to pay then fine it's your choice if you give them the photo, but if they are willing to pay and you just did not bother to ask then your the fool, in effect your giving money away. The extra bit of money here and there will not make you a 'Pro" but will help fund that next lens.
Click to expand...
I agree. I bet there have been a few who have given photos away for free when they could've been paid.
 
Radiohead said:
It's more nuanced than this IMO.

PR company thinks they can get someone to do it for free. They probably can. Photographer delivers images, client is unaware and pays the same as they did. PR company then rinses and repeats next time they want something doing. Photographer is delighted because they've been used. Builds portfolio and then thinks about doing this for a living. Suddenly realises there is no living to be paid. Stops doing work for free. New photographer arrives to take his place. Repeat ad nauseum.

Problems occur when the photographer is unable to deliver consistent images to deadlines, under pressure. PR agency panics and has to find someone who can. That costs. Oh dear.

There are lots of amateurs who are just as good as many pros, and some better. But the difference between an amateur and pro? The latter can deliver when he doesn't feel like it.

I work in an area that has constant new entrants working for free, but I don't worry about them as I know I'm better and can do it every week. The sort of couples valuing their wedding photography enough to spend £2000 with me aren't looking at someone who's just bought a D40 and kit lens and fancies a crack. But that doesnt mean I don't see the problems with publishers and PR outfits swinging the lead because they know they can get away with it.
Click to expand...

What has a PR agency swinging the lead got to do with anything? Nothing much new there!

The point is that the job can be done adequately for free. And next time the agency pitches for that client, they will find that another agency that also uses free photographers, but passes on that saving to the client, has undercut them and they'll lose the work.

Not only is the agency's request for a free photographer reasonable, it would be irresponsible to spend money unnecessarily.

We're not talking about agencies swinging the lead, or conmen or rip-off artists - they will always be around in every business. We're talking about the willing ability of amateurs supplying quality photographs without monetary payment - they do it for fun, for privileged access, for personal satisfaction and pleasure, and that's their reward. They do it because they want to and they can, and there cannot possibly be anything wrong with that.

And everybody benefits from that, with the single exception of the professional who no longer gets paid for supplying the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Radiohead said:
A case in point. Genuine PR request seen today:

"We need a photographer to shoot a 4 star hotel. The position is unpaid"

Do you deem that reasonable?
Click to expand...



I have picked up clients replying to requests just like that one. Not offering to shoot for free but saying I can't help you this time but would love the opportunity to discuss future projects with you.

If you go for clients that shop on price, you'll never keep them. Someone will always undercut you. My clients look for a certain level of service and quality of image.

I take care to look after both catagories as there is always someone looking to pick up the work, just like I do.

I'm about as worried of a " out of hours" shooter taking my clients as David Gilmour probably is of me stealing his gig. ;)
 
As I said earlier, I do work for free sometimes, and I make sure that I am not hurting anyone by doing so. The amount of people who don't care about anything but their ego stroke on this thread is amazing.

A question to those who are happy to work for free.

If by asking you may have been able to make money for the picture does it not bother you that naivety has cost you cash, and do you plan to change anything in the future?
 
I guess I'm completely selfish, if someone asked me to shoot for free and I could see the photo's in print I'ld do it at the drop of a hat, is it likely NO, is it my main job, definately not I don't have the ability or confidence to be able to perform on demand which is what the pro togs are for.

I was asked to shoot a friends wedding, to that the answer had to be no as although I would love the opportunity the thought of not getting the required shots and not being able to provide a good record of my friends big day weould be unheard off.

I can understand why pro togs would get upset with people not charging for photo's but at the same time if someone isn't willing to pay for a photo in the first place they'll find someone to do it for free somewhere so why not me...
 
From the BBC:-
BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm, which is doing stunningly well. It does not rely on BBC licence fee income, though it does exploit content made with licence fee money around the globe.

BBC Worldwide's profits shot up by 36.5% and income topped £1bn , despite difficult trading conditions during last year's global advertising recession, delivering dividend payments to the BBC of £73.6m, and more than £150m in cash.

This is what you contribute to by entering their various competitions, it's a rights grab and although winning it may provide the lucky donator with some very welcome publicity, it also allows the rights grab to every entry which can then be sold on and profited from.

So may times these "competitions" are just image rights grabs by corporations who then go on to make money from them.

Have I ever shot for free? Heck yes! But there has been something of value coming my way. Either referals to my business (not just hypothetical ones but real ones that have paid off), images that I can use for advertising that I would not otherwise had access to shoot, in other words something that is tangible other than cash.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Years ago it wasn't generally possible for the majority to get their own good pictures, the pros had the right kit and the developing/printing skills
Click to expand...

This is the classic "Gatekeeper" model that has almost scuppered the TV and media companies. They thought that as they controlled the means of delivery they could do, and charge, what they liked.

What they never foresaw was the rise of things like Youtube and iTunes, the model shifted and they were too slow to keep up. The audience was willing to accept crappy quality video, cheap digital downloads and blogs rather than pay for traditional delivery. The same thing is happening in magazine publishing, and now perhaps photography?

A different way of thinking about things is to give away as much as you can afford, be it pictures, experience or help. This will increase your exposure in the digital world, which will result in more feedback, more interest, and finally more potential to exploit your world recognised knowledge and skills in the future.

This is an interesting video, from the TED talks, which shows how the web can power innovation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_anderson_how_web_video_powers_global_innovation.html

gramps said:
Don't know how to do something?
Why get a tradesman in, there's always a forum with someone to tell you how to do it for free
Click to expand...

An example of the power of the internet:
A guy I know, his washing machine broke down, he rang Hotpoint and explained what had gone wrong. "yes, sir" they said "you need a new circuit board which will be £150". A short Google later and he had the answer, a capacitor costing 68p, a bit of scary soldering and hey presto, fixed.

So which was the proper approach, should he have really paid the Pro's to fix it, or by taking the chance himself did he stop somebody else earning a living?
 
Last edited:
awp said:
People who give their work away for free are being taken for fools.
Click to expand...

As someone who does this soley as a hobby, I'd be a fool to accept money for a photograph.
 
jamesoliverstone said:
Wow, interesting debate from which I can see both sides. I guess I am happy that my professional work exists in a place that no ameteur photographer can get to... ;)
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I take great care not to rely on areas where I can face "competition" from guys doing the job for free...It's led me to rely less on the architecture work which every site foreman, architect and graphic designer can knock up in 10secs flat.

Ironically, I'm trying to combine a hobby (Scuba) and work (Photography) with videography as well...hence my comments on another thread regarding HD video production using DSLRs
 
starkersclark said:
Imagine if you did want to earn a living from it but couldn't because people are prepared to work for free so no one wanted to pay you?
Click to expand...

This shall (hopefully) be my one and only post in this thread.

Welcome to the free market economy that is the modern day world. Price for an item, be it a photo or the latest Nike trainers is set by the market not the supplier of the purchaser. It happens throught the market place, as little as 5-10 years ago you could earn 40-50k a year doing basic Technical support jobs in IT then someone discovered India and suddenly the same work was being done for half a packet of fags and some rusty old washers.

The same is happening in the world of photography the market value of certain photographs is now zero because so many people are able to capture suitable images of a high enough quality with an ease that makes them not need financial reward. This is sad for those that rely on this photography for income but the Genie cannot be put back in the bottle in the same way that IT jobs will not be comming back from India.

Get use to it move with the market, diversify and differentiate or you will die as a business. It really is that simple.
 
a1ex2001 said:
This shall (hopefully) be my one and only post in this thread.

Welcome to the free market economy that is the modern day world. Price for an item, be it a photo or the latest Nike trainers is set by the market not the supplier of the purchaser. It happens throught the market place, as little as 5-10 years ago you could earn 40-50k a year doing basic Technical support jobs in IT then someone discovered India and suddenly the same work was being done for half a packet of fags and some rusty old washers.

The same is happening in the world of photography the market value of certain photographs is now zero because so many people are able to capture suitable images of a high enough quality with an ease that makes them not need financial reward. This is sad for those that rely on this photography for income but the Genie cannot be put back in the bottle in the same way that IT jobs will not be comming back from India.

Get use to it move with the market, diversify and differentiate or you will die as a business. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

It's also really that simple that you should not give your work away for free! As you have quite rightly said it is ruining the market so why encourage that and make it worse quicker? :shrug:
 
starkersclark said:
It's also really that simple that you should not give your work away for free! As you have quite rightly said it is ruining the market so why encourage that and make it worse quicker? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Damn, only posting twice to clarify

No it's not that simple, you can't force people to charge for something they are happy to give away for free that is putting th genie back in the bottle which is impossible. The weight of numbers has inevitably changed the market compare stock image prices today with those as little as ten years ago the drop is shocking and that is purely down too numbers and availability. looking back and trying to shape the market to what it used to be is futile, togs need to look to the future see what is comming and be flexible in meeting those demands.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Damn, only posting twice to clarify

No it's not that simple, you can't force people to charge for something they are happy to give away for free that is putting th genie back in the bottle which is impossible. The weight of numbers has inevitably changed the market compare stock image prices today with those as little as ten years ago the drop is shocking and that is purely down too numbers and availability. looking back and trying to shape the market to what it used to be is futile, togs need to look to the future see what is comming and be flexible in meeting those demands.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, every industry has had to adapt to survive and photography is no different
 
Damn, only posting twice to clarify
Click to expand...

easy to get sucked in. ;)

what I don't get is what's not to get. 100 years ago every village had a blacksmith, now they don't.

Our business is no different and the digital revolution will take many more scalps yet. If you want to stay in the game you need to learn to swim faster or swim better.

The transition period is tough but as the market shrinks less people will come into it. In the same way that the world is not full of unemployed blacksmiths.
 
Awesome, same old debate, same old answers.

I'm going to use an analogy to give my view.

A number of years ago I decided that car maintenance doesn't look that hard, so I bought a few cheap spanners and had a go. My first 'simple' job took me all day with lots of swearing and two broken spanners. I achieved what I set out to do in approximately 10x the amount of time a professional would have taken.

Over the years I persevered, upgraded my tools to better ones, bought the right tools for a job etc. I'm now confident to tackle most of my own automotive repairs - and I rather enjoy it even if I still take ages on a job.

This year I have done some services and basic repairs for friends, for free. These are my mates and every time the people concerned have offered to pay, I refuse. I quite like the feeling that I have helped a mate out and saved them some money.

Am I 'taking profit away from garages'? Absolutely.

If I saw someone I didn't know broken down would I stop and help? Well last time I did I got them back on the road again - all for free. But essentially I offered my services for free - and as the example indicated sometimes that is appropriate (and comes with the warm fuzzy feeling!).

Would I do it for a stranger, hell no. And that right there is the point I am taking so long to make. Because I see a publication approaching me and asking if they can use my shot in the same way as a stranger approaching me and asking if I'll do their repair. Yet publications do this - lots.

My attitude has changed - I used to be right in the 'Here, have my photos Stranger!' crowd. But thinking about it I really cannot deal with the concept of someone making money for them or their shareholders off the back of my work. Now I give away what I want to, to people who I feel deserve it. Personal choice all the way.
 
good points Richard, but I think what the original greivance was amatuers being attacked on here for giving away their images, not publishers asking for photos for free and amateurs relenting - to go back to your analogy you gave your help to a stranger who had broken down but you wouldn't help someone for free who requested your help.
At the end of the day if an amtog is missing out on money just to get that warm fuzzy feeling then so what? if he or she is happy with that, cool - you'll never find a common ground here because you'll always find people who want to be paid and others who just want recognition.
But what shouldn't be 'done' is members here frowned upon for not demanding money for their images which I think is what OP was trying to get across and I fully agree, tbh it's none of anyones damn business
 
jamesoliverstone said:
Wow, interesting debate from which I can see both sides. I guess I am happy that my professional work exists in a place that no ameteur photographer can get to... ;)
Click to expand...
I was at Donington to shoot the BTCC for my own pleasure not paid. I got chatting to a pro tog with access all areas vest/bag. We had very similar gear and he admitted his shots very pretty similar to mine quality wise. The big difference is that he could go anywhere and hence get any type of shot required by his client. I could only go where Joe Public could go. This is the kind of thing clients are paying pros for I guess, certainly in very restricted fields of photography.
 
AliB said:
From the BBC:-
BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm, which is doing stunningly well. It does not rely on BBC licence fee income, though it does exploit content made with licence fee money around the globe.

BBC Worldwide's profits shot up by 36.5% and income topped £1bn , despite difficult trading conditions during last year's global advertising recession, delivering dividend payments to the BBC of £73.6m, and more than £150m in cash.

This is what you contribute to by entering their various competitions, it's a rights grab and although winning it may provide the lucky donator with some very welcome publicity, it also allows the rights grab to every entry which can then be sold on and profited from.

So may times these "competitions" are just image rights grabs by corporations who then go on to make money from them.

Have I ever shot for free? Heck yes! But there has been something of value coming my way. Either referals to my business (not just hypothetical ones but real ones that have paid off), images that I can use for advertising that I would not otherwise had access to shoot, in other words something that is tangible other than cash.
Click to expand...

Well said AliB - a voice of reason among a load of old tosh. Reminds me of some of the wedding threads we used to see:D
 
Ok, here's an interesting question for you all now your bile has settled a bit:

After 6 pages of this thread and umpteen million previously has anyone actually shifted camp from one side of the argument to another, just by the power of postings in this thread?

If not, next time, just leave it.
 
Last edited:
desantnik said:
Ok, here's an interesting question for you all now you're bile has settled a bit:

After 6 pages of this thread and umpteen million previously has anyone actually shifted camp from one side of the argument to another, just by the power of postings in this thread?

If not, next time, just leave it.
Click to expand...

logically yes but its fun to have a rant
 
dazzajl said:
easy to get sucked in. ;)

what I don't get is what's not to get. 100 years ago every village had a blacksmith, now they don't.

Our business is no different and the digital revolution will take many more scalps yet. If you want to stay in the game you need to learn to swim faster or swim better.

The transition period is tough but as the market shrinks less people will come into it. In the same way that the world is not full of unemployed blacksmiths.
Click to expand...

100 years ago people rode horses, used horses to pull freight and ate horses when they were of no further use as work animals.
A vast industry dedicated to breeding horses, feeding and maintaining horses and disposing of horse-related waste products, including their dead carcasses was required.

We had blacksmiths to make horseshoes for them. That they did other stuff as well was a bonus. A bit like a wedding photographer doing baby-portraits on the side.

Nowadays we have garages and petrol-stations in every town.

The market changed, they didn't adapt (or they became mechanics).
 
Last edited:
local paper has published my image today..it's about 8 inches big too..
....so how much should I ask for as back payment then??..
:exit:

and yes I am joking - this is the first time I've been published and I have a warm fuzzy feeling

melindas_advertisment_lg.jpg
 
Ah, O remember the first picture pf mine that our local paper printed. Nice large photo full colour on the front page.

The warm fuzzy feeling was great.

The fact that I'd already been paid for the session and usage put food on the table and shoes on the kids feet.........
 
itsdavedotnet said:
This is what the real issue is with. 'well my boss was going to hire a professional but I told him not to because I had a big camera....'
Click to expand...

I was asked to photograph an event for work where a professional had also been hired - mine was the shot used in the local press not his so :thumbs:

I didnt get paid for it, dont give a **** its a hobby and I enjoyed showing all my family :D
 
madmadam said:
I was asked to photograph an event for work where a professional had also been hired - mine was the shot used in the local press not his so :thumbs:

I didnt get paid for it, dont give a **** its a hobby and I enjoyed showing all my family :D
Click to expand...

SO he got paid, and you got exploited and you're happy about it?

I know having your photo published is nice, but surely do you not think you should have been paid for your image?

I don't get the attitude, of didn't get paid and don't care, seems like this forum is full of rich people who do not need extra money to buy things like more gear.:bang:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top