I could slap her face !!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or is it simply that you have no other argument to make and realise that insults don't help your cause.

Not at all Tom, I have lots to discuss on this matter, both for and against. I just can't see the point of doing it with someone who refuses to accept other points of views.

I have done lots for free Tom, here is a link with my free work on display, not to a parent who wants a clicky snap of her son, but for a national body with oodles of money. They too chose the free option lower quality images over the better but pricier images. An action I learned from, and now get paid to do it. My rate would be laughed at from the pro's on here, but it means I can justify to myself that my work is worth it, it has value, to me and the end user.

In reality, you seem to want the forum to pander to your beliefs, purely based on what you think is right, if only life was so just, I could rule the world.

One last thing Tom, I have not insulted you, I don't bully, please do not tar everyone & everything with the same brush. I like the smell of coffee in the morning, let me know if you want one when you awaken from the slumber.

Phil
 
Not at all Tom, I have lots to discuss on this matter, both for and against. I just can't see the point of doing it with someone who refuses to accept other points of views.

In reality, you seem to want the forum to pander to your beliefs, purely based on what you think is right, if only life was so just, I could rule the world.

One last thing Tom, I have not insulted you, I don't bully, please do not tar everyone & everything with the same brush. I like the smell of coffee in the morning, let me know if you want one when you awaken from the slumber.

Phil

On the contrary it seems the forum will not listen to other points of views. I have acknowledge the argument against giving away free photos but don’t feel its strong enough to sway my opinion. By seeking more and different points of view I am told I am not listening?? Why, because I don’t accept this single argument?? I am not asking for anyone to agree with me I am asking for more reasons as to why giving photos away is such a crime according to the people here.

As for not insulting me you still couldn’t stop yourself having a dig when you say, ''fair points badly made.'' :thumbs: or imply that I am simply being unreasonable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said the butchers was an open forum, but what and how you speak to him is, conversation is a debate.

Fair points, badly made.
Phil.
see above, I knew what you were aluding to, as you didn't quite manage to get it across too well, it was badly made, not an insult, an observation.

On the contrary it seems the forum will not listen to other points of views. I have acknowledge the argument against giving away free photos but don’t feel its strong enough to sway my opinion. By seeking more and different points of view I am told I am not listening?? Why, because I don’t accept this single argument?? I am not asking for anyone to agree with me I am asking for more reasons as to why giving photos away is such a crime according to the people here.
.
do you mean by this that there has to be more than one reason? The problem cannot be solved with just one reason, for you to be persuaded, how many reasons do you need? Giving photos away is not a crime on here Tom, they are yours, do what you want with them, the issue is your ability to provoke an argument for doing it, no one is asking or telling you to sell them. They are asking you consider your actions and your comments.
 
do you mean by this that there has to be more than one reason? The problem cannot be solved with just one reason, for you to be persuaded, how many reasons do you need? Giving photos away is not a crime on here Tom, they are yours, do what you want with them, the issue is your ability to provoke an argument for doing it, no one is asking or telling you to sell them. They are asking you consider your actions and your comments.

No, one reason if fine but only if its convincing and so far the one I have heard is not. I simply cannot believe that me giving away a few free photos is undermining the photographic industry.

I do understand in some circumstance it might when people are trying to promote their business and build up their contacts but even that is debatable. Its the idea that has been touted on here endlessly that you should always, always charge for you photos that I find ridiculous.
 
Err.... do they? :shake:

Charity: a system of giving money, food or help free to those who are in need because they are ill, poor or have no home, or any organization which has the purpose of providing money or helping in this way

I am struggling here not to say something insulting but am actually lost for words.
 
Charity: a system of giving money, food or help free to those who are in need because they are ill, poor or have no home, or any organization which has the purpose of providing money or helping in this way

I am struggling here not to say something insulting but am actually lost for words.

M&S: A profit based retail outlet in which people with hard earned money may exchange it for luxury, newly manufactured items (which, at a later date may be donated to a charity for redistribution to the poor and needy).

From that angle charities have absolutely nothing in common with M&S. Retail and charity from that viewpoint are two separate entities and like comparing chalk and cheese.

I didn't think you'd be daft enough to be meaning charities high street retail branches.

Let it out, it's good to talk :)
 
Last edited:
...........
Within about half an hour she "replies to all" saying
--------------------
My photos are on Facebook - I restrict them to be available to friends only so just send me a friend request if you want to look at them.

If anyone wants copies just let me know and I'll stick them on a disc for you.
--------------------

That is why I could slap her. Others may be generous with their interpretation but I see it another way - hence the rant............

Getting back to the original post, maybe that is the only way that she can get friends.:lol:
 
M&S: A profit based retail outlet in which people with hard earned money may exchange it for luxury, newly manufactured items (which, at a later date may be donated to a charity for redistribution to the poor and needy).

From that angle charities have absolutely nothing in common with M&S. Retail and charity from that viewpoint are two separate entities and like comparing chalk and cheese.

I didn't think you'd be daft enough to be meaning charities high street retail branches.

Let it out, it's good to talk :)

The point is that a small charitable act by an individual is not likely to upset a whole industry.

So far no one has managed to tell me why the analogies picking a friend up from the airport is undermining the taxi driving industry or a hitchhiker the bus companies. Helping a friend paint a room painters and on and on and on.....

It seem that photographers seem to believe that they have exclusive rights to tell people they should always charge for their services. When someone can give a reasonable argument to the above cases perhaps I'll change my mind but I will not be holding my breath.
 
The point is that a small charitable act by an individual is not likely to upset a whole industry.

So far no one has managed to tell me why the analogies picking a friend up from the airport is undermining the taxi driving industry or a hitchhiker the bus companies. Helping a friend paint a room painters and on and on and on.....

It seem that photographers seem to believe that they have exclusive rights to tell people they should always charge for their services. When someone can give a reasonable argument to the above cases perhaps I'll change my mind but I will not be holding my breath.

My point was that you were trying to put across your point with a defunct argument. If you badly worded that little bit, then there is a sign why some people are having difficulty in understanding your beliefs.

I've no argument with you on the topic though, I couldn't give a monkeys to be honest. I produce results that people will pay for, in a market totally separate to yours. A (sporting) events photographer however, will naturally differ.
 
My point was that you were trying to put across your point with a defunct argument. If you badly worded that little bit, then there is a sign why some people are having difficulty in understanding your beliefs.

I've no argument with you on the topic though, I couldn't give a monkeys to be honest. I produce results that people will pay for, in a market totally separate to yours. A (sporting) events photographer however, will naturally differ.

I am not sure why you didn't get the analogy with charity and M&S. M&S sell clothes charities give them away. It seems so simple but I guess I need to spell things out a little better for a few people.
 
I am not sure why you didn't get the analogy with charity and M&S. M&S sell clothes charities give them away. It seems so simple but I guess I need to spell things out a little better for a few people.

M&S sell clothes to rich folk. Charities give clothes away to clothes who can't afford their own.

Getty/DE Photo/Many on here, sell photos to rich folk. You give your photos away to rich folk.

The term rich being used to signify that people can comfortably afford to send their children to sports clubs - and I have worked in events before now, I've seen your average family spend £200 on photos of one kid in one transaction!

That difference is why that particular argument is defunct. If you had just said one charitable action doesn't upset the industry, then that would have been debatably truthful and therefore agreeable to people.

Like I say, I don't care to be honest. Just annoys me when people use bad arguments to back up their case :) Besides which, clothes are a necessity, photos are not.
 
Last edited:
M&S sell clothes to rich folk. Charities give clothes away to clothes who can't afford their own.

Getty/DE Photo/Many on here, sell photos to rich folk. You give your photos away to rich folk.

The term rich being used to signify that people can comfortably afford to send their children to sports clubs - and I have worked in events before now, I've seen your average family spend £200 on photos of one kid in one transaction!

That difference is why that particular argument is defunct. If you had just said one charitable action doesn't upset the industry, then that would have been debatably truthful and therefore agreeable to people.

Like I say, I don't care to be honest. Just annoys me when people use bad arguments to back up their case :) Besides which, clothes are a necessity, photos are not.

And it annoys me when people start to twist an example to fit their view. The point which you are obviously missing is one act is done free of charge the other is paid for. It has nothing to do with the recipients wealth or status or event. Its a general point that doing something for nothing does not necessarily undermine those that do it for payment. If the analogy is too much for you try the taxi driver one, they drive rich people around.

I am also not talking about a single charitable act as that is obviously going to have no impact, really how dumb are you? :bang:

There I have become a true forum memeber by insuting people now so time to leave I think :wave:.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And it annoys me when people start to twist an example to fit their view. The point which you are obviously missing is one act is done free of charge the other is paid for. It has nothing to do with the recipients wealth or status or event. Its a general point that doing something for nothing does not necessarily undermine those that do it for payment.

I am also not talking about a single charitable act as that is obviously going to have no impact, really how dumb are you? :bang:

There I have become a true forum memeber by insuting people now so time to leave I think :wave:.

No, you tried to compare a luxury, profitable service to a necessity, charitable service. I've not twisted anything, I've merely stated fact. A quick look into M&S and Oxfam's accounts will back me up on that.

Not talking about a single charitable act?

The point is that a small charitable act by an individual is not likely to upset a whole industry.

Single and individual are pretty damn similar in my books.

For the first time... we agree!

I am struggling here not to say something insulting but am actually lost for words.

Ta'ra :)
 
Last edited:
Not talking about a single charitable act?


Quote:
The point is that a small charitable act by an individual is not likely to upset a whole industry.

Single and individual are pretty damn similar in my books.

QUOTE]Not talking about a single charitable act?


Really I have to laugh the word individual refers to a single person not the number of times they do something. Further more I wasn't comparing a luxury goods store with a charity store in terms of what they sell but the act of charity with the act of paying for goods.

As I said if the M&S example is too much for you to get your head round try any of the other examples I give earlier and stop trying to read more into everything to try and make up for your unbeleivably stupid first comment Errr.. do they! :bonk:
 
Not talking about a single charitable act?


Quote:
The point is that a small charitable act by an individual is not likely to upset a whole industry.

Single and individual are pretty damn similar in my books.

QUOTE]Not talking about a single charitable act?


Really I have to laugh the word individual refers to a single person not the number of times they do something. Further more I wasn't comparing a luxury goods store with a charity store in terms of what they sell but the act of charity with the act of paying for goods.

As I said if the M&S example is too much for you to get your head round try any of the other examples I give earlier and stop trying to read more into everything to try and make up for your unbeleivably stupid first comment Errr.. do they! :bonk:

Thought you were going? :)
 
Holy Cow! This thread has gone completely OT!

I'll start with an On Thread comment though...

Slap her?? really? Don't see what you are all het up about. Sounds pretty much like the usual parental cat fighting that goes on in junior sports. I would imagine that She probably read your email and thought "What a damn cheek he's got selling pictures for his own pocket!" And then did what us women do, and thwarted you be replying to your own email, played dirty. Sort of thing I would do if someone annoyed me enough. If you want to win this, then you gotta raise your game and make your pictures worth paying for, then she is no competition or threat to you. Or just don't bother, maybe its not worth the effort. I'm guessing because you are linked by the team you are in polite communication at games n stuff, but I bet you guys just really can't stand each other. Well for the sake of the team and your kids, just leave well alone. If she wants to give away free pictures, you can't stop her. And the more you try I'll bet the more determined she'll get to undermine you. There I've said it. No sympathy from this quarter.

And to the rest of this thread...

Ah yes, I remember you from a few months back...kicked up a bit of a stink about payments. I seem to remember you being just as belligerent then too. (BLAH BLAH BLAH- removed due to being verbal diarrhoea) Be warned my friend, there are plenty of people out there who can bite you on the arse if you take away their livelihood.

That's nasty. In fact there's a lot of nasty here. I am a newbie to this site and already I have a sick taste. This arguement is SOOOO old. I frequent a car enthusiast forum and I read the same stuff there - pro v amateur. It really is the same stuff, but they are cars and you are photography.

From an outsider looking in, I saw ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with Toms post and yet he gets flamed in what is clearly dredging up from the past. Sad really. Get over it. I didn't get any vibes from Tom that we're trolling and given my opinion on the OP's post it seemed relevant too as it somewhat agreed with my thoughts in that the woman (who apparently needs a good slap) has done nothing wrong.

Take away livelihood - get real. This is not unique to pro photographers.

For the record, I am a hobby picture taker. I will happily give away any pictures I take of stuff, like their kids at the football, etc. That's because I take hobby pictures, its what I do and always have done. It's probably what most people who take pictures for fun do. Just like many people will happily get naff quality pictures blown up to ginormous proportions and stick it on their walls - it just doesn't mean the same to them - they are not enthusiasts.

Just like people who wash their cars with washing up liquid and yard brushes aren't that interested in shiny cars like the enthusiasts on the other forum I am on...
 
Holy Cow! This thread has gone completely OT!

I'll start with an On Thread comment though...

Slap her?? really? Don't see what you are all het up about. Sounds pretty much like the usual parental cat fighting that goes on in junior sports. I would imagine that She probably read your email and thought "What a damn cheek he's got selling pictures for his own pocket!" And then did what us women do, and thwarted you be replying to your own email, played dirty. Sort of thing I would do if someone annoyed me enough. If you want to win this, then you gotta raise your game and make your pictures worth paying for, then she is no competition or threat to you. Or just don't bother, maybe its not worth the effort. I'm guessing because you are linked by the team you are in polite communication at games n stuff, but I bet you guys just really can't stand each other. Well for the sake of the team and your kids, just leave well alone. If she wants to give away free pictures, you can't stop her. And the more you try I'll bet the more determined she'll get to undermine you. There I've said it. No sympathy from this quarter.

Vikki

Thanks for posting back.

Slap her.... no I would never do anything of the sort. That kind of thing should be between consulting adults ;)

I do not wish to stop her giving photos away. Not everything should be done for money. What annoyed me was that it was a reply to my email. That is it felt like she was trying to discourage people from buying mine because she gave hers away for free.

I did mention further down the point about my photos having to be much better if I want to compete and sell. Whilst my photos aren't the best they are considerably better than hers.

How much better - much much better. Not anywhere near the standards others produce on here though.

Kipax talked about it. Most people in this environment are only wanting photos to put on FB. And he stated about a poor quality photo being preferable to one being sold. :'(

The only way for me to make so extra money in this is to do games where the market isn't flooded. e.g. when my son plays for Kent. i.e. with kids from other teams where there isn't a Dad With Camera or MWC.

I am in no way hostile to the lady, I just don't stop to talk.
 
Holy Cow! This thread has gone completely OT!

That's nasty. In fact there's a lot of nasty here. I am a newbie to this site and already I have a sick taste. This arguement is SOOOO old. I frequent a car enthusiast forum and I read the same stuff there - pro v amateur. It really is the same stuff, but they are cars and you are photography.

From an outsider looking in, I saw ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with Toms post and yet he gets flamed in what is clearly dredging up from the past. Sad really. Get over it. I didn't get any vibes from Tom that we're trolling and given my opinion on the OP's post it seemed relevant too as it somewhat agreed with my thoughts in that the woman (who apparently needs a good slap) has done nothing wrong.

Take away livelihood - get real. This is not unique to pro photographers.
blah blah, cut out due to complete tosh.

Well from an insider there was a lot wrong with Tom's post. It was inflammatory and unnecessary...just like mine.

However, if you'd bothered to read a little further down where I made a much more sensible point you'd have seen that I can be just as constructive.

Of course, that's not necessary if you wanted to have a pop. Yes it DOES take away livelihood. Or at the very least it does make it a damn sight more difficult to make one. Sheesh. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

I'm beginning to remember why I left...
 
Well from an insider there was a lot wrong with Tom's post. It was inflammatory and unnecessary...just like mine.

However, if you'd bothered to read a little further down where I made a much more sensible point you'd have seen that I can be just as constructive.

Of course, that's not necessary if you wanted to have a pop. Yes it DOES take away livelihood. Or at the very least it does make it a damn sight more difficult to make one. Sheesh. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

I'm beginning to remember why I left...

Got to agree James, the majority of the sports photography I do is at this sort of level and if someone at the clubs, be if Mum, Dad or uncle Bob started to give images away for free it would totally undermine my business model.

The majority of customers dont really know what a good quality image is, so they cannot make the distiction between average or good quality, this leads them to believe that my good quality images are too expensive. 'Why buy if I can get the same for free' This in turn the can potentially reduces their perception of the value of a quality image. This now makes it harder to sell quality images.

The point is, that by giving images away for free can and more often than not, does make it more difficult to sell quality images in the long run.
 
have tried to follow the thread and could not understand where its going but will go as far as to say that i have asked my kids to explain face book etc and still dont get it.
regards the pro v semi agument i will do what ever i have to provide a wage but would never give my stuff away for free, also i have seen some 'pros' carry on like amatures and visa versa.
 
The majority of customers dont really know what a good quality image is, so they cannot make the distiction between average or good quality, this leads them to believe that my good quality images are too expensive. 'Why buy if I can get the same for free' This in turn the can potentially reduces their perception of the value of a quality image. This now makes it harder to sell quality images.

I'm sorry but that is incredibly patronising.

If an individual is happy with the free image who are you to tell them that your paid for product is so much better? It may be to you but if it is not in thier eyes then to them it isn't.

Why do some of the pros on here think that their market should be protected from changes in market forces that have undermined or threatened to undermine their business model?
 
I'm sorry but that is incredibly patronising.

If an individual is happy with the free image who are you to tell them that your paid for product is so much better? It may be to you but if it is not in thier eyes then to them it isn't.

Why do some of the pros on here think that their market should be protected from changes in market forces that have undermined or threatened to undermine their business model?

If he believes it is a better product, then he can tell them. Isn't that what business is about? :cuckoo: Whether they accept it and stump up cash for this better product is their choice.. no? :)
 
If he believes it is a better product, then he can tell them. Isn't that what business is about? :cuckoo: Whether they accept it and stump up cash for this better product is their choice.. no? :)

Um no, he can explain why he believes it to be better but if the potential customer thinks it isn't then to them it isn't
 
Um no, he can explain why he believes it to be better but if the potential customer thinks it isn't then to them it isn't

Isn't that what I said?

In which case.. he is quite within his rights to tell them his product his better. Which makes your initial comment self contradictory.
 
Last edited:
Um no, he can explain why he believes it to be better but if the potential customer thinks it isn't then to them it isn't

That's what Purpleclouds said.
 
If he believes it is a better product, then he can tell them. Isn't that what business is about? :cuckoo: Whether they accept it and stump up cash for this better product is their choice.. no? :)

Phil

I think you needed to put " " around the second better as Simon read it literally.
 
That's what Purpleclouds said.

No purpleclouds said he can tell them its better, not, as I said, explain why (to them) it is better. Big difference.

He can of course do either, its a free world, but the lastter might get better results.

Still we are drifting from my main point which is that pros have no more right to protection from market movements than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
No purpleclouds said he can tell them its better, not, as I said, explain why (to them) it is better. Big difference.

He can of course do either, its a free world, but the lastter might get better results.

Still we are drifting from my main point which is that pros have no more right to protection from market movements than anyone else.

Telling and explaining are exactly the same thing in business. 'Explaining' is just an alternative softy softy word.
 
Telling and explaining are exactly the same thing in business. 'Explaining' is just an alternative softy softy word.

On that we will have to agree to differ because in my business they are very different concepts.
 
On that we will have to agree to differ because in my business they are very different concepts.

If you deem 'telling' to be in a stern manner (as in, telling your childen off for spilling some milk) then you would have to question why I, or anyone else would want to 'tell' someone why their product is better in such a manner? Answer: They wouldn't. It's just a word. Tendering. Advertising. Pitching.

In which case, I would assume your business is childcare? :p
 
Last edited:
If you deem 'telling' to be in a stern manner (as in, telling your childen off for spilling some milk) then you would have to question why I, or anyone else would want to 'tell' someone why their product is better in such a manner? Answer: They wouldn't. It's just a word. Tendering. Advertising. Pitching.

In which case, I would assume your business is childcare? :p

Anything to avoid the 'S' word then Eh? ::lol:
 
Cool thread :D :thumbs:

from what I see, 95% of this thread is out of context, bigrob said: "What annoyed me was that it was a reply to my email. That is it felt like she was trying to discourage people from buying mine because she gave hers away for free."
Quite frankly I'd agree, why not start her own email?, or word it more politely?, no, instead it's easier to shove in a thinly veiled stab to get popularity.

I mean, I hate to see how this turns out at Easter/Christmas.... Seriously Rob, you have to bake a bigger cake than her :D :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
At youth rugby I've been known to bake muffins/flapjack and leave them on the table for the players/parents next to my business cards, whilst I browse through the pics I've just taken on my ipad... ;)
 
This has been an interesting thread, if a bit heated. :lol:

If someone wants to give their images away for free then they can of course do that. Should a Pro trying to sell images of the same subject be happy about that? I doubt it. :shrug:

I can see why the OP was a bit miffed by their situation. To have someone actively discourage, or at least undermine their situation to deter people from buying their images seemed spiteful.

I can also see why people took exception to Tom's opinion, it may have not been put across in the most diplomatic manner, though I doubt any of us are diplomats. ;) :lol:

I think the Butcher analogy was a valid one, although Tom seemed to dismiss it out of hand. When I worked in a department store, it used to irritate me when people would come in, look at the goods and then say it was £'s cheaper on the Internet. I knew that, they didn't need to tell me, but took satisfaction in doing it. :shrug: I wouldn't have appreciated another customer chiming in on the conversion to say it was even cheaper somewhere else. Inform the other customer by all means, but don't do it in front of me. :( That situation was different because obviously an Ipod is an Ipod regardless of where you buy, though in that situation the customer service and convenience of getting the goods there and then is what you were paying extra for, whereas each photograph is unique, and each photo has a value to the photographer and the viewer. To some Photographers the value is someone appreciating their work. For Pro's it is up to the photographer(s) to get into a situation where they have a monopoly on the situation, as at football stadiums, or produce images that are markedly better than the average chap in the street could get to justify the value they give the image.

I didn't see any 'threats' btw, but then I could be wrong and not have perceived something as a threat as it was not aimed at me. :shrug:
 
At youth rugby I've been known to bake muffins/flapjack and leave them on the table for the players/parents next to my business cards, whilst I browse through the pics I've just taken on my ipad... ;)

you take pictures on an ipad? cool. :D

and where's the pictures of the blonde in the white t-shirt in the river for god's sake? :gag:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top