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

[george g]

I want to start a discussion about the amount of "professional" photographers moaning on threads (admittedly, mostly about copyright infringement) how an amateur wanting just credit is devaluing their own work.

I cant help but feel that professionals complaining about amateurs just wanting credit only adds to the argument that any monkey can buy an expensive camera, learn some basics of composition and exposure and make professional looking photos. :shrug:

What company in their right mind would choose a costly image with usage restrictions over a free unrestricted image with just credit?

Assuming that many a company would choose the free image over the costly one, does that then make Mr/Mrs Hobbyist the bad one for not wanting to invoice, chase up and sort tax etc. out because a one off of their images was picked? Or are they the bad one because they didn't want the hassle and cost of creating their own website so used Flickr, Deviant art etc?

Is it down to places like Flickr (other hosting websites are available) making high resolution images available and free to download for anyone that is devaluing the market? If free hosing didnt allow high resolution images to be downloaded, or at least an option for this - could this help the professional market?

As a hobbyist I dont do "shoots" - I will take my camera and any photos people like then they can have (mostly friends). This allows me to have fun and relax - there is no pressure to perform or get results. Any photos I get will be given to the friends for free or a drink etc. Does this make me a bad guy devaluing professional photographers because I can take photos?

Is it down to manufacturers like Nikon and Canon offering DSLR's at costs the same as an iPad that give photos of such sharpness you wouldnt notice any difference on an A4 photo? (D3100 & kit lens = £399, iPad from £399).

Who is the bad guy in the devaluing argument? Companies are always looking for ways to reduce costs, Technology is always being improved and amateurs that are almost good enough but dont want to commit will always exist, everywhere, so who is to blame?


P.s. This is just arguments I have thrown out there for discussion. Please do not get personally offended as they are just some provocative opinions canvased over time.

 

[awphot]

I predict this will not end well...

 

[ernesto]

People will pay for good photos and if they don't have to pay will 'steal' the good free photos.
If your business is selling something and some of your competition is giving stuff away free I can see where the complaints are coming from. Is someone turned up and replaced me in my job because they did not want payment I would be a little bit annoyed...

 

[artyman]

It's like a lot of things, how do you value something or someone. Is Johnny Depp really worth $70m for a film. Should a surgeon or even a nurse be worth more than some guy kicking a ball round a field for a living. Our society has some weird ways of valuing lots of things.

 

[KIPAX]

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

Nobody.. Why are you looking for someone to blame? Its just the way it is.. If your looking for blame.. then try progress or evolution or summat

We can't live in the past... don't look for blame.. look for ways to handle it

 

[Gary Coyle]

What company in their right mind would choose a costly image with usage restrictions over a free unrestricted image with just credit?

If we all charged for image usage then the company in question would have to pay, hence some photographer will get paid, if none of us charged then no one gets paid

Simples

 

[Daryl]

It's the way it is...

Camera manufacturere and Camera phones have a much bigger market than full time Pros....

There will always be pro togs.... but as a large multi Nash company you sell and cater for the biggest market.

 

[Steve Smith]

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.

There are many similar examples. I can remember as a child, my grandmother would get a local printer to produce A4 posters for summer fetes and christmas fairs. Now people will print one out using Word or Photoshop and put it in a photocopier.

It's supply and demand. If there is more supply than there is demand then the value reduces.

As for people giving away their images (or selling them cheap) that is their right and we have no right to take that away from them.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

As a hobbyist I dont do "shoots" - I will take my camera and any photos people like then they can have (mostly friends). This allows me to have fun and relax - there is no pressure to perform or get results. Any photos I get will be given to the friends for free or a drink etc. Does this make me a bad guy devaluing professional photographers because I can take photos?

I think that's fine. I do lots of things for friends for no charge. Building work, fitting central heating, carpentry, etc.

Some professional tradesmen might think I'm depriving them of the work - hard luck. That isn't going to stop me from doing it.


Steve.

 

[KIPAX]

I think that's fine. I do lots of things for friends for no charge. Building work, fitting central heating, carpentry, etc.
.

The difference is.. and I think is where the problem is.. you dont go in a tradesmans forum telling everyone you just did some work for free in a place they could have got some paid work..... or asking them advice on how to get a brew onsite while working for free..

 

[ding76uk]

The difference is.. and I think is where the problem is.. you dont go in a tradesmans forum telling everyone you just did some work for free in a place they could have got some paid work..... or asking them advice on how to get a brew onsite while working for free..

Or ask a professional plumber if he will do a job for free as long as you tell people he did your plumbing, or that you can't pay him for this job but next time you need a plumber you'll definitely pay him

 

[ding76uk]

On a similar but different note watch the doc Press Pause Play on Vimeo or YouTube. It's a doc about the digital revolution ands its impacts both positive and negative. Really good watch

 

[Phil V]

I think that's fine. I do lots of things for friends for no charge. Building work, fitting central heating, carpentry, etc.

Some professional tradesmen might think I'm depriving them of the work - hard luck. That isn't going to stop me from doing it.


Steve.

I do and have done lots of things for lots of 'friends' for no charge too, including photography. But where's the similarity between doing a mate a favour and working for a company for free that could afford to pay you the going rate? I wish people would see the difference here. I would hope that not a single person on here would object to the notion of doing someone a 'favour'.

But allowing corporations to use your work for free is a completely different kettle of fish.

Back to the original post that probably started this. If a publishing company wishes to use your photographs, why would you be happy to be the only person not getting paid. The person who wrote the caption got paid, the typesetter, the printer, the editor, the guy who delivered it to the shop and even the schoolkid that put it through your letterbox. So why has the amateur photographer decided that because they enjoy taking pictures they can revalue photography as 'free'.

I don't buy 'the worlds changing, get used to it'. People are changing the world, and if they don't like facing the consequences of their actions, they should stop asking the people who's industry they're destroying not to mind too much. Grow some balls and tell the pro's it's tough ****.

Lots of people have developed interesting cooking skills over the last 10 years too, due to great instructive TV shows and associated books. No chef objects to people holding dinner parties, but what reaction would you expect if you stood outside your local trattoria inviting the prospective customers round to your house for a free meal instead of paying the restaurant.

It's mental, and it's not even close to DIY, people have always taken their own pictures, and it's great that so many people want to do that, but there's a difference between helping your mate fit a kitchen and being a registered fitter for your local kitchen shop and doing it for giggles.

 

[Phil V]

so who is to blame?

The idiots who think that having work 'published' is payment in itself. If it's worth using it has a value - if you're not respecting that value, you're destroying the industry. Simple.

There have always been great amateur photographers, but in the past they were just that, they didn't devalue the work of pro's by advertising their wares for free. They did it for the love of it.

 

[supersammy]

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.

 

[ghoti]

The difference is.. and I think is where the problem is.. you dont go in a tradesmans forum telling everyone you just did some work for free in a place they could have got some paid work..... or asking them advice on how to get a brew onsite while working for free..

This isn't a tradesman's forum, though. It's a forum for people interested in photography.

I can understand the grievance of pros but they will have to adapt in some way or another. No point screaming at the tide. Photography is more accessible than ever. Information about photography theory and practice is more accessible than ever. The result is there are thousands of amateurs out there - many with no wish to make a chore of their hobby by going pro - who are producing professional standard work. The recognition that others - public or industry - want to use their work is reward enough. Maybe they'll take a pint or some pocket money for doing photos for a friend. This is only going to get more common. The market value of photography will plummet as supply goes up - supply from people who don't care about making money from their hobby. It's bad news for pros but, like I said, you may as well argue with gravity.

By way of analogy. One part of my extended family has, for generations, been in the papermaking business. The industry has been getting less and less profitable over the last few decades, due, obviously, to the rise of email and ubiquitous use of the Internet. The last member of that family to work in the industry is looking at redundancy in the very near future - at 38 years old.
But if I was to go around crowing that people shouldn't use email to artificially prop up the papermakers' market you'd rightly think I was quite mad.

Times change. Adapt or die.

 

[ghoti]

Lots of people have developed interesting cooking skills over the last 10 years too, due to great instructive TV shows and associated books. No chef objects to people holding dinner parties, but what reaction would you expect if you stood outside your local trattoria inviting the prospective customers round to your house for a free meal instead of paying the restaurant.

To be fair, there are two talented hobby bakers I know of who are doing lots of event cakes (weddings, birthdays, etc) for free or for cost & pocket money, for friends or friends of friends. And advertising their non-profit endeavours on facebook.
Last wedding I was at had an amazing amateur cake, done for cost by one of the aforementioned people who was a friend of a friend of the bride.
This kind of thing seems to be getting more common too. I'm not sure why, as cake-making technology hasn't become more accessible in the same way as photography.

 

[george g]

wow,

Thanks for the response! There are some areas that i really had'nt taken into account when i had thought of this, which is the main reason i put this up - to find other views.

Im not specifically looking for one thing to "blame" (im not a pro-tog by any means so it sort of makes no odds to me) but very interested in what others think are contributing causes to the devaluiation of photography.

To actively go out and give your work away for free is madness, as said above you would be the only in the chain not getting paid. My thoughts were for the odd amateur that finds one of their images used by a publication or is approached by a publication for use of one of their images, but i do agree that if an image is worth printing it has value. It has made me think otherwise should I (ever) get asked for a photo to actually charge for them, even if its a nominal amount.

cheers guys!

 

[ghoti]

wow,

Thanks for the response! There are some areas that i really had'nt taken into account when i had thought of this, which is the main reason i put this up - to find other views.

Im not specifically looking for one thing to "blame" (im not a pro-tog by any means so it sort of makes no odds to me) but very interested in what others think are contributing causes to the devaluiation of photography.

To actively go out and give your work away for free is madness, as said above you would be the only in the chain not getting paid. My thoughts were for the odd amateur that finds one of their images used by a publication or is approached by a publication for use of one of their images, but i do agree that if an image is worth printing it has value. It has made me think otherwise should I (ever) get asked for a photo to actually charge for them, even if its a nominal amount.

You may think it's madness, a lot of people just aren't bothered enough, or don't want, to quote, invoice, chase up, register income, etc. Turning, as I said, their hobby into a chore. They just think "Cool, someone liked my pic. Oh, some business got a free image? Big deal."

Now I'm not making a morality call on that attitude. I'm just saying it's the reality that pro photographers will have to adapt to.

 

[Phil V]

I love the way people turn it into an industry evolving. It isn't.
This is about morons working for free. Paper making isn't dying. There's more paper in any office now than there ever was pre computers.

The old buggy whip analogy doesn't hold.

There's nothing wrong with people shooting whatever they want to whatever standard they want. It's only a problem when they allow themselves to be taken advantage of. I can think of no other similar scenario. I note no-one is trying to defend 'working for free for a corporation that'll take full advantage' because it makes them look stupid.

They keep coming up with other analogies to make pro photographers look like they're being unreasonable.

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.

If you're happy to supply images to publishers for free, using knowledge and skills freely handed to you by pro photographers. At least have the courage to look them in the eye and say sorry I'm ruining your industry but its such a buzz to get my name in print. Rather than pretend that it's their fault they can't compete because they won't get another job to subsidise the publishers.

There's plenty of good causes that could use some photography, why not do something worthwhile with your time and skills?

 

[Last_Straw]

The market value of photography will plummet as supply goes up - supply from people who don't care about making money from their hobby. It's bad news for pros but, like I said, you may as well argue with gravity.

There is an element of that, on the other hand as in the film already mentioned Play, Pause, Rewind says Art is elitist, not everyone has a book, score, painting in them. Technology does make these things easier to produce but as a consumer what will you choose to spend your time and money on? The best examples in your opinion, or that reviewers direct you to. Not everyone can take great photographs. I know there is a whole other debate about whether photography is art or a technical skill, but ask 10 people to photograph the same thing and more often than not one image can really capture it. If you are designing a website or publishing a book or whatever, is it worth paying some hard cash for the best images you can find, or scrounging a few free ones which are nearly as good? Sometimes yes sometimes no depending on budget, ambition e.t.c. If I was in charge of the budget I'd want to spend some money on photographs and skimp somewhere else.

 

[Phil V]

Now I'm not making a morality call on that attitude. I'm just saying it's the reality that pro photographers will have to adapt to.

They'll have to adapt by learning how to live without food.

Or do they all have to take on a day job so they can carry on eating and just shoot for free.

Of course there's the other option. If the amateur doesn't want to get paid when people use their work? They could do it for charity or just not release it at all.

Which one really should adapt? The amateur who has options or the pro, who's option is to not eat?

Can't be bothered to charge is a cop out, I know very few people with 'enough' money. Are they just scared that if they charge a standard rate the publishers will use better pictures? And they won't get their ego stroked.

 

[ghoti]

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.

Of course not. But if it happens, what are they going to do? It's actually a reality in many industries. Outsourcing, for example, is rife. Okay, it's not "free work" but in relative terms it's as near as dammit. Hundreds of thousands of people in the UK have lost their jobs due to outsourcing.
If your employer is looking at outsourcing your job you better start thinking about what value you can add that makes your wage particularly worthwhile.
Industry, as being discussed in this thread, can be thought of as "outsourcing" photography to keen amateurs who can often do just as good a job as the pros.

 

[Tugster]

It going to get a lot worse too.... Either adapt or find another job.

 

[Lindsay D]

I love the way people turn it into an industry evolving. It isn't.
This is about morons working for free. Paper making isn't dying. There's more paper in any office now than there ever was pre computers.

The old buggy whip analogy doesn't hold.

There's nothing wrong with people shooting whatever they want to whatever standard they want. It's only a problem when they allow themselves to be taken advantage of. I can think of no other similar scenario. I note no-one is trying to defend 'working for free for a corporation that'll take full advantage' because it makes them look stupid.

They keep coming up with other analogies to make pro photographers look like they're being unreasonable.

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.

If you're happy to supply images to publishers for free, using knowledge and skills freely handed to you by pro photographers. At least have the courage to look them in the eye and say sorry I'm ruining your industry but its such a buzz to get my name in print. Rather than pretend that it's their fault they can't compete because they won't get another job to subsidise the publishers.

There's plenty of good causes that could use some photography, why not do something worthwhile with your time and skills?

Well said Phil.

I'm getting very sick and tired of pushy publishers not just asking but arguing with me that my work should be handed to them for free - so they, and their organization, can profit from it. The arguments I hear are quite incredible - a few days ago I was told that they objected to the (modest) sum asked because I already had the image "in stock" (their second argument was the fact that they normally get images for free).That one had me rolling on the floor. Imagine if I went into a restaurant and had a gourmet meal, but I turned to the manager and said "there's no chance I'm going to give you £50 for that meal, I intend to give you £10 because the raw materials were already in your larder and you didn't go and acquire them just for me". There is no consideration given to the production cost - the overheads of the photographer (which, for a professional, can be horrendous - not even a consideration for most hobbyists) or the time and skill invested. I am sick and tired of being told that I should not be paid for any of that.

So that is the reason why many photographers "moan endlessly" when work is handed over for free or for credit. Of course any individual has the right to choose how they act, but in turn I reserve the right to view that as somewhat irrational and certainly damaging for those of us who rely on photography to put food on the table. And it's not just the tendency for publishers to haggle or demand free photographs, it's their attitude as well, and the blatant rudeness and contempt they have towards a working professional photographer who won't bow to their demands.

I'm sorry if that sounds like a rant, but I've had the same conversation a little too often this week.

 

[ding76uk]

It is terrible at the minute, but I can see a brighter future.

We are in the age of everyone is a photographer. This has been sold to the masses by camera manufacturers and some Pros who have realised that photography is not in a good way at the moment.

We are in an age of "OK is good enough" Papers and magazines are desperate to cut costs as they are dying, but instead of upping their game and giving people amazing photography, they take any free image they can get their hands on. This in turn leads to less people bothering with the publication because the images do not grab in the same way those of a professional would and the spiral continues downward. We live in a visual age (probably because we are all photographers) and when publishers realise the value in the image again then there could be a more positive revolution.

Look at Chicago paper who fired all their photographers and then offered $90 per assignment on freelance for events their writers couldn't cover with an iPhone. I am sure their writers can shoot award winning images with their iPhone?!

Why do you think thinks like Life magazine still Wows people who see it today? It isn't the writing, yet rather than lay off writers and create beautiful visual content the solution is seen to sack photographers because anyone can shoot a great photo, even with a phone. Now the question is, is that the truth or could it be that the publications have fallen for the rubbish being peddled by the camera companies too?

 

[ghoti]

Well said Phil.

I'm getting very sick and tired of pushy publishers not just asking but arguing with me that my work should be handed to them for free - so they, and their organization, can profit from it. The arguments I hear are quite incredible - a few days ago I was told that they objected to the (modest) sum asked because I already had the image "in stock" (their second argument was the fact that they normally get images for free).That one had me rolling on the floor. Imagine if I went into a restaurant and had a gourmet meal, but I turned to the manager and said "there's no chance I'm going to give you £50 for that meal, I intend to give you £10 because the raw materials were already in your larder and you didn't go and acquire them just for me". There is no consideration given to the production cost - the overheads of the photographer (which, for a professional, can be horrendous - not even a consideration for most hobbyists) or the time and skill invested. I am sick and tired of being told that I should not be paid for any of that.

So that is the reason why many photographers "moan endlessly" when work is handed over for free or for credit. Of course any individual has the right to choose how they act, but in turn I reserve the right to view that as somewhat irrational and certainly damaging for those of us who rely on photography to put food on the table. And it's not just the tendency for publishers to haggle or demand free photographs, it's their attitude as well, and the blatant rudeness and contempt they have towards a working professional photographer who won't bow to their demands.

I'm sorry if that sounds like a rant, but I've had the same conversation a little too often this week.

I don't think anyone thinks you should be happy about it. Certainly not me. I don't think anyone should be "happy" when their job is outsourced by their employer (in freelance photography's case: industry or the public).
However, this is increasingly the reality and pros - to put food on the table - will have to adapt. Either by (a) getting a new job, or (b) adding something to their service that makes them more valuable than the masses of hobbyists who'll happily give away their photography for free.
How about, for example, adding photography consultancy to the services you offer? You could sell your opinion on what makes a good image to companies who are interested in buying photographs.Christ, some jokers with the gift of the gab make oodles of cash as freelance "social media consultants" - telling companies how to use twitter, for the love of God!

 

[Im Bald Ok]

This is about morons working for free.

But the person supplying the photo for free aren't working are they? They're doing it for the enjoyment. If they get enjoyment from seeing their photo published, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

A pro should be able to supply a better service and product than an amateur. If they can't, then find another job or one in a different sector. Start your own portraiture/wedding/sports business etc.

If someone can and is willing to do your job for free, it's simply not a job anymore.

 

[srichards]

I don't think the devaluation is just confined to photography. Most skilled labour seems to be earning less than it ever has.

The fundamental problem is one of population. There are too many people needing work and not really enough of it to go around. With automation it becomes more and more pronounced that this gap exists.

 

[Last_Straw]

Why do you think thinks like Life magazine still Wows people who see it today? It isn't the writing,

Another more recent example is the photo shoot Kevin Cummins did for the NME of Joy Division.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/oct/02/photograph-kevin-cummins-best-shot#zoomed-picture

The writer Paul Morely was recently bemoaning the fact his words for the accompanying article were now worth about 50p, whereas the photos were worth tens of thousands. It's funny in the article how Cummins says he only had the money for two rolls of film, working as a jobbing photographer on the fringes has always been precarious.

 

[ding76uk]

Another more recent example is the photo shoot Kevin Cummins did for the NME of Joy Division.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/oct/02/photograph-kevin-cummins-best-shot#zoomed-picture

The writer Paul Morely was recently bemoaning the fact his words for the accompanying article were now worth about 50p, whereas the photos were worth tens of thousands. It's funny in the article how Cummins says he only had the money for two rolls of film, working as a jobbing photographer on the fringes has always been precarious.

I do love his work! I think that especially in modern music photography you have to think of the long game (and be careful not to sign your rights away).

 

[PaulF]

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.
A more accurate analogy for you would be if you were approached by a couple via your website to quote to shoot their wedding then the same couple took a look on Flickr etc and approached a complete stranger and asked them to shoot their wedding for free and at the photographers own expense, bet that does not happen too often.

I don't think I have any right to tell anyone what to do with their own property, if they want to give it away for free then that's up to them surely.

For clarity, I give loads of images away for free, for the Scouts, now I know there are some pro's who shoot for the Scouts too so am I ruining their business?

 

[george g]

Well said Phil.

I'm getting very sick and tired of pushy publishers not just asking but arguing with me that my work should be handed to them for free - so they, and their organization, can profit from it. The arguments I hear are quite incredible - a few days ago I was told that they objected to the (modest) sum asked because I already had the image "in stock" (their second argument was the fact that they normally get images for free).That one had me rolling on the floor. Imagine if I went into a restaurant and had a gourmet meal, but I turned to the manager and said "there's no chance I'm going to give you £50 for that meal, I intend to give you £10 because the raw materials were already in your larder and you didn't go and acquire them just for me". There is no consideration given to the production cost - the overheads of the photographer (which, for a professional, can be horrendous - not even a consideration for most hobbyists) or the time and skill invested. I am sick and tired of being told that I should not be paid for any of that.

So that is the reason why many photographers "moan endlessly" when work is handed over for free or for credit. Of course any individual has the right to choose how they act, but in turn I reserve the right to view that as somewhat irrational and certainly damaging for those of us who rely on photography to put food on the table. And it's not just the tendency for publishers to haggle or demand free photographs, it's their attitude as well, and the blatant rudeness and contempt they have towards a working professional photographer who won't bow to their demands.

I'm sorry if that sounds like a rant, but I've had the same conversation a little too often this week.

Going back to my initial statement, wouldn't moaning about it only add to the thought that anyone can get a DSLR and produce good quality photo's? There are people out there doing it now and offering their services purely for recognition, so why does that make "professional" photos worth so much more?

I fully understand that it must be frustrating seeing an industry get so relentlessly dragged down, and I am playing devils advocate/pushing buttons, but I am interested to find peoples opinions.

 

[george g]

Is part of the issue that free hosting sites, like flickr can and do allow you to publicise your images and also allows others to download them for free without telling you? Surely thats a publicists dream, especially of a large event that 1000's have been to?

Note: I keep mentioning filckr. Im not trying to point them out as there are many other places that do the same thing - I only use them as they are well known and are a good example of allowing high rez images to be downloaded for free...

 

[Lindsay D]

But the person supplying the photo for free aren't working are they? They're doing it for the enjoyment. If they get enjoyment from seeing their photo published, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.

A pro should be able to supply a better service and product than an amateur. If they can't, then find another job or one in a different sector. Start your own portraiture/wedding/sports business etc.

If someone can and is willing to do your job for free, it's simply not a job anymore.

"All the photographers I know enjoy taking pictures, so it's not like you're really working, get over yourself". Yes, I've heard that one! It left me baffled for quite some time .... my gardener loves tending plants, but I know what I'd get if I suggested he did it for the love of horticulture.

The obvious answer is that if they want work of a good (or excellent) standard then there will be a fee attached. But even that doesn't always sink in .... so the (very obvious) argument that if your work stands out the public will automatically pay for it, doesn't always hold much weight either in the eyes of many (who still believe that you just push a button, on a fancy camera, and out pops that stunningly lit perfectly retouched photograph). Pretty much every photographer I know, no matter how experienced and well qualified, encounters this fairly regularly nowadays. I have a drive full of award-winning images - and I've been asked to "donate" a number of them to complete strangers who will of course reap the profits.

So really, as I see it the problem is indeed one of public mindset. That mindset has come about because, as discussed, there are many who will allow their work to be used to free (some amateurs turn out top notch work and are happy to give it away) and so that becomes the benchmark, and as has been said there are many publications who will settle for average quality imagery in an attempt to reduce their costs - but who will also expect top-quality photographs to be equally cheap or free. It's unpleasant dealing with these people, and established professionals will concentrate on their target customers, specifically the people they market their work too. That's what I do, but that doesn't save me from the ghastly tire kickers who appear in my inbox every week expecting my pictures for nothing, and who wind me up no end with their rudeness.

The problem is that inexperienced photographers often give in, in the belief they will benefit from the exposure - which they might have, if they had chosen the publication and if the images had been accompanied with an interview. I have no problem coming up with a commuted rate in situations like that, but when a publication I would not normally subscribe to wants to take my pictures for free, I do draw the line - my fees are actually very reasonable and I support several causes, but what matters to me far more is upholding the principal under discussion here - and that is the right to be offered payment if you are a fee earning photographer. And if the publication will not pay you then they should be prepared to go elsewhere, rather than harangue you and insult you for failing to deliver what they expect. I've had this several times when I have declined offers from publishers - I have no obligation to accept the offer and they should accept I have the right to refuse.

Maybe ding has a point, and there will be an about shift, and newspaper and magazine photographers will once more be valued. Perhaps with the proliferation of average to poor photography, the public will finally catch on to the value of the good stuff.

 

[Moreorless]

You may think it's madness, a lot of people just aren't bothered enough, or don't want, to quote, invoice, chase up, register income, etc. Turning, as I said, their hobby into a chore. They just think "Cool, someone liked my pic. Oh, some business got a free image? Big deal."

Now I'm not making a morality call on that attitude. I'm just saying it's the reality that pro photographers will have to adapt to.

Is this were most such photography is coming from though? I wouldn't be supprized if a lot of it is actually coming from aspiring pro's who think that working for free might get there foot in the door.

Basically the industry depending on exploiting these people until they quit and then exploiting those who replace them and so on.

If that's the case then I think "moaning" about it is actually a very positive thing if it makes this situation clearer and leds to aspiring pro's not working for free to the same extent.

 

[Lindsay D]

Going back to my initial statement, wouldn't moaning about it only add to the thought that anyone can get a DSLR and produce good quality photo's? There are people out there doing it now and offering their services purely for recognition, so why does that make "professional" photos worth so much more?

No, not really, someone who has simply gone out and bought a fancy camera on whim couldn't possibly produce imagery on par with that of a trained experienced and established professional. However there are some very good trained and experienced amateurs out there, who are quite happy to give their work away, and I think this is probably the main source of the argument. The images have a high production value, and good technical and artistic merit, but are being treated as if they have no worth whatsoever (by both the photographer and the recipient). Is it then little wonder that all imagery, good or bad, is viewed in the same way? I hope that makes sense.

 

[Lindsay D]

Is this were most such photography is coming from though? I wouldn't be supprized if a lot of it is actually coming from aspiring pro's who think that working for free might get there foot in the door.

Basically the industry depending on exploiting these people until they quit and then exploiting those who replace them and so on.

If that's the case then I think "moaning" about it is actually a very positive thing if it makes this situation clearer and leds to aspiring pro's not working for free to the same extent.

Yes, that is very much the case, I see it all the time. The aspiring photographer is cajoled into thinking that handing their work over for free will in some way benefit them - we see threads like this every month here on the forum. And some of those photographers are quite experienced and quite well trained and are producing good work. They don't often realise that they are simply subsidising whichever stranger has browbeaten them into parting with their photographs.

This was very much the view a publisher took with me very recently when (after reducing my fees substantially because I had an interest in the subject of the book) I didn't go further and offered the images are nothing (they were for a front cover) - the publisher told me that they were not accustomed to paying for photographs, and they made it clear I was seen as unreasonable and difficult. No matter which reasonable arguments were put before them, about my costs, my experience, and the fact that photography is my sole occupation, I was still insulted repeatedly. And even with the rudeness, they expected me to stick around. Since I certainly don't depend on revenue from this kind of thing, I simply told them I was not interested in pursuing the conversation, and I suggested they return to whichever free source they normally use. I think there is an element of bluff from some of these people, they don't expect you to tell them to take a hike. I wished him luck in finding another image like the one he was seeking.

 

[george g]

No, not really, someone who has simply gone out and bought a fancy camera on whim couldn't possibly produce imagery on par with that of a trained experienced and established professional. However there are some very good trained and experienced amateurs out there, who are quite happy to give their work away, and I think this is probably the main source of the argument. The images have a high production value, and good technical and artistic merit, but are being treated as if they have no worth whatsoever (by both the photographer and the recipient). Is it then little wonder that all imagery, good or bad, is viewed in the same way? I hope that makes sense.

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:

 

[Phil V]

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.
A more accurate analogy for you would be if you were approached by a couple via your website to quote to shoot their wedding then the same couple took a look on Flickr etc and approached a complete stranger and asked them to shoot their wedding for free and at the photographers own expense, bet that does not happen too often.

I don't think I have any right to tell anyone what to do with their own property, if they want to give it away for free then that's up to them surely.

For clarity, I give loads of images away for free, for the Scouts, now I know there are some pro's who shoot for the Scouts too so am I ruining their business?

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.