Images, value and their worth... Who is to blame?

[On the Huh]

Who cares. If you want to let people use your photos then do so. If you have a problem people doing that then you need to provide a service the people doing it for free or cheap cannot or do not. As usual I am correct.

I wish I was right all the time,

 

[Lindsay D]

I think everyone needs to think what is meant by using the word 'work' or the phrase 'your work' in relation to a non professional photographer (ie. not charging/making money).
Amateurs are not in any way giving away their 'work' as such as they (an me) are hobbyists and are taking photo's for pleasure not work.

Phil, you keep bringing up the argument if someone walked into my place of work, for instance, and offered to do my job for free that I would not be pleased and you'd probably be right! then again they'd need to have certain industry qualifications, but it's not a good analogy for this discussion.
No hobbyist is being approached by a corporation asking them to produce an image to a brief for free and at the photographers expense. The images in question already exist and where produced by the hobbyist for their own pleasure.

It doesn't matter if they were produced for pleasure or not - or whether the images are seen as "work" or not. Perhaps a better term is output. Nor does it matter that they already exist rather than having been commissioned. Either way the creation of the images required overhead (of which there are degrees depending on where the photographer lies), time, and skill (again, these may vary). But if a business or publication desires an image then do you not see that the image has value to that publication? In other words it has the potential to generate revenue for the publisher. And this brings me back to the same point which is being made repeatedly throughout this thread - why should the photographer be the only person in the food chain who is not rewarded? What has that to do with the status of the originator? I see it as a point of ethics, a simple statement of fairness.

Of course it's up to any given individual whether or not they ask for payment, but I'm still having a hard time understanding why so many image producers feel that payment should not be a requirement.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Not one person here is happy to support their employer replacing them with free staff. So you'll just pretend its not the same thing. Well I'm afraid it is the same thing.

Nobody in their right mind would do my job as a hobby...!

 

[supersammy]

It doesn't matter if they were produced for pleasure or not - or whether the images are seen as "work" or not. Perhaps a better term is output. Nor does it matter that they already exist rather than having been commissioned. Either way the creation of the images required overhead (of which there are degrees depending on where the photographer lies), time, and skill (again, these may vary). But if a business or publication desires an image then do you not see that the image has value to that publication? In other words it has the potential to generate revenue for the publisher. And this brings me back to the same point which is being made repeatedly throughout this thread - why should the photographer be the only person in the food chain who is not rewarded? What has that to do with the status of the originator? I see it as a point of ethics, a simple statement of fairness.

Of course it's up to any given individual whether or not they ask for payment, but I'm still having a hard time understanding why so many image producers feel that payment should not be a requirement.

Its simple. Pro - "I want some money", person who wants image "No, I'll go somewhere else". Amateur "I'd like some cash", person who wants the image "we don't pay take it or leave it" if someone is willing to take it, and you want your image published you do it. It's the same for writing and all sorts of hobbies. Get over it, thats just how it works.

 

[Lindsay D]

Surely as soon as you turn editorial photography (which arguably many people could do, all be it on a low/mediocre level) into artistic photography, you then subject it to the same criteria and returns that art is judged, which is very low pay until you're recognised as an artist. If i showed a messy bed, then no one would pay for it... Tracy Emmin does it and its ££££££££ :shrug:

No, I'm not talking about selling photography for publication as art - I'm talking about general publication in magazines, books, journals et cetera (which is broadly termed editorial) for the benefit of the publisher and the exclusion of the photographer. If an image fits the purpose of the publisher then it is being procured to enhance their profits, obviously. It doesn't matter what kind of image it is - it simply has a purpose, therefore it has value (to a greater or lesser degree) to whoever wants to use it.

But on the subject of artwork, two or three times I have had artists contact me asking if they could have a copy of a particular image I have created - I'm talking about images with fairly high commercial value, multiple award winners etc. The artist wants the image so that he can make a painting of it. Some of the artists I am referring to are very good indeed, and their work sells for a hefty pricetag. And they know they could make a pretty big sale if they copied one of my photographs, which is why they're asking for it. And they expect me to grant a commercial license to them, for free. Yes, I am expected to give them the means to create something of considerable monetary value, but without exception they cannot understand why I would expect anything in return. Now if I walked into their studio and took a photo of one of their paintings (which probably took less time and vastly less overhead to paint than it has taken me to produce some of the fine art images I'm asked to donate), and if I started selling it as fine art photo-prints, then I know how much trouble I would be in.

 

[supersammy]

No, I'm not talking about selling photography for publication as art - I'm talking about general publication in magazines, books, journals et cetera (which is broadly termed editorial) for the benefit of the publisher and the exclusion of the photographer. If an image fits the purpose of the publisher then it is being procured to enhance their profits, obviously. It doesn't matter what kind of image it is - it simply has a purpose, therefore it has value (to a greater or lesser degree) to whoever wants to use it.

But on the subject of artwork, two or three times I have had artists contact me asking if they could have a copy of a particular image I have created - I'm talking about images with fairly high commercial value, multiple award winners etc. The artist wants the image so that he can make a painting of it. Some of the artists I am referring to are very good indeed, and their work sells for a hefty pricetag. And they know they could make a pretty big sale if they copied one of my photographs, which is why they're asking for it. And they expect me to grant a commercial license to them, for free. Yes, I am expected to give them the means to create something of considerable monetary value, but without exception they cannot understand why I would expect anything in return. Now if I walked into their studio and took a photo of one of their paintings (which probably took less time and vastly less overhead to paint than it has taken me to produce some of the fine art images I'm asked to donate), and if I started selling it as fine art photo-prints, then I know how much trouble I would be in.

If you asked permission beforehand and they agreed and signed over rights for you to do so, you wouldn't be in trouble. If you think there is mileage in it, ask them.

 

[Lindsay D]

Its simple. Pro - "I want some money", person who wants image "No, I'll go somewhere else". Amateur "I'd like some cash", person who wants the image "we don't pay take it or leave it" if someone is willing to take it, and you want your image published you do it. It's the same for writing and all sorts of hobbies. Get over it, thats just how it works.

Yes, it should be as simple as that. But instead we have a culture of insistence. Like I said, the assumptions it will be free, the demands that it should be free, and the insults and abuse when it isn't free. It's not that I'm failing to "get over it", I'm just telling you what most publishers are like. Ironically there would have been occasions where, if I had been approached with a modicum of respect and courtesy, I would've made as many concessions as possible for the publisher (due to the nature of the subject) but I don't have to do business with people who insult me. I'm sure you can understand that. I think this thread is as much about the attitude towards photographers en masse rather than the payment issue per se.

 

[supersammy]

Yes, it should be as simple as that. But instead we have a culture of insistence. Like I said, the assumptions it will be free, the demands that it should be free, and the insults and abuse when it isn't free. It's not that I'm failing to "get over it", I'm just telling you what most publishers are like. Ironically there would have been occasions where, if I had been approached with a modicum of respect and courtesy, I would've made as many concessions as possible for the publisher (due to the nature of the subject) but I don't have to do business with people who insult me. I'm sure you can understand that. I think this thread is as much about the attitude towards photographers en masse rather than the payment issue per se.

Interesting. If you are facing abuse and that attitude I have a LOT more sympathy. I'm quite an arrogant and confident individual and would probably end up being very rude back in that situation, either that or heavily sarcastic. I know that makes me comes across as a ****** on forums (where much of what I say is tongue in cheek), but I can't help who I am.

For the record. When I needed some images for one of my companies, I paid for them. For the simple reason as it would be simpler than the hassle of an amateur, and I could deal with that person professionally if they were not right. For me the time and cost of dealing with someone who didn't know what they were doing wasn't worth it, if I was a start up it might have been different.

 

[On the Huh]

I think Sammy and Lindsey love each other really!

 

[ding76uk]

I always wondered what people who give their work away get out of it? Is it just an ego stroke and bragging rights?

 

[Faldrax]

It doesn't matter if they were produced for pleasure or not - or whether the images are seen as "work" or not. Perhaps a better term is output. Nor does it matter that they already exist rather than having been commissioned. Either way the creation of the images required overhead (of which there are degrees depending on where the photographer lies), time, and skill (again, these may vary). But if a business or publication desires an image then do you not see that the image has value to that publication? In other words it has the potential to generate revenue for the publisher. And this brings me back to the same point which is being made repeatedly throughout this thread - why should the photographer be the only person in the food chain who is not rewarded? What has that to do with the status of the originator? I see it as a point of ethics, a simple statement of fairness.

Of course it's up to any given individual whether or not they ask for payment, but I'm still having a hard time understanding why so many image producers feel that payment should not be a requirement.

I have a well paid job (which is how come I can afford to spend a considerable amount on my hobby), I take photos for pleasure - and if, at the end of a day I have created a good shot I get pleasure from doing so.

I know my photography is not consistent enough for me to consider being a professional, and I doubt I'd be able to make anything like the money I do as a software engineer.

So consider if a publisher approached me asking for a shot I'd done for a front cover (none have).

I would be inclined to say yes, in return for my name on the inside as the photographer (and a copy of the book for posterity) - it would make me feel proud that someone had thought my shot was good enough for print. And at this point, I have the image, it's digital, a copy is just a click away - it costs me virtually nothing.

Of course, I could, instead, demand payment (as you rightly state, most or all of the others involved in a book are paid). But, while 'giving' a free copy of the image has a 'cost' to me of the time to attach the image to an email & send it off, to actually charge the 'going rate' requires effort on my part. I need to first establish how much I should ask for (and how much to accept when / if a lower offer is made). I then need to switch to filling in a tax return, and pay to 40% tax on this one-off earning (or pay an accountant to try and offset the cost of my camera equipment against the tax). Perhaps pay some NI (I'm not sure if it's needed or not). And I'll probably have to fill in tax returns for the next couple of years as well, even though I've no additional earnings. So I can try and charge, but, from a purely personal standpoint, is it worth the effort?

Lets guess at £500 for the image from a professional.
So as an amateur I'll accept £400 (you expect junior staff to be paid less).
Less 40% tax, £240.
Time and effort to get this cash - An hour on the forum getting prices, a day sorting out tax this year, plus half a day a year for the next 2 years.
Personally, I'd rather forgo the possible cash, take my 50s of 'fame' and keep the 2 days as free time to go and take more photos.

Of course, if the cover shot was worth £5000, then it might be different. But people are prepared to give images away for just a credit...

 

[Keith W]

I always wondered what people who give their work away get out of it? Is it just an ego stroke and bragging rights?

I am sure you have heard of the phrase you need to speculate to accumulate?

I do a certain amount of work for free, I choose very carefully what work that is, in doing so the end result will be that I get more paid work

 

[Faldrax]

I always wondered what people who give their work away get out of it? Is it just an ego stroke and bragging rights?

Yes, just like getting a bunch of good comments on a shot you've posted on a photo forum, or getting a 'photo of the week/month' award - it's recognition that you have produced work of a certain standard, and, as generally social animals, people like to get praise and feel they have achieved something.

And for most people, the 'ego stoke' of being 'published' is greater than the sense of moral well being from not being published because you stood up to big business and refused to let your photograph be 'devalued' (this being the same photograph you are happy for anyone with a web connection view on the photo sharing site you use for free).

 

[dinners]

Who is the bad guy in the devaluing argument?

There is no bad guy.

We're all photographers and know what's involved but how many of us are actually customers ?

As with anything - value = cost/quality.

 

[ernesto]

If i showed a messy bed, then no one would pay for it... Tracy Emmin does it and its ££££££££ :shrug:

Oh dear, someone has made a reference to Tracey Emin to prove a point. - this is the equivalent of Godwin's law.

 

[Pookeyhead]

At one time photography was a specialist trade which not many people did. Now almost everyone has a camera and it is not specialist any more.

You heard it here first folks. That's all you need.. a camera. The specialism and skill come with it. No need to learn

Interesting point this... all joking aside: Cameras have always been available to everyone. You make it sound like this is a recent turn of events. I remember my first camera that my Dad bought me... a Pentax MV. It took pictures every bit as good as as the then king of the 35mm heap.. the Nikon F3.

Two things have changed: Skill required... it's now less. (I'm not even going to debate this... it just is) and the perceived standards of quality are lower as a result, and the ease of dissemination via the internet.

Photographers need to adapt. Long gone are the days when people relied on professionals entirely. The stock industry has changed beyond all recognition as a result of this. Low end stuff like weddings and social portraits have been massively affected too.

You know what though? The very best will survive... simply because they are still doing stuff that the average "togger" can't. They are inventive, creative and they adapt.

As standards in general public photography increase due to technology replacing skill, then EVERYTHING requires an upward shift.

It's a tough industry now. You just have to be better than those selling themselves cheaply. If you're not capable of that, then you'll die. If you are, you won't. Simple. If you're still placing yourself in markets such as weddings, then you need to realise that there will always be those that do not appreciate quality, and value saving cash above all else.

It's much easier for a relatively new photographer to just "do weddings" than it would be "Do a Vogue front cover" so of course these are the markets hit: Weddings, Social portraits, low end advertising, and product shots and stock. All easier to do these days than they were when we used film.

Adapt.. find the edge that makes you worth paying for.

As soon as Flickr, Facebook, 500px et al arrived, this was bound to happen. It's no one's fault. It's a paradigm shift in the industry. When airliners came long, the steam ship industry had to realise that they can't continue operating as a means of long distance transport. They adapted (or the clever ones did) and they became a destination in themselves... the "cruise" was born.

It's the same.... the industrial playing field has shifted.

Adapt or die: Bleating on about how unfair it all is is probably putting you in the latter rather than the former. There are still plenty of people out there making a really good living from photograph; They are also good business people and understand how to adapt to a market. Photography actually has surprisingly little to with being a professional photographer. Those of you that don't realise this, are not ready for this brave new world.

 

[ernesto]

You know what though? The very best will survive... simply because they are still doing stuff that the average "togger" can't. They are inventive, creative and they adapt.

Exactly. The average person with a camera can get a lucky shot but they can't consistently do it or even entertain making a living from it.
The difficulty is there are now millions of people uploading images everywhere so all those lucky shots add up (bit like the typewrites and monkeys thing)
But if a client wants a particular shot of something they will still need to use an actual photographer who knows what they are doing as the likes of me couldn't turn up and deliver the goods.

 

[Richard King]

Something is worth only what someone is prepared to pay

If you are not earning enough, either our work is not good enough, or the market has been totally diluted or you are selling the wrong products to the wrong people. (or a mix of all three)

 

[Moreorless]

You heard it here first folks. That's all you need.. a camera. The specialism and skill come with it. No need to learn

......

As soon as Flickr, Facebook, 500px et al arrived, this was bound to happen. It's no one's fault. It's a paradigm shift in the industry. When jet airliners came long, the steam ship industry had to realise that they can't continue operating as a means of long distance transport. They adapted (or the clever ones did) and they became a destination in themselves... the "cruise" was born.

It's the same.... the industrial playing field has shifted.

Adapt or die: Bleating on about how unfair it all is is probably putting you in the latter rather than the former. There are still plenty of people out there making a really good living from photograph; They are also good business people and understand how to adapt to a market. Photography actually has surprisingly little to with being a professional photographer. Those of you that don't realise this, are not ready for this brave new world.

Again it does seem to me there dealing with potentially two different issues here. I'd agree that digital and automation have ment that achieving more basic results has become much easier/faster than in was in the past so the shift has naturally been towards a higher artistic standard. Equally though I think theres a separate issue when it comes to this specific issue of photographers working for free.

The question to me seems to be where do these "free" photographs come from? if were talking about amteurs happy to spread their work then I'd agree the industry needs to learn to deal with it. If on the other hand were talking about people who are aspiring pro's looking to get a foot in the door I think that discussion on the subject is worthwhile.

It seems to me that the latter situation is likely based on ignorance of the value such free work has on possible career advancement, surely looking to limate such ignorance is a good thing?

 

[george g]

Oh dear, someone has made a reference to Tracey Emin to prove a point. - this is the equivalent of Godwin's law.

Quite possibly... Sorry...

Moving on.

It was mentioned above that photography requires no qualifications, so with the reduced price of kit, less skill required to PP and develop photos and lack of need for qualifications. Are these contributors to the influx of amateurs setting up 'businesses', flooding the market with photo's? After all unemployment is high and everyone still thinks that there are no jobs about...

 

[Pookeyhead]

The question to me seems to be where do these "free" photographs come from? if were talking about amteurs happy to spread their work then I'd agree the industry needs to learn to deal with it. If on the other hand were talking about people who are aspiring pro's looking to get a foot in the door I think that discussion on the subject is worthwhile.

I agree... it's a worthwhile debate.

If it is the latter... and I think it is... then there's nothing you can do. You can try and educate, but you'll just get a "Get with it Granddad" response. The world has changed. You don't try to change the behaviour... as you'll be p***ing into the wind. You adapt your own working model to mitigate this. If "they" are producing work as good as you are... you're screwed. By better, I don't mean technically... I mean in how inventive, and original it is.

You also need to embrace the new developments. The idea of work being given away, or disseminated online as a bad thing shouldn't be fought against. Use it to your advantage. It's no longer about SELLING an image you've already taken, it's about using your personal work as a showcase to gain commissions on original work based on your ability to demonstrate a strong style and tone of voice. That's not changed really, as it's always been the case, but because the images are "out there" now, they will get appropriated. SO what if they do? If some half assed travel website in Estonia nicks your image... so what? Just add them to your list of clients on your bio You'd NEVER get any cash from them anyway, so turn it to your advantage. Change your attitude. Embrace change rather than fight it, as fighting it is a lost battle already. The best you can hope for is a valiant rearguard action before you're finally defeated.

Use social media to become more social in the way you promote yourself.

 

[a1ex2001]

It doesn't matter if they were produced for pleasure or not - or whether the images are seen as "work" or not. Perhaps a better term is output. Nor does it matter that they already exist rather than having been commissioned. Either way the creation of the images required overhead (of which there are degrees depending on where the photographer lies), time, and skill (again, these may vary). But if a business or publication desires an image then do you not see that the image has value to that publication? In other words it has the potential to generate revenue for the publisher. And this brings me back to the same point which is being made repeatedly throughout this thread - why should the photographer be the only person in the food chain who is not rewarded? What has that to do with the status of the originator? I see it as a point of ethics, a simple statement of fairness.

Of course it's up to any given individual whether or not they ask for payment, but I'm still having a hard time understanding why so many image producers feel that payment should not be a requirement.

The answer is simple my photos belong to me and I value them at 0. This is a conscious choice as I never want to make money from photography as I already ruined one hobby by turning it into a job. A job which incidentally has been 'ruined' by millions of Indians who are willing to work for well below uk minimum wage forcing me to adapt and change to avoid being unemployed like millions of others in the industry.

 

[KIPAX]

as I already ruined one hobby by turning it into a job. A job which incidentally has been 'ruined' by millions of Indians who are willing to work for well below uk minimum wage .

you had a hobby answering phones on a help desk ?

 

[KIPAX]

Certainly in the world of events and sport I can tell you the following from ten yrs of seeing it.. not from what i heard/beleive/think/dreamt


MYTH ONE
If your work is good enough then people will pay and you shouldn't worry about amatuers.. If you worry about amatuers then your work isn't good enough

Complete and utter tosh.. people will take poor free shots before they will buy good shots.. this is the same for general public and newspapers


MYTH TWO
You get what you pay for.. free or cheap will give you poor or rubbish pictures

Complete and utter tosh.. There are great photogrpahers out there with masses of equipment who will photo for free as a hobby or keen amatuer or whatever

MYTH THREE
KIPAX has great spelling skills and this is very important.

Complete and utter tosh ..

 

[a1ex2001]

you had a hobby answering phones on a help desk ?

Not quite! The whole IT industry is steadily moving to a cheaper poorer service run out of India for wages that would be unsustainable here and are only boarder line sustainable in India so it's actually a decent analogy. As for the hobby bit I used to like computers, technology, gaming etc but 10 years doing it 9-5 is a buzz kill!

 

[Pookeyhead]

MYTH ONE
If your work is good enough then people will pay and you shouldn't worry about amatuers.. If you worry about amatuers then your work isn't good enough

Complete and utter tosh.. people will take poor free shots before they will buy good shots.. this is the same for general public and newspapers

...and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it either way. While there are poor, cheap, or even free shots available, then the clients who are less discerning will chose those. You are correct. What do you plan on doing about that?

There are always clients who do not want what's currently available from the flotsam you can scrape off the web.

MYTH TWO
You get what you pay for.. free or cheap will give you poor or rubbish pictures

Complete and utter tosh.. There are great photogrpahers out there with masses of equipment who will photo for free as a hobby or keen amatuer or whatever

Technical quality is not the be all and end all. It can still be un-inventive, boring, derivative, tired and essentially the same as everyone else's. Having equipment doesn't mean jack.

MYTH THREE
KIPAX has great spelling skills and this is very important.

Complete and utter tosh ..

Still probably considerably better than mine


Using music as an analogy, free downloads harmed, and still are harming the industry. Initially, the reaction was outrage, and pathetic, pointless efforts to stem the flow of freely available, pirated music files. It didn't work, and still hasn't worked. Yes it harms the industry, but it only REALLY harms the industry if the industry doesn't adapt. If you view the music industry as going to a shop to buy a CD, then yes, that is going to continue to get hit hard, but iTunes, Amazon et al are doing quite well, as they've adapted their business models to be successful in a new climate that wasn't congruous to the old ways of doing things, and the music industry as a whole is now realising that a change in delivery is necessary. I'd rather pay 90p for a music track from a reputable source, of high quality and be completely legal than find some dodgy russian website or torrent that will give me a poorly encoded 128bit MP3, open loads of pop ups, install malware and key loggers. I think people are waking up to this.

There are people who sell their work for peanuts... some of it is crap, some isn't.. but it's there... and not going anywhere. There's nothing whatsoever you can do about it regardless of your opinion. You can't stop it.

 

[KIPAX]

...and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it either way. While there are poor, cheap, or even free shots available, then the clients who are less discerning will chose those. You are correct. What do you plan on doing about that?

What I wont be doin g about it is starting threads on forums crying about it.. I ahve always understood it and never really had a problem.. I am guilty of doing #myself before I was educated I know its the way of the world as posted earlier.. I just don't understanmd people who want to live in the past and think theres some way of going back to how it was... there simply isnt..

Technical quality is not the be all and end all. It can still be un-inventive, boring, derivative, tired and essentially the same as everyone else's. Having equipment doesn't mean jack.

Having equipment means everyhting.. I am full of jobs this weekend and every weekend through the summer because nobody else around here (including both local papers) have the right equipment to do cricket.. there longest lens is 200m and although I can see good cricket such as Yy can do with a 200.. its just not good enough for the papers who want close up action.. equipment means I get the job..

Same for the indoor work I do... my equipment means I get the job done every single time and hardly miss a good shot..


Sorry but MYTH FOUR would be your comment on equipment

 

[kestral]

Certainly in the world of events and sport I can tell you the following from ten yrs of seeing it.. not from what i heard/beleive/think/dreamt


MYTH ONE
If your work is good enough then people will pay and you shouldn't worry about amatuers.. If you worry about amatuers then your work isn't good enough

Complete and utter tosh.. people will take poor free shots before they will buy good shots.. this is the same for general public and newspapers


MYTH TWO
You get what you pay for.. free or cheap will give you poor or rubbish pictures

Complete and utter tosh.. There are great photogrpahers out there with masses of equipment who will photo for free as a hobby or keen amatuer or whatever

MYTH THREE
KIPAX has great spelling skills and this is very important.

Complete and utter tosh ..

 

[KIPAX]

As for the hobby bit I used to like computers, technology, gaming etc but 10 years doing it 9-5 is a buzz kill!

I was a game maker.. had my own commercial release then went onto work for others .. but game making became so much a team thing that you lost all your thingy input.. ... I can't do art so programming was my thing..always worked with a graphic man.. but workign for a company isnt good.. I then got into backend web work and suprisingly took to DBs which wernt as boring as I thought.. How long ago? I was using perl

Same as.. went from hobby to work and ended up hating it.. sat at computer hating the thought of doing anyhting

So when I took photogrpahy from hobby to work I learnt.. I keep some photogrpahy for pleasure that simply isnt work.. Local Theatre photogrpahy for example.. nobody else can make money from it so I can do it for free without impacting on anyone.. few other areas... Keep some of it for pleasure and its OK ..if all photogrpahy is work i would end up hating it ..

Odd thing.. I know 14 different programming and script languages which have to be syntax perfect.. yet born and bred in england i still cant grasp proper english in written form

 

[Pookeyhead]

What I wont be doin g about it is starting threads on forums crying about it.. I ahve always understood it and never really had a problem.. I am guilty of doing #myself before I was educated I know its the way of the world as posted earlier.. I just don't understanmd people who want to live in the past and think theres some way of going back to how it was... there simply isnt..

Then you and I are in complete agreement it would seem.

Having equipment means everyhting.. I am full of jobs this weekend and every weekend through the summer because nobody else around here (including both local papers) have the right equipment to do cricket.. there longest lens is 200m and although I can see good cricket such as Yy can do with a 200.. its just not good enough for the papers who want close up action.. equipment means I get the job..

Same for the indoor work I do... my equipment means I get the job done every single time and hardly miss a good shot..


Sorry but MYTH FOUR would be your comment on equipment

You've listed a pretty specific scenario there though. There will always be something that is heavily dependant on a certain piece of equipment, but generally.... having better equipment, does not really help you take better photos. I'm pretty sure that's not what you were saying though... I hope so anyway, as that's an absurd statement.

 

[KIPAX]

Then you and I are in complete agreement it would seem.

seriously you wont find anything in all my posts...

You've listed a pretty specific scenario there though. There will always be something that is heavily dependant on a certain piece of equipment, but generally.... having better equipment, does not really help you take better photos. I'm pretty sure that's not what you were saying though... I hope so anyway, as that's an absurd statement.

In my line of work.. over 50% of the time.. better equipment does make better pics.. Long lens for cricket... 1dx for indoor work...not specific at all.. 50% of my work I couldnt do with my first DSLR a canon 10d... so it is the equipment..

The idea that a good photogrpaher can take a picture with any camera is complete and utter........wait for it.... tosh! and I can prove my statement and not just with one specific scenario... But i am not tlaking about taking pics of grannies flower garden on a sunny day..

 

[Lindsay D]

I have a well paid job (which is how come I can afford to spend a considerable amount on my hobby)

So consider if a publisher approached me asking for a shot I'd done for a front cover (none have).

I would be inclined to say yes, in return for my name on the inside as the photographer (and a copy of the book for posterity) - it would make me feel proud that someone had thought my shot was good enough for print. And at this point, I have the image, it's digital, a copy is just a click away - it costs me virtually nothing.

You see this is exactly what I've been talking about. There are photographers out there (some good ones) who already have a full-time job and therefore they don't depend on any income from photography - so have little motivation to charge for their work, and they succumb to the flattery argument.

Personally, I would not feel proud that a publisher wanted my image for a front cover, and was not prepared to pay me anything for it - after all the purpose of my image is to sell the book and they are the only people who will profit. This is precisely the vanity which has driven this debate and it makes little sense that photographers would so willingly subsidise complete strangers who in fact are viewing them with utter contempt (though I stress again it is of course entirely up to the individual whether they ask for payment or not). I don't get a thrill out of knowing that a publisher has seen me as someone to be milked, when everybody else involved in the process is receiving payment. Why should I have to argue this principle repeatedly with every chancer who fancies availing themselves of my work? I shouldn't, the conversation should end when I state my price, it should end with a simple yes or no from the person on the other end of the phone.

You say you already have the image and it has cost you nothing - that's the other line photographers get thrown at them repeatedly from publishers. Of course the image has cost you something, whether it's your hobby or not your equipment is still costing you (and depreciating each year), you still need an IT system, and then there was time involved in acquiring the photograph. Why should that be worthless? Why should the view be: "it's my hobby therefore I'm going to donate my photographs to every slimy moneymaking commercial organisation who chances their arm - I'm going to willingly up their profits just because I've been asked to". As Phil said earlier, there are more satisfying ways to give away your output, such as to a cause or organisation you have an affiliation with - I do that a couple of times a year.

Of course you will carry a vastly lower overhead than a professional, which is likely to help the publisher's argument somewhat, but my business can cost me many thousands of pounds a year to run and when that is apportioned over each outing it does cost me a lot of money to walk out of the door - and when I work out how much my time also costs per hour I can then add on how many hours I've invested in acquiring that image, processing it etc. It's quite a lot when all things are considered and also the quality of the work should be a consideration as well. So when a publisher feels that one of my pictures is so good that it should grace the front cover of a retail book, but who in the same sentence tells me they will not pay for it because "I already have it"- I am far from proud.

When it comes to publishers they usually make no differentiation between hobbyists and well established professionals - they still feel the photos should be free - they tend to treat photographers in broadly the same manner, irrespective of who you are. This is partly down to their belief that the photo has cost you nothing to produce and all you've done is press a button on a fancy camera. If the image is a casual snapshot then it will arguably have less value than an image which has involved days of planning and which has involved the additional overheads of stylists, make-up artists, hairdressers etc. But like I said, publishers don't see that either.

Thankfully my portrait clients are very different and come to me for the reasons already set out by others in the thread - they place value on a distinctive style and quality images. So it's quite easy for me to tell publishers to take a hike. But even if I wasn't a full-time pro I'm quite certain I'd still be insulted if someone wanted to make money from me, without offering me any compensation. I don't see the pride in that.

supersammy - Yes, the temptation to be rude back can be overwhelming at times, but if you do that then you usually lose any argument you're trying to set out. It's best just to be extremely polite and professional (in other words, the opposite to how you were being treated) which is normally more effective. I have occasionally had people come back to me after a couple of weeks and agree to the original terms - often the insistence that they cannot pay for the photograph is nonsense, they're just trying it on, and many can and will pay if they can't get the photo for free. But they will also be very quick to tell you that everyone else they dealt with has rolled over, and you are the only one being 'unreasonable'. I sometimes direct them to one of my articles which can help them to understand why we have to learn a living (but so far my web stats tell me that none of them have clicked the link): http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/cant-pay-the-photographer/

 

[Pookeyhead]

The idea that a good photogrpaher can take a picture with any camera is complete and utter........wait for it.... tosh!

I couldn't cover a cricket match with a 600D and kit lens, no. I think that's obvious enough to anyone. However... you mention 1DX for indoor work, but I'm sorry, there are many cameras that cost a great deal less, that while not being as good in low light, simply can be used successfully.

General outdoor portraiture, editorial, landscapes, functions, weddings... basically, all the stuff that's being hit hard by the changes we are discussing is not really gear dependant. An outdoor portrait, or an indoor editorial shot will probably be better taken by someone highly experienced with a D7000 and a couple of speedlights than a complete moron with a D4 and a full Bowens location kit.

I'm surprised you don't agree.

If the image requires any creativity, then gear will not help you there I'm afraid.

 

[Lindsay D]

The idea that a good photogrpaher can take a picture with any camera is complete and utter........wait for it.... tosh! and I can prove my statement and not just with one specific scenario... But i am not tlaking about taking pics of grannies flower garden on a sunny day..

Totally - and it can be fun to put it to the test if you have the chance. Edit: we all know that decent autofocus is pretty much essential for fast moving targets, and zone focus won't always cut it, and high ISO capability is usually needed for wedding photographers. So we need 'the right tools for the job' but that's where the equipment argument ends. On a couple of occasions I've handed my camera to whoever has made a similar statement and suggested they take some similar images. I did a portrait shoot a little while ago and these days I shoot with the OMD - one of the parents had the same camera. He was astounded when he saw the portraits - after all, he has the same equipment but his photographs are badly exposed, blurred, out of focus, no lighting etc. After the shoot told me how much he admired my abilities and how seeing a professional in action had been a real eye-opener. Of course publishers see none of that, they just see a photo they want, and they have no interest in what was involved in creating that image.

 

[KIPAX]

but I'm sorry, there are many cameras that cost a great deal less, that while not being as good in low light, simply can be used successfully.

I did a boxing match last week.. the light was so poor i was on f2.8 with iso up to 32000 and the light was ever changing.. in order to get a decent lit picture i had to shoot maching gun at that hig iso and guess what.. most unusable because of the changing light (you could see it coming down in waves) or i didnt get the peak action... last boxing pics on my website..

the canon 10d i owned could not have done that.. thus it is the equipment. saying there are lesser than the 1dx that could have done it.. fair enough.. but lesser than those cameras couldnt.. so it is the equipment..


one example? i can give you lots more .

If the image requires any creativity, then gear will not help you there I'm afraid.

AGREED.. But now your widening the goalposts . I am talking about conditions and the right equipment needed.. some equipment will not handle some conditions.. therefore it is the equipment

 

[Pookeyhead]

We could spend all day each giving examples to try and prove a point. There is always going to be a need for specialist equipment, agreed, but overall, particularly with the type of images most affected by the subject being debated... it's not the be all and end all. If you were there legitimately covering a sporting event, you will be in a physical position to always get better shots anyway, and it's far less likely that someone who has just sneaked a camera in will ever be able to compete.

Taking a portrait of someone's kids or wedding though? Really? You reckon you need top notch gear?

 

[KIPAX]

Just to clarify..

I am not saying better equipment makes a better photogrpaher.. I am not saying better equipment will always produce better pictures...

I am saying its not true that a good photogrpaher can take a good picture with any camera.... Not in 50% of my work he cant..

 

[KIPAX]

Taking a portrait of someone's kids or wedding though? Really? You reckon you need top notch gear?

Didnt i already cover that point when I said we arnt talkign about grannies garden on a nice day ? didnt you get that point? or are you really clutching at straws ?

 

[Pookeyhead]

I am saying its not true that a good photogrpaher can take a good picture with any camera.... Not in 50% of my work he cant..

Thanks for clarifying. That is just your work though. From how it sounds, you're not really under the same threats as others in different parts of the industry though.

I'm speaking generally.. not necessarily arguing with just you. Apologies if it seemed that way.

 

[Ash.]

Just because you work in an industry that requires qualifications, doesn't mean everyone does. Plenty of jobs have few entry qualifications.

The fact that the images pre-exist isn't relevant either, they have a value to the user, and that value is eroded every time an image is given for free.

You clearly missed the bit where I encouraged people to shoot for charities, it's a great thing to do. And I'm writing this from scout camp, where I'm shooting all weekend for free.

I think the point Paul was getting at is that the amateur is naive in the sense that they're willing to give it away for free because it pre-exists.

Naive in the sense that, as others have mentioned, free exposure is good exposure. Naive in the sense also that they believe their image to be worthless because they're doing it for fun.

I agree with Pauls comments though, you wouldn't expect a customer to ask an amateur to go out and shoot for free, but you're likely to be able to get them to part with an existing image for free - again, down to their naivity.

However, you wouldn't expect a baker to give away a cake because he's already made it. Why? Because that baker is not naive in the sense that they understand they are making cakes to make a profit and are of value, not for the free gratidude of the consumer.

I understand your argument, Phil. But I personally think your grievance (for want of a better word) is aimed incorrectly. Whilst I think you're right to be annoyed at amatuers giving their work away for free, I personally feel, and refer to my initial point of naivity rather than them wanting to destroy the industry