How much money for my photos?

Petrochemist said:
I think it's more a case of papers choosing a poorly taken image of the moment that matters, for one taken properly of the scene afterwards. They'll quite happily pay for a critical news worthy image that will sell many thousands of papers. A good image that doesn't sell extra papers is of little use to them.
Click to expand...


Its a case of paper choosing free over paid.. they dont really care about the quality... IF you have a good image and theres no alternative then yes they will pay you a decent price... but honestly if theres a free one going of the same story they will pick that.... I am reffering more to local papers who will do this 100% but a few nationals do it for sure..
 
Newspapers are not really a good example. Newspapers are struggling full stop. Most news photography is about being where the "action" is. Joe Bloggs with his phone camera will be there. One of my mate's biggest moans is the number of people taking photographs or videos when he is attending an accident.

Our local paper often features a story about our local hospital, 95% of the time it is the same stock photograph taken at least 7 years ago, the same goes for most regular storylines.
 
I'd argue that a professional photographer that's struggling to sell photos to newspapers because newspapers are happy with free photos from whoever, is the photographs problem for not identifying their customers needs.
All well and good saying your photos are better but if they just want free photos that are good enough, then you need to rethink your business plan.
 
KIPAX said:
I did give you a clear and precise explanation as to why you where wrong..

You said : If any professional photographer feels threatened by the skilful amateur then perhaps they have misgivings about their own skills and are in the wrong business.

I said : A newspaper will choose a bad fuzzy poorly cropped horrible composition for free.. over a well taken photo paid for... Its got nothing to do with skill..its all about free v money at the moment.. The above is a proven fact :( So yes all free pics to media or what could be otherwise sold are a threat
Click to expand...

What proven fact, where is this 'proof'? Give me some references to look up where there has been scientific or financial investigations into the demise of professional photography that can't also be applied to artists, musicians or a plethora of other fields of work that have been affected by social media in particular and the internet in general.

If you are on the site of an important event and get the picture which is not only relevant but of excellent quality, then any newspaper will probably buy your picture, if you are not there, they will take the next best thing and if it's free all the better. If it's a really good picture, say of an airliner hitting the ground, they will almost certainly pay a lot of money for it and so will the syndicates. Are you saying that if a professional photographer did not get that picture then the picture taker should not even have his image considered. Bit of a closed shop isn't it, and they went out in the seventies and eighties for the most part.

As has been said, newspapers will take any picture that tells the story they want to publish, they always have and they always will and now, with the advent of mobile phone cameras, the days of the newspaper professional photographer are over except when they can get somewhere the general public cannot.

Nevertheless, I did not mention newspapers (except in post number 28 where I referred to them in passing to explain where my photograph did NOT go), my comments are aimed at the 'art' side of photography as referred to in the original post.

If free pictures are a threat then that's how it is and anyone feeling threatened will have to deal with it; that won't be by telling people not to give stuff away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the subject of professional Vs amateur it kind of reminds me of something a teacher once told me, practice makes permanent not perfect. Ie an amateur can still achieve the same photo as a professional just not as often.
So why shouldn't they sell the same photo for the same or similar money.

It's a bit like saying you shouldn't do DIY or wash your own car because you're doing a "professional" out of a job.
 
robj20 said:
It's a bit like saying you shouldn't do DIY or wash your own car because you're doing a "professional" out of a job.
Click to expand...
...which is exactly how things were before the Bubonic Plague destroyed the European economies and disrupted the old trade guilds.

The guild members who survived the Plague years must have been appalled to find that other people were undercutting them. The newcomers were unlikely to have been as skilled at the tradesmen but they had the key advantage of being cheaper. The Plague years also kick-started the Industrial Revolution, which was, in time, to finish off the old guilds.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
...which is exactly how things were before the Bubonic Plague destroyed the European economies and disrupted the old trade guilds.

The guild members who survived the Plague years must have been appalled to find that other people were undercutting them. The newcomers were unlikely to have been as skilled at the tradesmen but they had the key advantage of being cheaper. The Plague years also kick-started the Industrial Revolution, which was, in time, to finish off the old guilds.
Click to expand...
I expect you are right about the guilds but overall wages went up for the poor due to general shortage of labour.
 
sphexx said:
I expect you are right about the guilds but overall wages went up for the poor due to general shortage of labour.
Click to expand...
Of course. I suppose I thought that was obvious. Sorry.
 
KIPAX said:
I did give you a clear and precise explanation as to why you where wrong..

You said : If any professional photographer feels threatened by the skilful amateur then perhaps they have misgivings about their own skills and are in the wrong business.

I said : A newspaper will choose a bad fuzzy poorly cropped horrible composition for free.. over a well taken photo paid for... Its got nothing to do with skill..its all about free v money at the moment.. The above is a proven fact :( So yes all free pics to media or what could be otherwise sold are a threat

Thus explaining that your view is plain wrong and not a matter of opnion.. its provable wrong


Not sure what your missing here or what prompted your response ? :)
Click to expand...


I'd ignore that part. He is being a d1ck and referring to your spelling.

You wrote "your wrong", whereas it should be "you're (you are) wrong".

A somewhat pathetic comeback.
 
Last edited:
I like paintings but in my mind I always have the idea that some of the painting's value lies in how much work goes into producing it. Therefore I do not ascribe as much value (if any) to Tracy Emin's scrawls as I might to Constable's The Hay Wain. Similarly if, for example, a photographer has travelled to the Congo and crawled through miles of mosquito-ridden jungle to get a picture of a rare amphibian then that picture will be worth more to me than a very pretty still life of some flowers taken in his living room. I don't, and can't, attach much value to my photographs because it is a hobby. All the equipment I own is for my own enjoyment and if I can share some of that enjoyment with someone who likes my work then that is payment enough for me. So in a final answer to the OP: Charge what you feel comfortable charging and try not to stress over it too much. If the purchaser genuinely seems happy and you are happy too then you have asked the right price for you.
 
DemiLion said:
A somewhat pathetic comeback.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

On the other hand, us grammar nazis suffer a great deal of pain when apostrophes are maltreated.

Here is a perfect example, where the absence of an apostrophe has changed the meaning entirely and turned what might have been a saleable image into nothing of importance... :naughty:

Sign parking reserved for residents of Trump Court DSC02945.JPG
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Perhaps.

On the other hand, us grammar nazis suffer a great deal of pain when apostrophes are maltreated.

Here is a perfect example, where the absence of an apostrophe has changed the meaning entirely and turned what might have been a saleable image into nothing of importance... :naughty:
Click to expand...
Please - “we grammar nazis”……….. :)
 
Trumps court is Trumps court - no apostrophe is correct.
 
Nod said:
Trumps court is Trumps court - no apostrophe is correct.
Click to expand...
Apostrophe or not.........I just wish that they had caught him ;)















Are there gold taps there too....... :exit:
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Perhaps.

On the other hand, us grammar nazis suffer a great deal of pain when apostrophes are maltreated.

Here is a perfect example, where the absence of an apostrophe has changed the meaning entirely and turned what might have been a saleable image into nothing of importance... :naughty:
Click to expand...


Correcting a minor grammatical error by someone who freely admits and accepts that they have difficulties with spelling is acting like a d1ck.

Tony's posts may be littered with literary errors, but their content is generally invaluable.
 
Last edited:
This a photography forum does it really matter if something is grammatically correct or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top