Is anyone else really fed up by everyone wanting photographers to work for free?

T

Tom Bunning

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7
Name
Tom Bunning
Edit My Images
No
Is anyone else really fed up by everyone wanting photographers to work for free? I hope it's not just because I'm based in London and there is lots of competition but its getting quite frustrating! probably something I'm just going to have to get used too?
 
I don't like it either.
It seems people don't see photography as a profession.

It's just as much a profession as architecture, a lawyer, a policeman.
Wouldn't expect someone to design your house for free, get you out of a sticky situation for free, arrest you for free.
 
I wouldn't say I was fed up with it as, thankfully, it doesn't happen that often but when it does I ask the person if they too work for free. Normally I'll get the "it'll be good exposure" line and my reply is that, unfortunately Sainsburys don't accept it :D
 
It's not going to get any better Tom. Being a working snapper used to take some fairly hefty balls and this kept the numbers of us manageable. Now the safety net is so large and so close underneath you on a shoot, everyone and his/her dog is happy to have a go.

You need to be better, work harder and most importantly, you need to keep the passion for making images alive.
 
Betty your very Lucky! I had one of London's biggest Clubs ask me this week if I was interested in coming on board as their photographer, we arranged a meeting and they wanted the directors to see my portfolio...

I went to the meeting... Within the first 30 seconds of the conversation, they said we will give you a drinks token and free entry but unfortunately we don't pay!!

AAAAAHHHH!

www.tombunning.com
 
pxl8 said:
Normally I'll get the "it'll be good exposure" line and my reply is that, unfortunately Sainsburys don't accept it :D
Click to expand...

hehe... good answer.

I never get asked, which means i'm either recognised for what I do or totally crap and not worth asking :D

The bottom line is the more people who say yes to working for free the more it will become commonplace. Learning to say no can be one of the hardest things to do!

Somewhere along the way you need to get paid or you're not going to last very long unless you have another job to subsidise your overheads.
 
Tom Bunning said:
Is anyone else really fed up by everyone wanting photographers to work for free? I hope it's not just because I'm based in London and there is lots of competition but its getting quite frustrating! probably something I'm just going to have to get used too?
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'll be asked as well...well at least you're being asked. As you'll know from frequenting this forum, so don't and think they can steal someone image to use for their own gain.

Totally wrong IMO and when I start building my portfolio up, no-one will get away with lifting my pictures. The way I look at it is that they were taken with my equipment, using my time and my skill and I expect to be paid for that.

Unfortunately, we're now in a society where a lot of people feel that they can take liberties and think only of themselves and not the other party. Of course, these kind of people have always existed, but I find they are continually on the increase. I for one will ensure my pictures aren't used without my permission.

I will be lending my Pyrenean images to a printing company to use for a forthcoming calendar, where the proceeds will be going to a local children's hospice, for those who are local like andrewc, will have heard of Quidenham Children's Hospice. I'll be insisting on retaining copyright and simply giving them for reproduction for the calendar only.

So that's my take on it. It's image theft in my eyes, lifting images without the photographer's permission.

Cheers, Mark :thumbs:
 
Tom Bunning said:
Betty your very Lucky! I had one of London's biggest Clubs ask me this week if I was interested in coming on board as their photographer, we arranged a meeting and they wanted the directors to see my portfolio...

I went to the meeting... Within the first 30 seconds of the conversation, they said we will give you a drinks token and free entry but unfortunately we don't pay!!

AAAAAHHHH!

www.tombunning.com
Click to expand...

Send them a bill for your travel costs, stating misrepresentation and wasted time...
 
Tom, some togs must be earning thousands per week. It's who you know, and more importantly, how good your work is, I guess anyway. There is a demand and money to be made, it must be a case of hitting the right buttons.

I hope one day to be good enough to earn enough to keep me and my family afloat, if needed.

Gary.
 
Thats exactly my view Gary! I have been very lucky with who I know, and have never had any bad comments about the work.. I suppose it's balls and persistence?

www.tombunning.com
 
foodpoison said:
I don't like it either.
It seems people don't see photography as a profession.

It's just as much a profession as architecture, a lawyer, a policeman.
Wouldn't expect someone to design your house for free, get you out of a sticky situation for free, arrest you for free.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's the same level in terms of "profession" as architecture or lawyer. I know it from both sides, having done an architecture degree (worked in practice for 2 and a half years) and a law conversion + the LPC (currently working in litigation) and a keen photographer (3 weddings) myself so i know the work involved on all 3 sides. In terms of pure qualifications, the guidelines the buildings have to follow, the little details it needs to even draw a window sil, and the studies on many area of law I had to undertake, the caselaws i have the remember with the principles, the late nights revisions for my exams, all compared to photography it doesn't even come close.

I do believe that one should pay a photographer for his fees and how much they charge is up to them, at minimum his time for doing the work. But I am almost a little insulted to say that anyone with a camera can call themselves as a photgrapher and then demand the same regonition as a lawyer or architect. If your work justify it, and you are that good then i say that is fair enough and i do realise that the line on how good one at taking photographs is rather vague and a lot of people will probably disagree with me but in a pragmatic point of view, for the pure number of hours i put in to get my qualifications, architects, lawyers to photographers are a totally different kettle of fish.
 
I do agree with what Raymondo is saying. Photography can be an industry where raw talent shines. They may not have a clue how to really use their camera but they can take the best photos ever simply because its who they are. They don't have to spend 4 years reading books, learning guidelines and being tested on it. Its not quite a "profession" like a doctor, lawyer, etc because in the end its all about that 1 photograph in the moment. They don't have the responsability to save a life, the responsability to design a building that will not fall down and kill people etc. So its not quite the same. However to answer the op's original question yes I am. I think because of digital photography and the accessability of it all people can just pick up a camera and take a photo. Its the same as web design. "My 5 yr old is currently learning it at preschool so he can build a site for you." I've met "web designers" who simply use another companies template tools to "build" websites. Thats about as web design as using a camera on auto is photography. I often joke with clients when they say "We'll credit you" and I reply with "Unfortunately I don't really work for credit. It doesn't pay the bills. I can't use credit in Tesco." Playfully of course but they get the point.
 
nonsense, it's a profession, just because you read more books to do one doesn't mean you're more qualified and you can be a qualified photographer also and still be naff just like an architect or a lawyer.

each profession should be paid based on it's time, cost, skill and merits

of course they're a different kettle of fish but getting on your high horse because you've spent some time at a uni etc is just silly, i'm insulted that you think you need to make a distinction between the two in terms of requirement for pay tbh.

food poison makes a solid point and in my opinion it's on the same level as a profession and you seem like a job snob.
 
We just dropped a corporate client we had worked with in the past, and were due to do a bit for this spring (southern spring). They just expect everything for nothing..

Straight off the bat we offered them an 'introductory' rate, as what we were to do was kind of a new area of photography for us, we liked working with them in the past, so thought good opportunity to build a lasting relationship.

Two minutes later they're on the phone asking for a further 50% off and claiming that's still too much as we will no doubt be getting private jobs from this one. (The original job was to cover a function / awards thing, they were suggesting that as some of the staff will like our work and book us for portraits, that should count as payment from the company).

Oh well, you think you know someone..

PS Raymond Lin, are you some kind of freaky genius? :D Architecture, law and photography is just being greedy! :p
 
Thats about as web design as using a camera on auto is photography
Click to expand...

Woooaaah. :eek:

I know we often don't see at all eye to eye Pete but I never thought you'd fall into the camp of valuing the twiddling of buttons over genuine artistic vision.
 
foodpoison said:
I don't like it either.
It seems people don't see photography as a profession.

It's just as much a profession as architecture, a lawyer, a policeman.
Wouldn't expect someone to design your house for free, get you out of a sticky situation for free, arrest you for free.
Click to expand...


I agree with Raymond above, I don't think photography is a 'profession' , you don't need to jump through the hoops of qualifications, exams, training to set yourself up as a 'photographer' ., like you would need to do to be a dentist, doctor, nurse, teacher etc.


And I think it's a hard fact of life, when everybody and their dog have digital cameras, there is always someone that will be able to provide the goods for 'free'.

And I know how much 'stock photography' prices have plummeted over the last few years, where at one time £100-£200 was the norm for a stock image, now it's £30-£50, as why should a travel company say pay £200 for an image when there are hundreds or thousands similar images splashed around the net, either taken by hobbyists, or 'royalty free' .

I shoot our local cricket team, and I provide all the images free for their website, I don't see it as selling out, there is no photographer trying to make a living shooting the same. I see it as a small payback, there is no entry fee to the matches, good cricket, and when the sun shines, what better way to spend an afternoon, pint of Tetleys and the team thumping the opposition.

I don't envy anyone who is trying or succeeding in making a living by photography as it's become a harsh commercial climate , with only the best (or luckiest) able to get by on being a photographer.
 
petemc said:
I do agree with what Raymondo is saying. Photography can be an industry where raw talent shines. They may not have a clue how to really use their camera but they can take the best photos ever simply because its who they are. They don't have to spend 4 years reading books, learning guidelines and being tested on it. Its not quite a "profession" like a doctor, lawyer, etc because in the end its all about that 1 photograph in the moment. They don't have the responsability to save a life, the responsability to design a building that will not fall down and kill people etc. So its not quite the same. However to answer the op's original question yes I am. I think because of digital photography and the accessability of it all people can just pick up a camera and take a photo. Its the same as web design. "My 5 yr old is currently learning it at preschool so he can build a site for you." I've met "web designers" who simply use another companies template tools to "build" websites. Thats about as web design as using a camera on auto is photography. I often joke with clients when they say "We'll credit you" and I reply with "Unfortunately I don't really work for credit. It doesn't pay the bills. I can't use credit in Tesco." Playfully of course but they get the point.
Click to expand...


Absolutely, I see your point.

Some people don't have the equipment or patience (I'm referring mainly to wildlife 'tography, which is what I love doing. There really isn't that many creative techniques compared to say portraiture, but that said, would these people get the same quality results without using the equipment and time that we dedicate? I doubt it, so in my opinion, fees should apply.

Photography does require a lot of practice and usually spot on timing. For me, I've read book for the last 18 months in between practicing technique. If only people know this...

It just gets my goat when people don't have any regard for what they are doing when asking for freebies or simply lifting pictures :(

In summary, I am a giver, but have also invested a lot of money in equipment and time in perfecting techniques etc. and still have lots of room for improvement but think it's only right that payment should be made for a small part of the sacrifices most of us make.

Just my 2p worth,

Cheers :)
 
Les McLean said:
I agree with Raymond above, I don't think photography is a 'profession' , you don't need to jump through the hoops of qualifications, exams, training to set yourself up as a 'photographer' ., like you would need to do to be a dentist, doctor, nurse, teacher etc.


And I think it's a hard fact of life, when everybody and their dog have digital cameras, there is always someone that will be able to provide the goods for 'free'.

And I know how much 'stock photography' prices have plummeted over the last few years, where at one time £100-£200 was the norm for a stock image, now it's £30-£50, as why should a travel company say pay £200 for an image when there are hundreds or thousands similar images splashed around the net, either taken by hobbyists, or 'royalty free' .

I shoot our local cricket team, and I provide all the images free for their website, I don't see it as selling out, there is no photographer trying to make a living shooting the same. I see it as a small payback, there is no entry fee to the matches, good cricket, and when the sun shines, what better way to spend an afternoon, pint of Tetleys and the team thumping the opposition.

I don't envy anyone who is trying or succeeding in making a living by photography as it's become a harsh commercial climate , with only the best (or luckiest) able to get by on being a photographer.
Click to expand...

I do think it's who you know and how you come across...I'm certain if my pictures are good enough, I could sell them to people, no problems at all..
 
dazzajl said:
Woooaaah. :eek:

I know we often don't see at all eye to eye Pete but I never thought you'd fall into the camp of valuing the twiddling of buttons over genuine artistic vision.
Click to expand...

Buh? Artistic vision sorta goes out the window when your camera decides the depth of field.
 
Les McLean said:
with only the best (or luckiest) able to get by on being a photographer.
Click to expand...

I may be sprouting utter shlite, but I have found more often than not, all that is required to make some serious lolly, is a pair of brass dangly bits.

I don't see how £10k profit per month is not easy to achieve on Weddings (and a few other things), once you are good at it.

Gary.
 
alexkidd said:
nonsense, it's a profession, just because you read more books to do one doesn't mean you're more qualified and you can be a qualified photographer also and still be naff just like an architect or a lawyer.

each profession should be paid based on it's time, cost, skill and merits

of course they're a different kettle of fish but getting on your high horse because you've spent some time at a uni etc is just silly, i'm insulted that you think you need to make a distinction between the two in terms of requirement for pay tbh.

food poison makes a solid point and in my opinion it's on the same level as a profession and you seem like a job snob.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't a profession, i am saying its a different kettle of fish.

Take a bad photo, you then what? take it agian? don't get paid? on to the next job.

Your building falls, down, manslaughter charge by the police.
You fail to issue proceedings in time, professional negligence, struck off even if serious, and your living is over.
You lose your case, your client get life in prison.

Architects and lawyers have to pay thousands every year for registrations fees, insurance in order to practice. A photographer can work without pay any fee to any governing body. Yes, there are governing bodies, hundreds of years old. To be really pragmatic, the term Architect, Solicitor and Barrister is protected by Statutes, you can't just call yourself any of those just because you can draw some plans or fill in a claim form. Anyone can call themselve a photographer however.

I do agree that a photographer should be paid for his time and talent but the responsibility is not the same !
 
EdinburghGary said:
I may be sprouting utter shlite, but I have found more often than not, all that is required to make some serious lolly, is a pair of brass dangly bits.

I don't see how £10k profit per month is not easy to achieve on Weddings (and a few other things), once you are good at it.

Gary.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you hit the moot point-you have to be good at it :)
 
Sooooo, the weight of our artistic vision is a derivative of our control over DoF????? :thinking:

Does that mean that if DoF has no bearing on the shot, it can't be art?..... you know where this is going. There are times that the art of the shot is all about the moment the shutter is released or just about what you can make happen in front of the lens.
 
we'll just have to face the fact we disagree raymond, you think photography is a lesser job and i think it's equal but different.

we could bat backwards and forwards on the ins and outs and registrations, qualifications, insurances, inital outlay, responsibility etc and so forth but i'm not going to stay up just because someone on the internet is wrong :)

http://xkcd.com/386/
 
alexkidd said:
nonsense, it's a profession, just because you read more books to do one doesn't mean you're more qualified and you can be a qualified photographer also and still be naff just like an architect or a lawyer.

.
Click to expand...

From the Wikipidia definition of a 'profession'

the development of formal qualifications based upon education and examinations, the emergence of regulatory bodies with powers to admit and discipline members, and some degree of monopoly rights

While photography can (and does) have various qualifications and training, you don't need to do any of them to set yourself up as a photographer, therefore photography can't be considered a 'profession'
 
dazzajl said:
Sooooo, the weight of our artistic vision is a derivative of our control over DoF????? :thinking:

Does that mean that if DoF has no bearing on the shot, it can't be art?..... you know where this is going. There are times that the art of the shot is all about the moment the shutter is released or just about what you can make happen in front of the lens.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. You know what I meant. People with no concept of photography simply pushing the shutter on auto taking rubbish photos calling themselves a photographer. I said it just after my rant about "web designers" who simply push a few buttons on someone elses templating system and call themselves designers. They didn't design jack. They just selected a template, put content in and sold it.
 
dazzajl said:
Woooaaah. :eek:

I know we often don't see at all eye to eye Pete but I never thought you'd fall into the camp of valuing the twiddling of buttons over genuine artistic vision.
Click to expand...

??? What's the use of artistic vision without the knowing how to twiddle the buttons to create your vision with the camera ?

I happen to be the greatest painter the world has ever known (undiscovered), trouble is I don't know how to use a brush. So much for my vision.
 
alexkidd said:
we'll just have to face the fact we disagree raymond, you think photography is a lesser job and i think it's equal but different.

we could bat backwards and forwards on the ins and outs and registrations, qualifications, insurances, inital outlay, responsibility etc and so forth but i'm not going to stay up just because someone on the internet is wrong :)

http://xkcd.com/386/
Click to expand...

I don't think its a lesser job, it is a different job.
 
Depending on the type of photography you do, think fieldcraft, depth of field, shutter speed, composition, patience, intuition, research (I'm thinking of for eg. animal behaviour traits here).

Wouldn't photography be better classed as an art?
 
I thought the artform debate had been sorted over 60 years ago? Its an artform, lets move on.
 
Les McLean said:
From the Wikipidia definition of a 'profession'

the development of formal qualifications based upon education and examinations, the emergence of regulatory bodies with powers to admit and discipline members, and some degree of monopoly rights

While photography can (and does) have various qualifications and training, you don't need to do any of them to set yourself up as a photographer, therefore photography can't be considered a 'profession'
Click to expand...

Careful now, we can't be going down that road again for the 13th time this year :p

(OT. I always just assumed that you were a 'pro' Les. Purely based on how good your shots are, easily in my 'top 5 TP posters who I think are awesome' anyway :D /suckup).
 
I think in reality people see a professional (someone of a profession) as a person who is competent enough to be able to charge for their services.

Maybe a good example is a brick layer. We can all pick up some bricks and build a brick wall (just as we can all pick up a camera and take a photo) but unlike a professional brick layer we'd be crap and slow.

A professional photographer would be able to work fast if required and would know exactly what to do or what they'd need to get the best photograph in a situation.

As for working for free, I don't think photographers have it as bad as actors and actresses. Worked for many many years in the media industry slap bang in Soho and although the quality of your work was important it was who you knew that would make or break you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top