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

[ghoti]

Also, it's a bit hyperbolic to suggest that if people give work away for free then photographers will "starve".
No. Worst comes to worst, they might have to diversify or find a new job like the hundreds of thousands of people in other industries whose jobs have been outsourced to cheaper alternatives.

 

[PaulF]

Lindsay,

You really need to drop the 'every shot has overheads associated with it, even for amateurs' routine. Put simply, they don't. Every shot I take I do for my pleasure, even when doing stuff with the Scouts.
Yes, when I go to a motorsport event, my main photography, I pay to get in but guess what, if I didn't have my camera with me I'd still be there with the same costs involved so do you follow it has cost me precisely £0 to take those images on that day. My spare time is 'free' time for me to do as I please and I 'value' my spare time quite highly.

Do you have any hobbies outside of photography? what do they cost you if you don't mind me asking and do you try to recoup that cost in any way?

With regards to people being taken advantage of, if they are unaware of the circumstances then maybe you have a point but, and it's a big but, if the pleasure they derive from someone using their image is enough for them then no one is being taken advantage of. It sounds like you have had a few bad experiences with publishers being rude, while that is not nice for you and I fully understand your stance there it's no reason to tarnish all amateur photographers for what is in essence a rude person.

With regards to people being taken advantage off or more accurately having their work used for profit without any money changing hands, have you ever borrowed any equipment from a friend then made a profit using that equipment, ever read any advice on the internet (via this forum maybe) given for free then profited from it? Authors of books could easily have the same argument with you that you seem to have with other photographers. Be careful when throwing stones and all that :shake:

 

[Lindsay D]

Lindsay D

Your post makes a lot of sense.

The only relevant question, for me, is what are you going to do about it?

Simon, to answer your question I don't give my work away unless it's for one of the causes I support, because that does give me pleasure and satisfaction in return. I've occasionally done an interview for free because the journal is relevant to my business, and it's done me a lot of good. But that's where I draw the line. My policy is to set a reasonable fee and if the publisher doesn't want to pay then they can go elsewhere (it's not uncommon for them to return suddenly with a budget for the photos). So I just stand firm and I will not subsidise these people - why on earth should I?

 

[Furtim]

Simon, to answer your question I don't give my work away unless it's for one of the causes I support, because that does give me pleasure and satisfaction in return. I've occasionally done an interview for free because the journal is relevant to my business, and it's done me a lot of good. But that's where I draw the line. My policy is to set a reasonable fee and if the publisher doesn't want to pay then they can go elsewhere (it's not uncommon for them to return suddenly with a budget for the photos). So I just stand firm and I will not subsidise these people - why on earth should I?

You use Geoff Stearns' work to promote your commercial venture. Is he not subsidising you?

 

[Lindsay D]

Lindsay,

You really need to drop the 'every shot has overheads associated with it, even for amateurs' routine. Put simply, they don't. Every shot I take I do for my pleasure, even when doing stuff with the Scouts.
Yes, when I go to a motorsport event, my main photography, I pay to get in but guess what, if I didn't have my camera with me I'd still be there with the same costs involved so do you follow it has cost me precisely £0 to take those images on that day. My spare time is 'free' time for me to do as I please and I 'value' my spare time quite highly.

Do you have any hobbies outside of photography? what do they cost you if you don't mind me asking and do you try to recoup that cost in any way?

With regards to people being taken advantage of, if they are unaware of the circumstances then maybe you have a point but, and it's a big but, if the pleasure they derive from someone using their image is enough for them then no one is being taken advantage of. It sounds like you have had a few bad experiences with publishers being rude, while that is not nice for you and I fully understand your stance there it's no reason to tarnish all amateur photographers for what is in essence a rude person.

With regards to people being taken advantage off or more accurately having their work used for profit without any money changing hands, have you ever borrowed any equipment from a friend then made a profit using that equipment, ever read any advice on the internet (via this forum maybe) given for free then profited from it? Authors of books could easily have the same argument with you that you seem to have with other photographers. Be careful when throwing stones and all that :shake:

Paul, please understand I am not deliberately trying to argue with you and I apologise if I have come across in that way. I am just trying to answer the original question as completely as I can. But I must insist that the notion that hobbies don't cost is nonsense - of course there is a cost associated with casual photography, quite simply because you are using the camera and IT equipment you have bought and you may have specifically travelled to that location which incurs another cost, and there are likely to be other outgoings as well. In other words, the purpose of which the outlay came about really is irrelevant, the point is that the outlay exists, the nature of your outing is absolutely irrelevant to your fixed costs. Nor does it matter in the slightest that you would be there anyway - the fact is that you are there, using your kit, taking time to capture your photographs, and you are then doing something further when you return home. So you can work out what your hobby is costing you, which is something a lot of people do before embarking on something. At that point what you intend to do with the results doesn't come into it - they have still cost you something to produce.

I'm afraid I no longer have any hobbies thanks to my job as a photographer, but I did in the past, and they did cost me quite a lot at times. They were for pleasure, and one of my hobbies involved keeping a horse. I did quite well and I used to enter three-day event competitions. I did it for my own pleasure and satisfaction and I knew what it cost me each time I competed. A couple of times I was approached by organisations who felt I could help enhance their profile (which might be a feed product or something similar) and I was asked if I would ride the odd event for them (with their logo etc). I would have riden those events anyway but since I was promoting an organisation it would have been inconceivable for me to boost their companies profits for nothing. Why? Because I am not a charity and I deserve something for my abilities, and the fact my presence and input is costing me. The 'already there' argument doesn't work in my eyes Paul - somebody is wanting to use the fact I have expended money and talent to get into that competition and I am doing something which could potentially benefit their profile.

In my view if I had done that for nothing then I would have seen myself as being gullible, and I would certainly have felt that I was being used. Which is why I made sure I was paid. The fact that you feel differently is of course you're right, but I genuinely don't understand why you want to subsidise strangers. I don't mean that in a rude way, I assure you, it's just hard for me to understand how a good photographer such as yourself would do that, particularly when you know that it's having an effect on the other photographers who are also present, and who you may even know personally. Once again I'm very sorry if I sound unpleasant, that is not my intention, and I do of course accept that we are all different.

Lastly, no I have not used other people's equipment to make money for myself, I have always given them something in return. As for being a hypocrite as you suggest for using advice on the web, my own blog is a very rich source of free information and instruction for new and professional photographers alike. I do my best to give back where I can, but I have a threshold beyond which I cannot tred for the reasons already set out. I do hope that clarifies things. Incidentally, if I have used software which has an optional payment button, I have always made a donation to the creator.

 

[Last_Straw]

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

Wouldn't Rhein II by Andreas Gursky be more relevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

I think the market for high end photographic prints is growing, all the Global auction houses have photography departments and run photography auctions (I don't think that was the case 20 years ago). There are a number of photography galleries who represent particular photographers and sell low number limited edition prints. The market for more conventional artwork prints has gone in the other direction if talking about engravings and lithographs, you can buy a genuine unsigned Picasso Lithograph for £500 for example.
Who knows what will be the value of these things in 20 years time, but there seems an element of comparing apples and oranges in this thread by those predicting the future value of photography.

 

[Furtim]

Incidentally, if I have used software which has an optional payment button, I have always made a donation to the creator.

Lindsay, this is not directed at you so please don't take it as such, rather it is a more general comment - I'm just hooking it into your last comment. Geoff Stearns is the guy who wrote the slideshow plugin you use on your site. He gives his work away freely, to complete strangers.

At various points in this thread, photographers who 'give their work away' have been demonised as destroyers of an industry or just plan idiotic morons while at the same time, many if not all of the accusers happily and openly use the work and effort of others, willingly and freely given, to support their own commercial efforts.

It is a hypocritical stance to adopt.

There is a direct comparison to be drawn between the software industry and the Photography industry - both can produce a 'digital' product, which once created can be replicated endlessly at no real additional cost (unlike the restaurant analogies etc). Both build on professional experience and creativity to create the initial product, and both are equally open to new entrants with a very low cost of entry, and both have hobbyists willing to give work away for free.

It's an individual decision as to whether you want to give your photos or indeed your code away for free for others to use. I have my view, others have their, and that's not a problem to me, but at least be consistent.

I find it incredible that many photographers take a highly polarised view of the matter in their own field while maintaining at best ambivalence when it comes to others areas of expertise.

 

[Lindsay D]

David, I understand your points and I fully respect your right to an opinion, so rest assured I will not take your response personally, your view is very valid indeed.

I haven't even heard of the person you mention, nor am I remotely aware that he gives his work away (however given its nature I would imagine there are defined marketing motives or affiliations behind it). Therefore the hypocrisy argument is invalid here, I have not knowingly benefited from someone's efforts nor do I know anything about the indirect income they may be gaining. But I would be very happy to pay (which I probably already have, indirectly, since that is probably how his product works).

I think that is the difference - the publishers I and so many others encounter are not happy to pay, they expect and demand that the pictures should be free. I have never taken that view with anyone who I have dealt with, so I do not think it reasonable for you to accuse me of ambivalence or hypocrisy. And as I have already said, of course it is an individual's decision to give their work away, but I think most can see that the decision has had an impact on others, in quite a big way, which is why it tends to provoke quite intense discussions.

However, I have to agree that there are some photographers who do, as you correctly point out, take from others without considering what it is costing the person involved. I am very frequently approached for mentoring, training etc and on probably only one or two occasions has the photographer concerned even considered offering me something for my time and expertise (incidentally, I have always paid for the training I have had and if I have needed guidance from someone I have always offered to pay for their time). But yes, you have a point!

 

[ghoti]

David, I understand your points and I fully respect your right to an opinion, so rest assured I will not take your response personally, your view is very valid indeed.

I haven't even heard of the person you mention, nor am I remotely aware that he gives his work away (however given its nature I would imagine there are defined marketing motives or affiliations behind it). Therefore the hypocrisy argument is invalid here, I have not knowingly benefited from someone's efforts nor do I know anything about the indirect income they may be gaining. But I would be very happy to pay (which I probably already have, indirectly, since that is probably how his product works).

I do find it a strange and slightly cynical world view that automatically ascribes monetary or marketing motives to all human creativity.
I don't know this Geoff chap or his motivation but I do know that there certainly exist many, many hobbyist software engineers who produce great, distributed, work with no marketing or profit motive. They do it for the love of it and don't give much of a hoot if someone goes on to make money from it. I imagine many photographers and other creative sorts feel the same about their labours.

Is that "being used"? If you're fully aware but don't care?

 

[Steve]

The music industry is in dire straights, as is the film industry. There is no chance for any band signed to a label to have an OK selling second album, or a first album that sold OK, but not great. You either strike gold or you are gone. That is album by album too, your second album not as good as your first in sales, you are gone. Musicians themselves are suffering too, no sales=no paycheque (and spotify playing 0.06p per play isn't going to help). Instead they are left living off tshirt sales at gigs, which due to a recession is an industry that is also now suffering. This is why we have the same formulaic dross produced over and over and ho the talent show thing is big. There is no longevity in music any more. It is no longer a risk taker as far as bigger labels are concerned, it is cover our backsides style tactics that lead to a sea of bland.

Ditto the film industry who spend most of their time making remakes or additions to other moves. Again the innovation is gone in place of bums on seats.

We live in an age of boring and bland. We no longer want to be challenged, we want it the same every time, even if it doesn't taste as good.

As I said earlier we can see, listen to or watch an infinite number of things at the click of a button. This is great in some ways. However there is so much rubbish out there that the good stuff, the groundbreakers, the biggest, brightest talents will never get anywhere because they get lost in all this digital noise.

This generation will be deprived of masterpieces because of this. Hopefully it will change into the future, but at the moment it is bleak. The greats will never be seen and instead we will be lapping up holograms of The Stones playing Glastonbury 2045, because they don't make music like this any more. Your right, they don't, because they are not given a chance to due to the state of the industry.

Who cares about the mainstream....it's always been bland and boring. When I was a teenager in the ealry 80s I detested everything in the charts. Still do in 2013....nothing has changed.

The indie music scene is thriving, and it's an exciting time for artists. I have 4 family members producing music and sharing it online in ways that were not possible years ago.

My most recent CD purchase was from the excellent Jordan Reyne. The cost of making the CD was covered by her fans paying for it in advance.

Sorry to sidetrack the thread...but check her blog for her view on how vibrant the indie music scene is http://jordanreyne.tumblr.com/

 

[Steve]

I am very glad I don't rely on editorial, event work, sports, or stock for my living.

Sigh

I have read so many threads from pros demonising amateurs for ruining the industry.

Then they say it doesn't affect them personally.

Amateurs really are the asylm seekers/tax dodgers/benefit cheats of the photography industry.....the folk devils of flickr.

 

[Lindsay D]

I do find it a strange and slightly cynical world view that automatically ascribes monetary or marketing motives to all human creativity.
I don't know this Geoff chap or his motivation but I do know that there certainly exist many, many hobbyist software engineers who produce great, distributed, work with no marketing or profit motive. They do it for the love of it and don't give much of a hoot if someone goes on to make money from it. I imagine many photographers and other creative sorts feel the same about their labours.

Is that "being used"? If you're fully aware but don't care?

Yes of course, but the OP is asking about the photography world. The fact is that a vast proportion of photographers, including some good ones, are giving their work away to anybody who asks, or they are bowing to pressure. I really don't think that the same proportion of software engineers are doing likewise, so I'm not sure it's comparable, and I do maintain the view that where software is concerned there are often other benefits, but that is very rarely the case for a photographer. I assure you that is not an attempt to be cynical, it's just what I've observed.

Once again, of course it is up to the individual photographer if they are happy to go down that route, but in the context of this thread I think it's true to say that there has been considerable impact on many photographers as a result, many of whom needed to earn an income. I think that should be acknowledged as well.

 

[george g]

Yes of course, but the OP is asking about the photography world. The fact is that a vast proportion of photographers, including some good ones, are giving their work away to anybody who asks, or they are bowing to pressure. I really don't think that the same proportion of software engineers are doing likewise, so I'm not sure it's comparable, and I do maintain the view that where software is concerned there are often other benefits, but that is very rarely the case for a photographer. I assure you that is not an attempt to be cynical, it's just what I've observed.

Once again, of course it is up to the individual photographer if they are happy to go down that route, but in the context of this thread I think it's true to say that there has been considerable impact on many photographers as a result, many of whom needed to earn an income. I think that should be acknowledged as well.

I think the comparison between software and photography is not a bad one.

I am slightly confused by the "ignorance is bliss" or rather "im sure i have paid him someway and he gets exposure" about the way some of your website is coded? Surely thats in a similar vain to the publishers that you dispise so much - the ones that get work for free then say "but you got exposure for it"?

Did you create your website yourself? Or did you have someone make it? for a cost?

 

[PaulF]

Paul, please understand I am not deliberately trying to argue with you and I apologise if I have come across in that way. I am just trying to answer the original question as completely as I can. But I must insist that the notion that hobbies don't cost is nonsense - of course there is a cost associated with casual photography, quite simply because you are using the camera and IT equipment you have bought and you may have specifically travelled to that location which incurs another cost, and there are likely to be other outgoings as well. In other words, the purpose of which the outlay came about really is irrelevant, the point is that the outlay exists, the nature of your outing is absolutely irrelevant to your fixed costs. Nor does it matter in the slightest that you would be there anyway - the fact is that you are there, using your kit, taking time to capture your photographs, and you are then doing something further when you return home. So you can work out what your hobby is costing you, which is something a lot of people do before embarking on something. At that point what you intend to do with the results doesn't come into it - they have still cost you something to produce.

I'm afraid I no longer have any hobbies thanks to my job as a photographer, but I did in the past, and they did cost me quite a lot at times. They were for pleasure, and one of my hobbies involved keeping a horse. I did quite well and I used to enter three-day event competitions. I did it for my own pleasure and satisfaction and I knew what it cost me each time I competed. A couple of times I was approached by organisations who felt I could help enhance their profile (which might be a feed product or something similar) and I was asked if I would ride the odd event for them (with their logo etc). I would have riden those events anyway but since I was promoting an organisation it would have been inconceivable for me to boost their companies profits for nothing. Why? Because I am not a charity and I deserve something for my abilities, and the fact my presence and input is costing me. The 'already there' argument doesn't work in my eyes Paul - somebody is wanting to use the fact I have expended money and talent to get into that competition and I am doing something which could potentially benefit their profile.

In my view if I had done that for nothing then I would have seen myself as being gullible, and I would certainly have felt that I was being used. Which is why I made sure I was paid. The fact that you feel differently is of course you're right, but I genuinely don't understand why you want to subsidise strangers. I don't mean that in a rude way, I assure you, it's just hard for me to understand how a good photographer such as yourself would do that, particularly when you know that it's having an effect on the other photographers who are also present, and who you may even know personally. Once again I'm very sorry if I sound unpleasant, that is not my intention, and I do of course accept that we are all different.

Lastly, no I have not used other people's equipment to make money for myself, I have always given them something in return. As for being a hypocrite as you suggest for using advice on the web, my own blog is a very rich source of free information and instruction for new and professional photographers alike. I do my best to give back where I can, but I have a threshold beyond which I cannot tred for the reasons already set out. I do hope that clarifies things. Incidentally, if I have used software which has an optional payment button, I have always made a donation to the creator.

Lindsey,
Don't worry, I take nothing personal here, it's a discussion that's all.

I do accept that the photography hobby does have a cost, of course it does, but you need to look at it from an amateurs point of view and not that of a professional.
If I were to divide the cost of my equipment, including IT which is not used solely for photography, by all the images it has produced (even just the decent ones ) the cost of 1 image would be pennies if that.
Most amateurs combine their photography hobby with another aspect of life they enjoy. Most landscape photographers enjoy being outside in the countryside, sports photographers usually like the sport they are shooting etc.

My equipment for my hobby have a substantial cost attached to them but it's a cost I am happy to pay with no expectation of recouping any of that cost. The 'payment' I and other amateurs receive is the pleasure of the hobby.
I have never left my house thinking this is going to cost me £x to get these images and how could I recoup some of that money, I simply leave the house with my camera to enjoy my hobby, oh and often enjoy watching others do theirs in the form of motorsport.
I have never given an image from a major event, but I have form the more grass roots level, especially the driver who made the most spectacular pit entry I have ever seen, full tail wagging then 360 spin! he wasn't aiming for the pits at the time but that's were he ended up within inches of the armco

Other hobbies are the same, your horse riding included. I used to race 10th scale radio control cars. Probably not as expensive as a horse but certainly not cheap when the chassis alone cost around £300 and the consumables weren't cheap either. Again I was happy to pay for the cost of the hobby with the reward the enjoyment of racing.

If someone wanted to use one of my images commercially then in all honesty I can not be bothered with the whole tax thing and I already do a Self Assessment every year. I would and have in the past asked for a donation to the Scouts, ok it's easier for me and no doubt the business can wright the donation off against their tax so costs them less but that's my choice.

Everyone has their own view on things and that's fine with me.

As to op question of who is to blame. I don't think anyone in particular is to blame, things change. If I was to try and pin point a source of the issue then maybe the explosion of the internet has something to do with it, more so with high speed broadband. I personally buy maybe one or two magazines a year and that's only if I'm going away on a course where I know I'll be in hotel on my own. I read all the news etc online - it's more up to date for a start.

 

[Deleted member 29733]

With Paul saying about donations to the scouts reminds me about a rugby referee who asked me if I had any photos of him and if so he would buy them.

As it was I had around 15 shots of him in action. I sent him the CD and asked him to donate some money to charity.

When he came to referee another one of our games he said he was delighted with the photos and showed me the receipt for his donation.

 

[Lindsay D]

I am slightly confused by the "ignorance is bliss" or rather "im sure i have paid him someway and he gets exposure" about the way some of your website is coded? Surely thats in a similar vain to the publishers that you dispise so much - the ones that get work for free then say "but you got exposure for it"?

Did you create your website yourself? Or did you have someone make it? for a cost?

George, I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make here. I did my website myself from software I purchased and licensed (and I am completely unclear as to how I am supposed to know if some of the code in my purchase was donated to the supplier or not - I am genuinely confused now). I have not asked for nor expected help with it, paid or otherwise. I think your suggestions, and your line of questioning, is becoming inappropriate and accusatory.

But it does appear that you, and others on this forum reach a point in the proceedings where you'll carefully pick through any answer that a professional offers in order to create or perpetuate an argument beyond what could be seen as a balanced debate. I've seen many pros leave the forum as a result. That seems to be the mindset at Talk Photography. I feel I've done my best to answer the original question, and other things which have been thrown in along the way. But I think this is becoming a personal attack and I don't think I'm going to be allowed to have an opinion or offer a perspective, no matter what I say.

I wish all contributors well with their endeavours and I hope that, what ever stance they decide to take, their transactions are worthwhile in some way.

 

[ding76uk]

Who cares about the mainstream....it's always been bland and boring. When I was a teenager in the ealry 80s I detested everything in the charts. Still do in 2013....nothing has changed.

The indie music scene is thriving, and it's an exciting time for artists. I have 4 family members producing music and sharing it online in ways that were not possible years ago.

My most recent CD purchase was from the excellent Jordan Reyne. The cost of making the CD was covered by her fans paying for it in advance.

Sorry to sidetrack the thread...but check her blog for her view on how vibrant the indie music scene is http://jordanreyne.tumblr.com/

I'm sorry but the indie scene is in dire straights. its full of buzz bands that rise and fall in one album. The music industry full stop is in dire straights. Crow sourcing should not be needed if the music is good enough, but is only needed due to the appalling state of record companies.

 

[ding76uk]

Lindsay, this is not directed at you so please don't take it as such, rather it is a more general comment - I'm just hooking it into your last comment. Geoff Stearns is the guy who wrote the slideshow plugin you use on your site. He gives his work away freely, to complete strangers.

At various points in this thread, photographers who 'give their work away' have been demonised as destroyers of an industry or just plan idiotic morons while at the same time, many if not all of the accusers happily and openly use the work and effort of others, willingly and freely given, to support their own commercial efforts.

It is a hypocritical stance to adopt.

There is a direct comparison to be drawn between the software industry and the Photography industry - both can produce a 'digital' product, which once created can be replicated endlessly at no real additional cost (unlike the restaurant analogies etc). Both build on professional experience and creativity to create the initial product, and both are equally open to new entrants with a very low cost of entry, and both have hobbyists willing to give work away for free.

It's an individual decision as to whether you want to give your photos or indeed your code away for free for others to use. I have my view, others have their, and that's not a problem to me, but at least be consistent.

I find it incredible that many photographers take a highly polarised view of the matter in their own field while maintaining at best ambivalence when it comes to others areas of expertise.

The direct comparison is when Adobe goes to Gimp creators asking for their code to but in the new CS release. They can't pay for it, however they will offer credit. What do you think those who do this for fun would say to this offer?

 

[Furtim]

The direct comparison is when Adobe goes to Gimp creators asking for their code to but in the new CS release. They can't pay for it, however they will offer credit. What do you think those who do this for fun would say to this offer?

No it's not. That's like one photographer going to another and asking to use their photo on that basis.

A photographer uses GIMP in their process, just like a magazine publisher uses a photograph in theirs.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was many photographers make use of other peoples 'freebies' while complaining about other photographers giving things away for free.

 

[ghoti]

The direct comparison is when Adobe goes to Gimp creators asking for their code to but in the new CS release. They can't pay for it, however they will offer credit. What do you think those who do this for fun would say to this offer?

Gimp is open source, so if Adobe really wanted the code they could easily take it. Or rip it off.
Gimp developers even say you are free to sell their software as a third party company if you really wanted to. You don't even need to ask them.

http://www.gimp.org/about/selling.html

 

[george g]

George, I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make here. I did my website myself from software I purchased and licensed (and I am completely unclear as to how I am supposed to know if some of the code in my purchase was donated to the supplier or not - I am genuinely confused now). I have not asked for nor expected help with it, paid or otherwise. I think your suggestions, and your line of questioning, is becoming inappropriate and accusatory.

But it does appear that you, and others on this forum reach a point in the proceedings where you'll carefully pick through any answer that a professional offers in order to create or perpetuate an argument beyond what could be seen as a balanced debate. I've seen many pros leave the forum as a result. That seems to be the mindset at Talk Photography. I feel I've done my best to answer the original question, and other things which have been thrown in along the way. But I think this is becoming a personal attack and I don't think I'm going to be allowed to have an opinion or offer a perspective, no matter what I say.

I wish all contributors well with their endeavours and I hope that, what ever stance they decide to take, their transactions are worthwhile in some way.

Sorry, It was not meant to sound accusing, or a personal attack.

The reasoning for my questions (again, sorry if I had not read it before) was trying to find out if you had knowingly used the code for free. It is obvious now that you had paid for the software and it came as part of that... Please accept my apologies - I can see how it may have come across a bit probing and finger pointing.


Back to photos:

I am genuinely interested in the opinions of both the amateurs, aspiring pro's and established pro's - there are obviously very polarised views.

Having read with interest the replies to this thread and seeing that there is a few differing opinions, what would you say is the best way to re-value photography?

Obviously banning people from giving images away for free is not really an option, but is there other options? or is it a case of accepting it, using it to spread your work and working on a commission basis?

One of my first questions hasn't really been covered (maybe that is an answer in itself), but has hosting/social sites that allow not only the photographer to share images but also allow anyone to download a high resolution for free and without notifying the owner got a part to play in the devaluing of photography?

 

[Steve Smith]

but has hosting/social sites that allow not only the photographer to share images but also allow anyone to download a high resolution for free and without notifying the owner got a part to play in the devaluing of photography?

No. It's your choice to use them knowing the possibilities. You determine if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. If they do, you use it. If they don't, you don't.

So knowing what could happen, it is perhaps the photographer who is doing the devaluing rather than the hosting sites.


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

...

One of my first questions hasn't really been covered (maybe that is an answer in itself), but has hosting/social sites that allow not only the photographer to share images but also allow anyone to download a high resolution for free and without notifying the owner got a part to play in the devaluing of photography?

No, it's a common misconception. Photo hosting sites allow you to freely distribute or not. They don't even try to convince you it's a good idea to share for free, they simply make the option available.

So they play no real part in the process. Micro stock is a different issue, it's definitely had a de-valuing effect.

 

[Steve]

I'm sorry but the indie scene is in dire straights. its full of buzz bands that rise and fall in one album. The music industry full stop is in dire straights. Crow sourcing should not be needed if the music is good enough, but is only needed due to the appalling state of record companies.

Have to disagree....seems better than ever to me.

New venues springing up too in Manchester,,,very strong scene.

Maybe you are not looking in the right place.

 

[Richard King]

I do find it a strange and slightly cynical world view that automatically ascribes monetary or marketing motives to all human creativity.
I don't know this Geoff chap or his motivation but I do know that there certainly exist many, many hobbyist software engineers who produce great, distributed, work with no marketing or profit motive. They do it for the love of it and don't give much of a hoot if someone goes on to make money from it. I imagine many photographers and other creative sorts feel the same about their labours.

Is that "being used"? If you're fully aware but don't care?

I shoot for money. I shoot for art. I shoot to record. Don't assume all photography is about art. Commercially very little of is the slightest bit to do with art. Composition and lighting yes, Art no

I'm going to go out there and say that most professional photographers (professional meaning paid to shoot) do not shoot to create art

 

[Richard King]

Wouldn't Rhein II by Andreas Gursky be more relevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

I think the market for high end photographic prints is growing, all the Global auction houses have photography departments and run photography auctions (I don't think that was the case 20 years ago). There are a number of photography galleries who represent particular photographers and sell low number limited edition prints. The market for more conventional artwork prints has gone in the other direction if talking about engravings and lithographs, you can buy a genuine unsigned Picasso Lithograph for £500 for example.
Who knows what will be the value of these things in 20 years time, but there seems an element of comparing apples and oranges in this thread by those predicting the future value of photography.

I think we ought to concentrate on the realistic middle...

that is say anything from a £10 print up to a £2000 wedding commission or a £4000 commercial contract - as in reality, that is where 99% of us operate and ply our wares

 

[Last_Straw]

Agree, I was just providing some counter evidence against the 'photos are going to be worthless any day now' views exprssed by some.

 

[Danny8oy]

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.

Exactly, more people taking "professional" quality photos as a hobby. They don't expect to be payed and as cameras advance so will cellphone cameras cutting further into the "pro" profits. It is an evolving market like it or not...:shrug:

 

[artyman]

As an example my local rag used to have a couple of togs on the staff, not any longer, a lot of stuff gets sent to them by the readership, the advent of half decent cameras on phones has driven the revolution, in much the same way that Twitter is now a source of news, newspapers are in decline from the numbers sold 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[ghoti]

I shoot for money. I shoot for art. I shoot to record. Don't assume all photography is about art. Commercially very little of is the slightest bit to do with art. Composition and lighting yes, Art no

I'm going to go out there and say that most professional photographers (professional meaning paid to shoot) do not shoot to create art

Well. It depends how you want to define art, I guess. A notoriously difficult piece of semantics.
But in my book, if you're creating, from your own initiative, a work that has more stock in aesthetics than it does in pragmatism, you are creating art.
If your composition is wholly pragmatic, I'd agree that it may not be art. But I could do that. If you're considering your composition beyond, for example, getting everyone in the shot, then it is a piece of art.

 

[ding76uk]

Have to disagree....seems better than ever to me.

New venues springing up too in Manchester,,,very strong scene.

Maybe you are not looking in the right place.

Gig attendance has fell and seems to continue to this year, Several festivals are going or have gone down. Money being made by record companies dropped over 11% in the year 2010/2011 and has continued to decline since. Venues having to close. etc. etc.

The scene may be strong in Manchester, but which bands will have a legacy the same as the bands that came out during Madchester? Or Oasis? Chances are not many/any. It is the choice that music buying public (the few left) have now leads to them being fickle and with a very risk averse music industry if your album doesn't go huge, you're gone. Artists are left Crowd sourcing albums etc. and once you are at that stage the days of making a living wage are pretty much gone too. Music, the same as photography is no longer a career that pays many real artists. Instead it is a machine that chews up and spits out on the turn of a small profit.

In fact the decline in music is possibly the best analogy to the decline in photography. It has happened in the age of the internet. The amount of ground breaking being done is no where near the same. The public seem to eat up anything that has been served to them by the TV shows and those who have real talent, although finding it easier to get their work seen, are finding it harder to actually make any money from it due to an industry that is risk averse and trying to cling to every last penny. Making art is not as important as making a return on investment.

 

[Steve]

Gig attendance has fell and seems to continue to this year, Several festivals are going or have gone down. Money being made by record companies dropped over 11% in the year 2010/2011 and has continued to decline since. Venues having to close. etc. etc.

The scene may be strong in Manchester, but which bands will have a legacy the same as the bands that came out during Madchester? Or Oasis? Chances are not many/any. It is the choice that music buying public (the few left) have now leads to them being fickle and with a very risk averse music industry if your album doesn't go huge, you're gone. Artists are left Crowd sourcing albums etc. and once you are at that stage the days of making a living wage are pretty much gone too. Music, the same as photography is no longer a career that pays many real artists. Instead it is a machine that chews up and spits out on the turn of a small profit.

In fact the decline in music is possibly the best analogy to the decline in photography. It has happened in the age of the internet. The amount of ground breaking being done is no where near the same. The public seem to eat up anything that has been served to them by the TV shows and those who have real talent, although finding it easier to get their work seen, are finding it harder to actually make any money from it due to an industry that is risk averse and trying to cling to every last penny. Making art is not as important as making a return on investment.

Don't want to bore everyone else by taking this thread off track, so let's just agree to disagree about the indie scene.

When I was 40 I did one of those lists of 50 things to do before 50.

One of them was to have a photo published in a book/magazine etc... Haven't achieved it yet, but 3 years to go.

When I do achieve it, I will be pleased and will feel a sense of achievement, regardless of whether it is free (most likely) or paid for.

I will ignore the sneering of those on this thread who state it is not a 'real' achievement. I will frame it and put it on the wall, regardless of those who would belittle the achievement, and I will tick it off the list.

 

[Faldrax]

<snip>You say you already have the image and it has cost you nothing<snip>

Just to come back on that - I think you have misunderstood what I was intending to say (which may well have been a fault in my wording).

What I intended to convey was that (in this hypothetical case) I would have already created the image (for personal use), and any costs associated with creating that image I had already 'written off' - they would apply weather I then subsequently sold the image or not.

However, if I did decide I wanted to sell the image this would involve a measure of 'cost' - in terms of time and effort to sort out the taxation side of things. And it would be that future cost that woudl have to balance any income from sale of the image.

Since my guess as to the possible rates for an image put the gain as marginal, they why would I do so?

Of course, if I thought that having one image published was likely to lead to other publishers desperately calling me asking for additional images they could buy then the cost of selling an image would be reduced (as it would be spread over several sales) - however, I have listened to the repeated words of wisdom (when people suggest giving images away for free in hope of future work) on this forum and know that is not the case!

So charging for an image gains me almost nothing (income = cost of sales).

I therefore have a choice - demand a sufficiently high price to make it worthwhile (result, publisher goes elsewhere) or say "OK, I'll take the credit and a copy of the book". And my choice would be the latter.

 

[Steve Smith]

I will ignore the sneering of those on this thread who state it is not a 'real' achievement. I will frame it and put it on the wall, regardless of those who would belittle the achievement, and I will tick it off the list.

I think that's a great idea.

I haven't had any pictures published anywhere (apart from a book of prints created when I won a local photo competition) but I have played guitar on some people's songs for no fee which have been released on CDs. It is great to just see your name on there. I have also been credited on CDs as being the builder of some of the equipment used in the recording. This is nice too.

I hope no one from a session musicians' forum sees this and comments on me devaluing the session musician business!


Steve.

 

[Moreorless]

Who cares about the mainstream....it's always been bland and boring. When I was a teenager in the ealry 80s I detested everything in the charts. Still do in 2013....nothing has changed.

The indie music scene is thriving, and it's an exciting time for artists. I have 4 family members producing music and sharing it online in ways that were not possible years ago.

My most recent CD purchase was from the excellent Jordan Reyne. The cost of making the CD was covered by her fans paying for it in advance.

Sorry to sidetrack the thread...but check her blog for her view on how vibrant the indie music scene is http://jordanreyne.tumblr.com/

I'd argue the "indie" scene has really spilt in two, you do still have some interesting innovative artsists but there getting very little success compared to even the darkest days of the 80's. Most of what people would call "indie" over the last decade though is thoughly mainstream and has increasingly been dominated by those from rich backgrounds and focused on style over substance.

There not been a Stone Roses, a Primal Scream or a Radiohead in recent years, rather we've had the likes of Coldplay and Mumford and Sons getting rich, honiestly I'd rather listen to Duran Duran.

 

[meonshore]

As an example my local rag used to have a couple of togs on the staff, not any longer, a lot of stuff gets sent to them by the readership, the advent of half decent cameras on phones has driven the revolution, in much the same way that Twitter is now a source of news, newspapers are in decline from the numbers sold 30 or 40 years ago.

The quality of photography in that local paper, and their website, has dropped significantly in the last 5-10 years - even from the staff/stringers. It has nothing to do with the advent of camera phones, although you'd take a poorer quality camera phone image of a breaking news event, it is about the technical and creative ability of the people using the equipment - and that is primarily down to the pool of people willing to contribute free images.

They, and many others are not replacing professionals images like for like - they are sacrificing quality for cost, and that has a part in their decline albeit not as much as online news sources.

 

[ukaskew]

You turn down payment, and you're not interested in seeing your work published. I have to wonder why you give your images away so freely then, when there is clearly nothing in it for you. What a terrible waste of your talents.

I don't see it even vaguely in those terms. I love photography, it got me through the worst moments of my life (last year when I was seriously ill), it's what I enjoy more than anything. That's enough for me, that's all I need.

I intentionally turn down work offers for that very reason, it's a hobby, a passion, I will absolutely not let it become work, or a chore in any way. What happens to my images after is basically irrelevant (within reason).

Is that not enough?

 

[omens]

As an amateur (maybe even a novice), I'd like to weigh in.

there are two talented hobby bakers I know of who are doing lots of event cakes ...And advertising their non-profit endeavours on facebook.

I've seen various products (included photography) on websites like this and it's a form of advertising - instead of spending money on flyers/posters/websites, they can put photos up on facebook and it attracts free publicity.

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

The difference depends on the task involved. I might go onto a tradesman's forum to ask about my leaking tap. A few people might suggest a few problems/solutions and I may go and fix it myself. So should all pros stop giving advice to other people? Should the forum be closed except to paying members who are accredited and professionally work as photographers? Or would that just harm the site?

Times change. Adapt or die.

Agree with this. I buy fewer albums now than I did back when CDs were all the rage. But rather than pirate them, I find it easier to download a single song. iTunes has made it massively easy for me. Yet there are alternatives - you could download a video off a song on youtube and extract the audio. Yet it's easier for me to use iTunes even if it costs.

To actively go out and give your work away for free is madness...if an image is worth printing it has value...

I would state that all images have value - just that some may be closer to zero and others may be closer to £100k. Remember the Aztecs had gold in abundance. They had no care for it and saw it as another metal. The Spanish came and took it because to them it had value. Who were the crazy ones? People who saw nothing in something that others held dearly? Or the people who saw value when others saw nothing?

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."

Agree with this IMO. I want to be able to take good photos - not with the aim of publishing but with the aim of producing something on par with published photos. It's a really awesome feeling to do something and then stand back and admire the results. But that feeling increases when others share the same response.

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?

Perhaps these sites would benefit by allowing people to sell their photos? eg upload a relatively low-res/quality pic for people see but have the option to purchase the photo for a fee? Then a portion would go to the website, and the remainder to the photographer?

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.

Which tells me that he was trying it on. He was hoping that you'd give it away for free. Maybe it was bullying? I would not have bothered arguing why I was charging but merely state: "here's my fee - if you want the photo, you can pay for it" and leave it at that. But I'm not a pro so maybe I wouldn't be bothered by the subtleties.

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.

+1. This is how I feel.

You turn down payment, and you're not interested in seeing your work published. I have to wonder why you give your images away so freely then, when there is clearly nothing in it for you. What a terrible waste of your talents.

That's your opinion only.

There are plenty of jobs which large proportions of the population also enjoy as hobbies. I have many friends who love cooking and baking, but I can't see them supplying their next batch of cakes to every Tom Dick or Harry who asks.

And yet I get given cakes for free without ever asking purely because it gave pleasure to the baker. I don't ask for it nor do I expect it. It's just a pleasant surprise.

As Joe Public, I would only hire a photographer for events that were worth recording and recording it well.

As a parallel, I'm into detailing. I like cleaning my car to a level that others would consider OCD. I don't bother going to the £1 or £2 car wash places run by Polish people. Once a year, I'll take my car to a professional detailer who will give it a once over for £250. They aren't harmed by cheap car wash places. Their quality of work stands up and "word of mouth" (or forum posts) is what drums up more business. The way to harm them would be to do work to a similar standard and charge less than say £100. Mirroring this to the thread, the way an amateur would harm professionals is if they were producing professional level work and then selling it cheap (or free).

 

[KIPAX]

I will ignore the sneering of those on this thread who state it is not a 'real' achievement. I will frame it and put it on the wall, regardless of those who would belittle the achievement, and I will tick it off the list.

Every post I see on these forums from people saying they have been published.. I never ask how much paid.. non of my business. I nearly always tell them... FRAME IT... and some hadn't even thought of that.. its an achievement.. I really dont understand all this nonsense about it being of no value if it was free... who cares.. its published! get it framed....

 

[Deleted member 29733]

.....its published! get it framed....

Tony when you framed yours did you frame the tear sheet with the photo?.