- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Images, value and their worth... Who is to blame?
- Thread starter george g
- Start date
D
Deleted member 29733
Guest
jamesoliverstone
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,145
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
What game was that? I am a fanatical collector of games, and my Mega ST4 is sat opposite me right now...
Sorry, a little off topic I know
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
What game was that? I am a fanatical collector of games, and my Mega ST4 is sat opposite me right now...
Sorry, a little off topic I know
the aperture wasnt big enough when we framed it years ago.. should ahve made it bigger as advert doesnt quite fit
advert appeared in future publishings Atari STFormat
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
(disclaimer I can't be arsed to read the whole thread so this point may have already been made)
Flip side - if you want it done right, on time , and on brief - pay a pro , if you aren't arsed , get an amateur to do it for a credit.
In my day job I hire a lot of arborist contractors - while people don't generally do tree surgery "for a credit" it would be easy enough to find some muppet with a B&Q chainsaw ands no real idea what he's doing who'd do the job for 50 quid cash in hand
However I'd rather pay several hundred to get someone with suitable qualifications, insurance etc who will do the job right on time and not kill anyone in the process.
Okay so photography isn't as inherently risky , but the same thing applies - If I want to commission some work I'd rather pay for it and get a guaranteed good job , than pay beer money or not at all and get it cocked up
jamesoliverstone
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,145
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
the aperture wasnt big enough when we framed it years ago.. should ahve made it bigger as advert doesnt quite fit
Mate, thats amazing! I am seriously impressed
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mate, thats amazing! I am seriously impressed
Plus one
That is pretty damn cool.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Plus one
That is pretty damn cool.
Never really been a gamer, but even I'm impressed, but I'm not telling you that.
Keebsuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,030
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don't put yourself down mate, you can do something many of us can only dream about!
Do you still get any of the royalties from the game or has that dried up now?
Andy
Keebsuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,030
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its such a long time ago... I dont think anyone even uses an Atari computer anymore bar James
LOL very true I guess.
In view of your programmer of the year title, should we now address you as Sir Waldorf?!!!
Andy
dkh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 931
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
This post, to me, illustrates why this country is in such a mess!
Lindsey is putting forward a very valid point which is totally disregarded by most. We, as photographers, might not think that taking a picture costs anything - how could it, we enjoy it, it's a hobby, blah blah blah.
Say that the next time you go to a shop to pick up a bag to carry your camera or flash or the next time you get fuel to drive somewhere you've heard is good for a certain type of hobby.
Everything we do has a cost. Pressing the shutter on a digital camera has a cost! Especially as you don't press once and say "done, got it!" Next time you are out carrying out your hobby, count how many clicks or pics you've taken!
Really, none of the above really matters if you're helping someone out but this is simply not the point - you are giving something to someone to help them make money! Simple!
Not only that, but, you are the only one in the chain giving something for nothing! Everyone else in the chain has equal, not greater, costs - whether they are direct or indirect is inconsequential!
What's next, oh print these calendars for me for free and I'll put your name on there somewhere (for fame and posterity) - you've already got the printer and inks and paper...
The reason, finally, I say why the country is in a state it's in is simply because if you managed to get £100 for an image, you will spend it.
Lindsey is putting forward a very valid point which is totally disregarded by most. We, as photographers, might not think that taking a picture costs anything - how could it, we enjoy it, it's a hobby, blah blah blah.
Say that the next time you go to a shop to pick up a bag to carry your camera or flash or the next time you get fuel to drive somewhere you've heard is good for a certain type of hobby.
Everything we do has a cost. Pressing the shutter on a digital camera has a cost! Especially as you don't press once and say "done, got it!" Next time you are out carrying out your hobby, count how many clicks or pics you've taken!
Really, none of the above really matters if you're helping someone out but this is simply not the point - you are giving something to someone to help them make money! Simple!
Not only that, but, you are the only one in the chain giving something for nothing! Everyone else in the chain has equal, not greater, costs - whether they are direct or indirect is inconsequential!
What's next, oh print these calendars for me for free and I'll put your name on there somewhere (for fame and posterity) - you've already got the printer and inks and paper...
The reason, finally, I say why the country is in a state it's in is simply because if you managed to get £100 for an image, you will spend it.
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course taking a photo has a cost attached to it. That is irrelevant in determining the value of said photo. Any value is set by the market and bears little or no relation to the cost of producing the photo.
Do all pros keep every photo they have ever taken? If any are ever discarded then you have decided the value is nil, even though there was a cost involved in taking it.
What value would you put on a photo you took 20 years ago that is out of date/style etc and no one has ever purchased it? Would you expect to sell an unloved photo for the market price of your new stuff or would you accept a few quid just to get something for it?
Do all pros keep every photo they have ever taken? If any are ever discarded then you have decided the value is nil, even though there was a cost involved in taking it.
What value would you put on a photo you took 20 years ago that is out of date/style etc and no one has ever purchased it? Would you expect to sell an unloved photo for the market price of your new stuff or would you accept a few quid just to get something for it?
ernesto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
PaulF
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,863
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think everyone accepts that photography as a hobby has costs, but those costs are not spent with the goal of providing images to some unknown publisher they are spent in the pursuit of a hobby and as such are happily (maybe
) spent.Most, if not all hobbies have a cost involved.
If you were to calculate the cost of each individual 'click' of the shutter you may be surprised how little the actual cost is for that single shot. I can easily take 1000 plus shots in a day at a race track in one day. Ok not all will be keepers but even if you work on 50% hit rate it doesn't take long for one shot to have a cost of less than one pound.
The discussion in this thread us talking about digital images that already exist not about any additional costs incurred by the photographer without payment. No one is going to start printing calanders etc
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ukaskew
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I really don't understand why this matters. I'm taking photos because I absolutely love taking them. I'm fully aware that it costs me money to take them, fuel, event tickets, camera kit, food, drink etc, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for a very enjoyable day out.
I have friends who think nothing of spending £100 on a night out, fair enough that's what they like spending money on, I'm no different but I just happen to be spending money on something that has an output which may be of interest to other people.
The monetary value of that output is completely irrelevant to me, aside from using the photos to help others (which I do an awful lot of for motorsport photography and enjoy immensely, nothing better than helping others improve for me) I'm not overly fussed if anyone sees them or not.
Lyonspride
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 453
- Edit My Images
- No
Who's to blame?
People? Society?
I'm an electronics engineer and IT technician, both are jobs which have been devalued, electronics because it's become a throw away market, knowing how it works is no longer important. IT because if the computer is broken, the attitude is one of "oh, just find a 10 year old, they know all that stuff".
Photography, i'd hazard a guess at mobile phones and instagram. We know neither are a substitute, but it's not about what we think, it's about what people talk about and spread socially.
People? Society?
I'm an electronics engineer and IT technician, both are jobs which have been devalued, electronics because it's become a throw away market, knowing how it works is no longer important. IT because if the computer is broken, the attitude is one of "oh, just find a 10 year old, they know all that stuff".
Photography, i'd hazard a guess at mobile phones and instagram. We know neither are a substitute, but it's not about what we think, it's about what people talk about and spread socially.
D
Deleted member 29733
Guest
Well you tell that to the sports photographer to was not needed at our local paper so they dispensed with his services because Mr & Mrs Anybody were sending in their photos FOC.
The 'ones who are not' are doing so because it is their job or chosen profession.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
It is how it is. and theres nothing that can be done about it... Who cares who's to blame.. why waste your life worrying about it... Adapt and move forward... It can't go back to how it was...It just is what it is..
Stiff upper lip and all that
Stiff upper lip and all that
dkh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 931
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
The cost is only irrelevant if everyone in the jolly circle is doing the same. Everyone has a cost they have to cover, not by selling photos (unless that is their chosen profession) but by working and earning so they can continue doing what they 'love'.
Actually, no. It illustrates clearly that you haven't even understood the discussion which is about giving free image/s or expecting free image/s to then use said image/s to sell and make a profit.
I think everyone accepts that photography as a hobby has costs, but those costs are not spent with the goal of providing images to some unknown publisher they are spent in the pursuit of a hobby and as such are happily (maybe
Most, if not all hobbies have a cost involved.
If you were to calculate the cost of each individual 'click' of the shutter you may be surprised how little the actual cost is for that single shot. I can easily take 1000 plus shots in a day at a race track in one day. Ok not all will be keepers but even if you work on 50% hit rate it doesn't take long for one shot to have a cost of less than one pound.
The discussion in this thread us talking about digital images that already exist not about any additional costs incurred by the photographer without payment. No one is going to start printing calanders etc
Sorry, you've lost me. For the first paragraph you are agreeing that you are taking pics for your own enjoyment / pleasure?
Now, the second paragraph - what are jumble sales for? Old, used, unwanted items? Why do people attempt to sell these things? They've already got them, had them and are not clearly using or thinking of using them.
Oh, and regarding printing calendars - you'd be surprised at what some people ask for in return for a mention!
What you said doesn't matter at all. You spend £££££'s on kit so others can enjoy your output - good for you and I mean that sincerely. However, if, because you've spent all those ££££'s to get equipment of a certain level and I can exploit you by using your hard earned to help me profit then I see an issue.
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The cost is relevant to determing if a profit can be made and whether the enterprise is a going concern. But cost does NOT determine how much someone is willing to pay for it. The market decides that value.
That's why businesses go bust as their costs exceed what the market is willing to pay for their service/product.
That's why Apple makes such huge profits, as the market is willing to pay way more for their product than it costs to make.
Steve
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,685
- Name
- .... Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is naive to think it costs me £x to make this photo, therefore the value is £x + markup. The photo is only worth what the market is willing to pay for it...the cost is irrelevant.
I think you've picked up on a fundamental misunderstanding that we're seeing in this thread.
Some people seem to have convinced themselves that their photography has an innate value (related to their expenses and labour in producing it). As you ably point out, this is a fallacy.
A photograph could have cost thousands in equipment, insurance, travel expenses and it may have cost many hours of time. That doesn't make it worth anything.
The problem is that with an explosion of supply (and supply from people who created images while never expecting to recoup costs - which is the kicker) and a plateau of demand, the value of photography has, in the public eye, plummeted.
dkh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 931
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm sorry Steve, what you talking about. If I go to the woods today and take a piccy of a bear picnic and come home and put it up on flickr so all my friends can enjoy the fun with me, this is nothing to do with profits or going bust etc. It is an amateur doing what they love.
Now, some editor or plonk comes along and says how would you like to have that piccy published in tomorrow's daily mail, we'll give you full credit but can't pay anything not even a token gesture - that is a problem because daily mail are not a charity and will not be going around to highlight how amazing the UK's amateur photographers are - they are simply looking to get a bigger readership and higher profits - at your expense!
If you had no expectation of recouping your investment at the time you made the image then it's not really at "your expense" is it?
And some people simply don't care. They might give away a couple of images here and there knowing perfectly well that someone is making money from them and just not think it's a big deal. Their prerogative.
Again, consider the freeware analogy. If you've ever used freeware to aid a commercial venture then you're already part of this game.
D
Deleted member 29733
Guest
What I said in my post was "tell that to the sports photographer" not the paper.
PaulF
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,863
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What I was trying to illustrate had nothing to do with jumble sales
I was trying to point out to all those people in this thread that keep harping on about the amateur photographer's costs including their equipment as if they had bought this few thousand pounds worth of kit to take just that one photo that someone else wants to use! if people want to use the cost of the equipment etc as an argument then they need to remember to divide the costs by the amount of photo's taken by that equipment (into the tens of thousands for my d7000 ) not just the one. It's not an argument that holds up in my view anyway, as many have already said, for the hobbyist the cost of taking that photo (any photo) is willingly paid to enjoy the hobby (that goes for any hobby)
desantnik
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Every time this topic comes around I give the same answer....
This and just about every other problem described in this thread is caused by the advent of the internet.
Music, magazines, newspapersm film, photography, software, retail..... all changed beyond recognition by the arrival of a network that enables the end user to locate what they want and pay the lowest price that its available for - which quite often is "free".
Everyone competes in a massive electronically globalised race to the bottom.
My suggestion - make your money from something that can't be internet located - hair dressing or selling cups of coffee seem most bomb proof.
This and just about every other problem described in this thread is caused by the advent of the internet.
Music, magazines, newspapersm film, photography, software, retail..... all changed beyond recognition by the arrival of a network that enables the end user to locate what they want and pay the lowest price that its available for - which quite often is "free".
Everyone competes in a massive electronically globalised race to the bottom.
My suggestion - make your money from something that can't be internet located - hair dressing or selling cups of coffee seem most bomb proof.
ernesto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As long as you find selling cups of coffee enjoyable as a 'career' for 50 years.
On the other hand, running a hairdressers is something I would do if I had my time again. Saying that, there is still lots of competition and you still need to adapt to win just as with photography so not as different as you have portrayed really.
PaulF
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,863
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
