Low cost photography - raised

[MARK AMIES]

Just saw interesting tweet from a magazine posing a question -


PhotoProUK Photo Professional
Debate topic: Is low-cost photography killing our industry, or enhancing it? #proQ

 

[ChrisGilbert]

Not so much low-cost as Ubiquity and gullibility.

 

[Elastoman]

Low cost photography probably does very little to the pro industry. What it does do is encourage more people to get into photography as a hobby.

It's a bit like asking whether a fat exhaust on a boy racer's Renault Clio enhances or kills motor sport!

 

[snapalot]

Low cost photography probably does very little to the pro industry. What it does do is encourage more people to get into photography as a hobby

I wouldn't agree with that at all, just look at the business section and see the requests for "how much can I charge for this that and the other" trawl through a few "photographers" web sites all offering their services, see how many have business addresses instead of just a mobile number, not many!

 

[cambsno]

Its low cost everything. People want cheaper phone calls, cheaper data, cheaper broadband, cheaper websites, cheaper insurance, cheaper meals, cheaper clothes, cheaper TVs, cheaper food.... the list goes on.

It has always been like that, but I find that these days people often will sacrifice quality for cost. Sometimes I subscribe to that, for other things I dont. Fresh meat and veg is important to me so I buy and sometimes pay a bit more from Waitrose, while others are happy with Tesco value chicken! Same with photography - some people value it, others dont.

There will always be a market for photography, but it will decrease, mainly as the entry to market is easier. Many compact produce very good images, a basic DSLR on auto with kit lenses will provide even better ones, and for most people very useable. Not everyone pixel peeps and if anything they are so used to seeing blurry pics on FB taken off mobiles, any half decent pic looks good. Times are changing.

 

[POAH]

you know the difference between tesco value chicken and tesco normal chicken - nothing other than odd sizes. same farm etc - the same goes for a lot of the value produce.

people tend not to value photography because its a luxury item and as its been said many times before cost does not = quality.

more people have cameras this decade than they did 20 years ago and professionals are still thinking they are the only ones that can produce good pictures - sooner they wake up and smell the coffee the better

Its low cost everything. People want cheaper phone calls, cheaper data, cheaper broadband, cheaper websites, cheaper insurance, cheaper meals, cheaper clothes, cheaper TVs, cheaper food.... the list goes on.

It has always been like that, but I find that these days people often will sacrifice quality for cost. Sometimes I subscribe to that, for other things I dont. Fresh meat and veg is important to me so I buy and sometimes pay a bit more from Waitrose, while others are happy with Tesco value chicken! Same with photography - some people value it, others dont.

There will always be a market for photography, but it will decrease, mainly as the entry to market is easier. Many compact produce very good images, a basic DSLR on auto with kit lenses will provide even better ones, and for most people very useable. Not everyone pixel peeps and if anything they are so used to seeing blurry pics on FB taken off mobiles, any half decent pic looks good. Times are changing.

 

[The Greek]

Digital killed the Pro! Easy to use DSLR's, just keep shooting (its free) until your happy with a couple of images, upload onto flickr or photobucket (its free) edit, sharppen, clone, adjust, (its free) offer your services to friends and family, they will happily except (its free) ...........

Now Your A Pro! Lol

 

[DemiLion]

...trawl through a few "photographers" web sites all offering their services, see how many have business addresses instead of just a mobile number, not many!

Utterly irrelevant as far as I can see, unless you have a studio.

Geographic location is useful to target your audience, but I don't see what relevance a physical address has. In fact I can't think of a single press photographer that lists their full address.

 

[Simon photo]

So your sayin that perhaps gucci, porche, versace, vivien westward, rolex (the list goes on) film studios, advertising agencies, high street retailers are ringing up the "uncle bobs" because they are cheap, free even! And have got a "wow that's a nice camera"
No, your talkin tosh.
Carry on believing that everyone can be a pro cos they got a consumer camera yeah, truth be told. Most professionals are shooting medium format, large format, have done for years, film and digital, with film being the only choice for some even today. They know how to create an image, don't rely on machine gunning and are masters of their craft.

 

[DemiLion]

Most professionals are shooting medium format, large format, have done for years, film and digital, with film being the only choice for some even today. They know how to create an image, don't rely on machine gunning and are masters of their craft.

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start!

 

[sc0ttie]

I saw a photographers website today, who does weddings and events offering to come to your house and shoot a portrait set for £25. His print prices were 10x8 for £8. Not quite sure how he makes much from that but obviously gets some bookings as he has content on his site. By and large, I did not rate his images very much but if people can see what he produces and are willing to pay for that then there is a market for him and his work I suppose.

 

[KingK12]

We are in a re session so it's low cost to all the little guys while the rich get richer! Oh well at least I can snap a few pics of beauty and escape it all once in a while!
-KK

 

[Simon photo]

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start!

Really?
Enlighten me.

 

[snapalot]

Geographic location is useful to target your audience, but I don't see what relevance a physical address has. In fact I can't think of a single press photographer that lists their full address.

1. If you run a business it is a legal requirement to display an address on a website.
2. The main reason most don't is it's probably NOT a declared business, cash in hand etc etc.

If HMRC did check every photographer advertising his trade how many do you think would suddenly disappear forever, quite a lot I would think.

 

[jon ryan]

Originally Posted by DemiLion

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start!

Really?
Enlighten me.

 

[DemiLion]

Nope, not playing!

 

[DemiLion]

1. If you run a business it is a legal requirement to display an address on a website.
2. The main reason most don't is it's probably NOT a declared business, cash in hand etc etc.

If HMRC did check every photographer advertising his trade how many do you think would suddenly disappear forever, quite a lot I would think.

It's only a legal requirement if you are distance selling.

I'd be careful about accusing a large swathe of journalists of running illegal businesses, they tend to get a bit uppity about that sort of thing. It falls under two parts of law; defamation and malicious falsehood.

 

[treeman]

It's a slightly odd question, if you're talking about the top pro's all suddenly charging 75% less for their services, then no, it'll have little impact on the industry. (they'll just change the Merc a little less often).
But if by Low cost they mean poor quality as well?

 

[Photodiva]

Low cost photography has always been there, from the days of the old 125 film and Boots processing. What will change the industry is the development of stuff like 3-D and Hi-Def video. Where will the industry be in 10 years' time? Its changed dramatically in the last 10 years with digital, wi-fi and all the rest of the technology. Them that embrace new ideas will be at the forefront. I can see wedding photography changing beyond recognition, assuming people still want to get married in the future!

 

[jon ryan]

Nope, not playing!

Spoilsport.

 

[Simon photo]

Im not playing? Lol
Not trying to get you to bite at all.
I forget full frame lol but really? Are major advertising campaigns shot on anything less than D700 or a 5D?
And film is dead? Most situations yea like press and web based stuff yeah but high end users shooting on prosumer gear? And not using film anymore?

 

[POAH]

Really?
Enlighten me.

I think you live in a time bubble - very few people will use film because of the cost. difital has surpased MF film now anyway - only a fool would use it

 

[brianwar]

I think you live in a time bubble - very few people will use film because of the cost. difital has surpased MF film now anyway - only a fool would use it

Wouldn't a statement like that require some justification?

I'm not arguing that very few pros use film but to say that "only a fool would use it"?

 

[simonblue]

Wouldn't a statement like that require some justification?

I'm not arguing that very few pros use film but to say that "only a fool would use it"?

When I was a pro in the film era,let just say my film bill was

 

[POAH]

Wouldn't a statement like that require some justification?

I'm not arguing that very few pros use film but to say that "only a fool would use it"?

because of the cost - thought I made that pointin my original post :shrug:

 

[Little John]

There are people who will be happy to pay £20 for a "studio shoot" and get a disk of images. I know someone who seems to fills weekends and a few days during the week doing exactly that, shooting weddings with packages starting at £150 and full day coverage with disk of images and a bucket load of prints for £500. Promoted as reportage to excuse the odd angles shoot at, posed group shots at weddings as if someone else lined up the shot and they grabbed a snap from the side. They have done 17 weddings I know of in the last 12 months, christenings and all the portrait shoots they are raking it in. Shots artistically out of focus and if they can do selective colour on an image they will.

Unfortunately people are happy because of the price. Personally if and when I get married I know who will take the photos and I have told my sister who will do the photos at hers.

Does it harm the industry? probably but only by showing how bad things can be, the guy from Leeds way who was dragged through the media did a fair bit of damage but it has probably helped as well by making people more aware of the dross that is out there.

Commercial shooting? possibly not companies look at what the photographer has done before and they hire based on past work rather than price unless there are 2/3 people with similar quality of work then the deciding factor could come down to price but equally if the photographer is known to someone or any other random reason.

Family portrait market has always had the high street studios, the likes of venture probably did that some harm with the "hard sell" putting people off but it pushed people in to the smaller independents who offer better value for money and can offer the same product and a few different ideas as well.

 

[Photodiva]

There are people who will be happy to pay £20 for a "studio shoot" and get a disk of images. I know someone who seems to fills weekends and a few days during the week doing exactly that, shooting weddings with packages starting at £150 and full day coverage with disk of images and a bucket load of prints for £500. Promoted as reportage to excuse the odd angles shoot at, posed group shots at weddings as if someone else lined up the shot and they grabbed a snap from the side. They have done 17 weddings I know of in the last 12 months, christenings and all the portrait shoots they are raking it in. Shots artistically out of focus and if they can do selective colour on an image they will.

Said before, no doubt, but I can't work out how these people can earn a living from this. The hours spend at the event, hours spent after the event, equipment, software yadda yadda. £8,000 (as above) doesn't pay all the bills. Do they do this as a 'second' job? Weekend warrior? Either way, the scum bubbles to the top, gets scraped off.

 

[Gandhi]

If digital had indeed killed the pro, how come we struggle to find photographer who can

a) fulfill a very simple brief
b) set up a camera straight and level
c) use flash correctly
d) act in a professional manner with clients

Believe me, digital may well have armed a lot of people with the ability to shoot off thousands of frames and get 1 keeper after 3 hours work in photoshop, but real professionals who understand the craft of photography are very bloody scarce.

[/rant]

I know this as I have spent today sifting through 200 applications to arrive at only 5 people who's portfolios (if they bothered to provide one) weren't;

Wonky
Badly exposed
appallingly photoshopped
out of focus
completely inappropriate

Ah, i feel better for getting that off my chest!

 

[big soft moose]

Said before, no doubt, but I can't work out how these people can earn a living from this. The hours spend at the event, hours spent after the event, equipment, software yadda yadda. £8,000 (as above) doesn't pay all the bills. Do they do this as a 'second' job? Weekend warrior? Either way, the scum bubbles to the top, gets scraped off.

They probably shoot jpeg and provide the shots straight out of camera - that way there arent many PP hours spent and they can probably make a reasonable hourly rate

its like studio shots with a disc of 20 images for 20 quid bring em in - shoot shoot shoot 20 times, dump the photos to a laptop and burn to CD - an hour per shoot - 5 shoots per day £100 (virtually all profit - especially if their studio is actually their spare room or the garage in their mums house etc)

If theres sufficient custom £500 per week £24k per year - its not brewsters but its a living wage for naff all hard work

stack em high , sell em cheap , and hope their customers dont rumble that the products crap, or the inland revenue catch on that they arent paying their tax

 

[pooley]

I've found that it's definitely killing off certain areas such as mainstream sports shooting, ie action shots from the sidelines. It's much too easy to get average shots now by using auto modes and machine gunning whenever the ball comes into shot. The weekend warrior can charge a low price and be happy to see their pics in print. I honestly think the hardest part is getting the accreditation. The best photographers will remain the most creative but when I speak to old friends who are still in the game I'm so glad I quit when the going was good.

The same goes for wedding togs, the good ones can still command a decent fee but prints sold from the day must be dropping like stones. Photos are on Facebook before the first dance!

Commercial togs have it different, theirs is a more specialised field (sorry, don't want to sound like I'm belittling other fields) as Joe public can't approach a high end client and offer to do a few snaps.

Digital is brilliant for the amateur but is definitely making a lot of pros work harder to pay the bills than they did a few years back.

 

[Dblock]

I used to look at a picture and be like meh, but now I understand the effort involved to get the shot, the composition, the shutter speed used that gives a certain look, the depth of field and the PP. So being an newb which I can be due to low cost has given me the eye to see the effort gone into a picture so I respect the pro's more. IMO of course.

 

[Joenail]

So your sayin that perhaps gucci, porche, versace, vivien westward, rolex (the list goes on) film studios, advertising agencies, high street retailers are ringing up the "uncle bobs" because they are cheap, free even! And have got a "wow that's a nice camera"
No, your talkin tosh.
Carry on believing that everyone can be a pro cos they got a consumer camera yeah, truth be told. Most professionals are shooting medium format, large format, have done for years, film and digital, with film being the only choice for some even today. They know how to create an image, don't rely on machine gunning and are masters of their craft.

It's not only Gucci, Versace, etc, etc paying photographers though, is it. That's a part of the industry, yes, but there is a lot more to it. A lot of people are ringing up the 'uncle Bobs', which you hopefully will have realised by reading this thread. Digital, in itself, probably hasn't killed the industry or whatever, the fact that photography is an easy (which, yes, is helped largely by the digital age) thing to do now and everybody wants snaps of their friends holding beer at a party has made it easy to sell cheap digital cameras - 'all you have to do is click & we do the rest' is a prime example. Photography & photography
are two completely different things, there just isn't a clear dividing line yet. People are happy to pay 'uncle Bob' to do some portraits because they don't value or understand photography the same way we do. What they (or some of them anyway) want is some pictures of the family on the wall in IKEA frames, smiling, and, for 30 quid, that's what they get.

I think you live in a time bubble - very few people will use film because of the cost. difital has surpased MF film now anyway - only a fool would use it

I use film (medium format 6x6) and only that, because I like it (won't go into why, that could take a while!). I use it for all the commissions I get - gigs, portraits, whatever. The people who pay me are generally either pleased or intrigued by me showing up with my Yashica TLR and are happy to pay me a decent fee because they don't know of anyone else doing it. I get stopped in the street nearly every time I go out with a camera like that by people who are pleased to see someone still using film. I've never had anyone doubt me or my ability to make a photograph because of the medium I use. If anything I've found that they think the opposite.

Am I a fool?

-J

 

[Simon photo]

I didn't pigeon hole medium format to film, medium format digital too.
Would love to get my hands on a phase one body and an aptus back.

 

[POAH]

I didn't pigeon hole medium format to film, medium format digital too.
Would love to get my hands on a phase one body and an aptus back.

MF digital is far more than what a lot of people require, it also does not have the speed, the AF or the high ISO capability of high end DSLRs. the majority of pros will not be using MF digital. The only pros I've seen using MF digital have been on TV.

 

[POAH]

I used to use a bronica 6x4.5 too but I did it for fun and always used my digital camera first.

It's not only Gucci, Versace, etc, etc paying photographers though, is it. That's a part of the industry, yes, but there is a lot more to it. A lot of people are ringing up the 'uncle Bobs', which you hopefully will have realised by reading this thread. Digital, in itself, probably hasn't killed the industry or whatever, the fact that photography is an easy (which, yes, is helped largely by the digital age) thing to do now and everybody wants snaps of their friends holding beer at a party has made it easy to sell cheap digital cameras - 'all you have to do is click & we do the rest' is a prime example. Photography & photography
are two completely different things, there just isn't a clear dividing line yet. People are happy to pay 'uncle Bob' to do some portraits because they don't value or understand photography the same way we do. What they (or some of them anyway) want is some pictures of the family on the wall in IKEA frames, smiling, and, for 30 quid, that's what they get.





I use film (medium format 6x6) and only that, because I like it (won't go into why, that could take a while!). I use it for all the commissions I get - gigs, portraits, whatever. The people who pay me are generally either pleased or intrigued by me showing up with my Yashica TLR and are happy to pay me a decent fee because they don't know of anyone else doing it. I get stopped in the street nearly every time I go out with a camera like that by people who are pleased to see someone still using film. I've never had anyone doubt me or my ability to make a photograph because of the medium I use. If anything I've found that they think the opposite.

Am I a fool?

-J

 

[Little John]

Said before, no doubt, but I can't work out how these people can earn a living from this. The hours spend at the event, hours spent after the event, equipment, software yadda yadda. £8,000 (as above) doesn't pay all the bills. Do they do this as a 'second' job? Weekend warrior? Either way, the scum bubbles to the top, gets scraped off.

Yep, but if your running on an entry level camera and kit lens and some ebay lights with no insurance or paying your dues to HRMC and working out of your dining room £40 an hour for the shoots and cram them in for 4 days a week say 10 per day £800 per week is a good screw never mind any extra from weddings and christenings cost of 10 cdr per day and a sharpie. Even if you only do 5 per day £400 per week isnt to be sniffed at and no its not a 2nd job. Everyone seems to love what is produced appart from one person whos friend used them and told the bride what she thought of them really and it didnt go down well.

 

[Simon photo]

POAH where else have you seen photographers at the same level as the ones on tv? Apart from on tv? Perhaps that's why you have ONLY seen medium format used "on tv"

LITTLE JOHN
totally agree, if i ever moved into the field of photography it would have to be my only job, i think that is the crux of the situation, weekend warriors need not worry about gettin the clients in, if they have a bad month so what! The main job is paying the bills. Therefore they have no hunger or pressure to perform and deliver, pay for insurance, tax, maintenance, rent, its this lack of commitment that creates sloppy practitioners and as said before, are scum. But people will keep using them. Why buy five tins of cheap caviar and put yourself through misery eating it, instead of one expensive tin and loving it!
Its memorable, the proper stuff and it won't let you down

 

[POAH]

because they can afford it, its not the level. If I was rich I'd buy an MF digital it would not improve my ablity

POAH where else have you seen photographers at the same level as the ones on tv? Apart from on tv? Perhaps that's why you have ONLY seen medium format used "on tv"

 

[Toggerman]

Just because a photographer charges a lot does not mean that they are good either.

My wedding tog was over £800 10 years ago and TBH he was a massive disappointment. The images he did get were ok, nothing special, but his attitude was very poor. Our favourite images from the day actually came from relatives.

I also had a studio session done of my kids and my niece. £200 for an hour shoot with 22 images on a disc and 1 print. I still cannot decide if the softness is deliberate or not. The same company recently done kid's pre-school photos and aparrently loads of the parents have complained.

So whilst I agree that the digital revolution has made things harder for the professional photographer, it might not be such a bad thing in some cases as it'll make them up their game.

 

[Richard King]

So your sayin that perhaps gucci, porche, versace, vivien westward, rolex (the list goes on) film studios, advertising agencies, high street retailers are ringing up the "uncle bobs" because they are cheap, free even! And have got a "wow that's a nice camera"
No, your talkin tosh.
Carry on believing that everyone can be a pro cos they got a consumer camera yeah, truth be told. Most professionals are shooting medium format, large format, have done for years, film and digital, with film being the only choice for some even today. They know how to create an image, don't rely on machine gunning and are masters of their craft.

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that high end commercial photographers are "most professionals"

Professional photographers shoot allsorts including weddings, portraits, products, injuries, buildings, medical, forensic, press, sports, nature etc. etc.. And I can tell you that nowadays, "most professionals" don't shoot MF or large format

"Some Professionals" shoot MF or Large format