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

Raymond Lin said:
:woot:

I think the bottomline is that you can pick up a camera and call yourself a photographer. Picking up a pen doesn't make you a lawyer, architect or doctor. You can't walk into those jobs, not only the job title is statute protected, you just can't even able to wing it.
Click to expand...

The debate is surely over whether the absence of a central regulatory body prevents it from being a profession, though. I'd argue that regulatory bodies need to exist for law and certainly medicine for obvious practical reasons; those reasons just don't exist for photography, which makes a regulatory body (and definitely statutory protection of titles) unnecessary. That's probably the sole reason one doesn't exist, and I don't see how it discounts it from being a profession:

profession
–noun
1. a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science: the profession of teaching.
2. any vocation or business.
Click to expand...
 
I never said it wasn't a profession.....

I said it's not the same as that it takes to be a lawyer, doctor or architect and to say it is, to me, that is insulting.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I think the bottomline is that you can pick up a camera and call yourself a photographer.
Click to expand...

Anyone can, and many do!

My name is Alasdair, and I'm a Mechanical Technician who takes photographs on the side... No great plans to be anything else! I was asked what I will take photographs of, and I've found the appropriate reply: "Anything I'm paid to":woot:
 
It's steeped in history going back several generations. Traditionally "The professions" were those where there was a degree of academic study including such subjects as Latin. Anyone remember that? Is it even taught any more? Pueri et puella........Good grief that's about all I can remember! (and that's probably wrong!)

I think there is almost a misuse of the terms now. Professional, I would take as someone who knows their subject and acts with integrity. A profession I don't equate with simply being in employment.
 
i don't take an arguement particularly seriously from someone who references wikipedia i'm afraid.

i could go change the page to say "profession - when someone wears huge neon shades popular with children in the 80s and early 90s" for instance but that doesn't mean what's written there is correct.
 
alexkidd said:
i don't take an arguement particularly seriously from someone who references wikipedia i'm afraid.

i could go change the page to say "profession - when someone wears huge neon shades popular with children in the 80s and early 90s" for instance but that doesn't mean what's written there is correct.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point, I could get any number of references regarding what a 'profession' is, and I'm afraid being a photographer would not meet the requirements of being part of a 'profession'.
 
i think you're missing the point also.

what you think is a profession and what i think is a profession differs clearly and referencing wikipedia or tbh a large number of sources isn't really going to change my mind

as with raymond it's another case of different opinions regardless of how many ' ' we use.
 
alexkidd said:
i think you're missing the point also.

what you think is a profession and what i think is a profession differs clearly and referencing wikipedia or tbh a large number of sources isn't really going to change my mind

as with raymond it's another case of different opinions regardless of how many ' ' we use.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I'm not missing the point, but fair enough, we will have to agree to differ, you can regard photography as a profession , each to their own.
 
I think some people mix up the difference between profession and trade.

Like these days they use the term engineer way too much, the guy who designed the fridge on his drawing board is an engineer, but the guy who comes to fix it isn't.
 
you don't have to apologise but i still believe you've missed the point.
 
I think that the issue is clouded by the fact that someone who earns their living by designing houses is an architect and someone who earns their living by taking photographs is a photographer. Both can be considered professionals and when asking both people what their profession is will answer either architect or photographer. The amount of qualifications needed to get to this point is essentially moot (as you wouldnt have a vet arguing with a solicitor on which was the more professional subject).

What is different is that if I designed my own house, I wouldnt call myself an architect. If I take my own photographs (assuming I'm not just talking holiday snaps), I could call myself a photographer. As it is, if asked, I say I'm interested in photography mainly because I recognise my own limits.

Back onto to the OP, I'm always a bit careful about submitting any pictures to commercial organisations (normally low readership/niche magazines) if I think that it will take a job away from a pro. But, if a non profit making organisation wanted any of my pics I'd quite happily give them single use rights in return for a credit.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Like these days they use the term engineer way too much, the guy who designed the fridge on his drawing board is an engineer, but the guy who comes to fix it isn't.
Click to expand...

That's just the way of the world. The meaning of a word evolves over time, gay is as good an example as any.

You're swimming against the tide because the meaning of a word is a result of how it's used by society as whole.
 
robmiller said:
The debate is surely over whether the absence of a central regulatory body prevents it from being a profession, though. I'd argue that regulatory bodies need to exist for law and certainly medicine for obvious practical reasons; those reasons just don't exist for photography, which makes a regulatory body (and definitely statutory protection of titles) unnecessary. That's probably the sole reason one doesn't exist, and I don't see how it discounts it from being a profession:
Click to expand...

:agree:

Unfortunately these regulatory bodies are often a complete joke in my experience yet it's still a requirement to be part of one :(
 
It's simple.

A professional photographer is not a photographer who charges for their work - it is a photographer who GETS PAID for their work....

you can do the work and charge for it, but until the money is in the bank, you have done it for free.:razz:

Part of the reasonmany talented photographers cannot make a go of being professional is not down to their ability to take photographs, far from it. It is normally due to their inability to get paid, and so their cash flow dries up.

When you are at woek, make money. You go to the club or pub to make friends. But that doesn't mean you cannot be friendly, but also you need to be firm. Asking for money is not so bad - you don't think any worse of the person in a shop who asks you to pay for that suit you just tried on and liked.....in fact, the more "professional" you are about credit control, the more many other business people will respect you and then they won't try it on, not with you anyway.

Those who are quiet or meek about asking for money on time are the ones who get paid late. Those who bang on the desk for their money on time, get it paid on time.
 
Well said Lensflare.

I'm now putting on a pair of heavy boots and going over to Edinburgh this afternoon to get payment sorted out. Tired of getting excuses from this company and £1400 is a lot to a small business.
 
Hmmmmmmmmmm , be nice to get some photos for the forum Gary LOL!!!
 
I agree with the OP completely. However I have a solution to this problem, large watermarks and cut down size :D then they'll pay for the full size pictures and costs of the shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top