Manchester Band require photographer for promotional photos

How else does an amateur who want to get his/her name out there get exposure if he/she does not initially make some sacrifises? I can understand if a pro does not do it but if someone is just starting out and is quite capable then why not?
 
why be so negative?
this statement shows you have no knowledge and have no feel for the music,99% of all concerts you pay to go in.i should know i go to up to 4 a week.i am there to enjoy myself.


Yes, but you are not there to enjoy them you are there to work. Most unsigned bands gigs are free to no cost anyway.
 
ziggy©;2554860 said:
How else does an amateur who want to get his/her name out there get exposure if he/she does not initially make some sacrifises?
Click to expand...

according to certain people you're not !
 
ziggy©;2554860 said:
How else does an amateur who want to get his/her name out there get exposure if he/she does not initially make some sacrifises? I can understand if a pro does not do it but if someone is just starting out and is quite capable then why not?
Click to expand...

How do people expect a pro to make a living if theres allways amateurs wanting to do it for free. How do these amateurs who aspire to eventually make a living off photography expect to do so if everyones giving their work away? :thinking:
 
Its a conundrum for sure, but there are thousands of signed bands that can get their pictures done by pros, so its not like they are going to starve because a few new bands have their pics done by an Amateur..

Also, who says that an Amateurs pictures are going to be any worse than a pro? iv seen many images on this site that would put a lot of pros to shame!

But i can see everyone's point..
 
straycat said:
why be so negative?
this statement shows you have no knowledge and have no feel for the music,99% of all concerts you pay to go in.i should know i go to up to 4 a week.i am there to enjoy myself.


Yes, but you are not there to enjoy them you are there to work. Most unsigned bands gigs are free to no cost anyway.
Click to expand...

I think if you check my site I have plenty of feel for the music thank you very much!

My point is not about the amateur or their quality, but more about the fact that bands cannot see the point in paying out for a professional, yet will spend hundreds of pounds on equipment, pressing CD's etc. It is exactly the same as getting someone who is not a wedding photographer to shoot a wedding for free. You might get some great pics, but probably not the same as if you spent out on a pro wedding photographer. couples spend thousands on the wedding and then want to spend £100 on the pics of the day, and we have all moaned about this, so why is music different?

I have nothing against shooting bands for free, or doing gigs for free, I have done it for local bands with friends in etc. You are missing my point.

This band sound like they are looking to be signed, they are sending their stuff out to record companies, radio stations etc. This is not the same as some band starting out in a pub, doing it for a laugh, this is the next step on the ladder, they are looking to get signed, and this is where professional standards are important.

Therefore they want their product to be perfect, the best way of assuring this is to pay for someone who does music photography to photograph them. It is frustrating how little value bands put on photographs in terms of their package to get signed. As you know image is important as the sound in music these days.

As a tip for the band and anyone photographing bands in general here are some things to avoid, and have a giggle while you are at it

http://www.rockandrollconfidential.com/hall/
 
Maybe you guys should offer a permanent position as band photographer if you make it big!
 
fraggle101 said:
Also, who says that an Amateurs pictures are going to be any worse than a pro? iv seen many images on this site that would put a lot of pros to shame!
Click to expand...

It's not about good or bad - it's about the VALUE people put on pictures!
 
ziggy©;2554860 said:
How else does an amateur who want to get his/her name out there get exposure if he/she does not initially make some sacrifises? I can understand if a pro does not do it but if someone is just starting out and is quite capable then why not?
Click to expand...

it's one thing for an amateur to offer their services for free, and another thing all together for someone to approach a large group of Amateurs, Pro's and SemiPro's and ask for something for free.

How's the band going to be in 2 years time once they're signed and everyone's downloading their tracks via torrents and other filesharing sites instead of buying them? Hey, they're just digital files after all, you only need to click record and 3 minutes later there's your track...

No problem at all with any amateur going round local bands and asking if they want free shoots. But if you come asking for something for free to progress your career and not mine when you've probably got £30K worth of gear onstage, you'd best be able to justify why I should work for free.

I'd be fairly certain that those of us who charge for our services offer free stuff from time to time as it may be something we feel strongly about, believe we can make a difference, find the project interesting or a potential springboard for other things.

BTW, if anyone knows a landscaper, my garden needs some work, especially taking up the hardstanding and replacing it with lawn / deck. I don't want to pay but will make the tea, and do a few portraits of them though...
 
JasonRS said:
it's one thing for an amateur to offer their services for free, and another thing all together for someone to approach a large group of Amateurs, Pro's and SemiPro's and ask for something for free.

How's the band going to be in 2 years time once they're signed and everyone's downloading their tracks via torrents and other filesharing sites instead of buying them? Hey, they're just digital files after all, you only need to click record and 3 minutes later there's your track...

No problem at all with any amateur going round local bands and asking if they want free shoots. But if you come asking for something for free to progress your career and not mine when you've probably got £30K worth of gear onstage, you'd best be able to justify why I should work for free.

I'd be fairly certain that those of us who charge for our services offer free stuff from time to time as it may be something we feel strongly about, believe we can make a difference, find the project interesting or a potential springboard for other things.

BTW, if anyone knows a landscaper, my garden needs some work, especially taking up the hardstanding and replacing it with lawn / deck. I don't want to pay but will make the tea, and do a few portraits of them though...
Click to expand...

YES! but the words 'brick' 'head' 'wall' 'bury' 'sand' spring to mind - not necessarily in that order - when posting here!
 
Last edited:
a lot of bands i go to see do it for the love of the music.

the venue and door staff get paid not neccesarily the bands they often dont get paid anything,not even petrol money.

they have basic instuments bought over the years and no real disposable income.

mainley because it just dosent add up no one pays more than £5 to see a local group and you aint going to fill out a 5,000 seater hall.

as far as i am aware most here do photography as a hobby not a job.

its not the rolling stones asking anton corbijn for a free shoot its a local group.

you can say no or yes.

look at astrids photos of the beatles before they where famous paid or not i wouldnt have turned them down.
 
Why is everyone up in arms about this. I'm fairly sure it was a question at the start of this thread, is it not easier to say no than to have a rant?
 
it's maybe all that will be seen in the final image . . .
 
Hi Ali

Shot from near-by with a few Stellas tbh

Admittedly, sky does look a bit overcast when you look closely though.
 
Last edited:
I take it then that all the people on here that are against amateurs doing shoots for free stick to these principles in other situations ?

I'd hate to think anyone helps anyone out with anything when there are professionals out there waiting to be paid !
 
Why has it been assumed that the only purpose in photography is a commercial one!?!?!?!
 
davidbridges said:
Why has it been assumed that the only purpose in photography is a commercial one!?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Photography can of course be a hobby, but if images are being used to promote something that is for sale, then surely the photographer deserves paid. I understand local bands don't have much money, I deal with them every day, but split between 3 band members, throwing the photographer £20 each isn't a huge ask.

That's it from me in this thread, I think it's just going to go round in circles from here so I'll bow out now.
 
I have just one comment to make! There is supply and demand involved here! A basic 'law' of supply and demand is that is supply outstrips demand then the price falls. Now I haven't counted but a fair number offered to do this work for free... The second law of supply and demand is that for a product that is free the demand is without limit. {its why the NHS can never truely succeed!]
So I am with the the Doc on this one, any service or product must be worth something!

Dunc
 
mrgas said:
I take it then that all the people on here that are against amateurs doing shoots for free stick to these principles in other situations ?
Click to expand...

But this isn't just a case of amateurs offering it for a free, it's a case of somebody who would normally have to pay a photographer to give them images that'll impress the people they want to impress (magazines, record companies, etc) and expecting somebody to come and do it for free.

It's about people doing something for free, for somebody they don't know and have no emotional ties to, that's going to give that somebody a commercial benefit. Why should the photographer (regardless of "amateur" or "professional" status) not get what they deserve?

Yes, it may be a hobby, but is it not a hobby that can require you to go out and spend £500-4000 on a camera body, £500-5000 on lenses, £500-1000 on a computer to post process the photos, and potentially thousands more in speedlights, tripod, bags, filters, etc?

Why should an amateur spend all this money and help a commercial entity for nothing and not receive something return if their work deserves it?

If their work doesn't deserve any reward, then the commercial entity expecting free work gets what they deserve. :)
 
ding76uk said:
Can I ask those of you who think this is fine, how many would say the same if it was a free wedding shoot?
Click to expand...

Sorry but surely a wedding is a lot more hassle than a few photos for a new band? :thinking:

I would love the opportunity, if it came up for me in my area and I felt confident enough I would love it :)

Good luck to you!

PS. Sorry Kaouthia I edited my post and didn't notice you had posted already...
 
Last edited:
Mitch.Carter said:
and they aren't asking for anything professional
Click to expand...

An "amateur" can still produce "professional" quality work, even if it his simply a hobby that brings in no income.

If they aren't asking for anything of "professional" quality, then why not just hand a point and shoot to a member of their audience? Why bother posting on here at all?
 
awp said:
so, photographers, (WHO MAYBE ARE USING UP TO £10k OF EQUIPMENT) are less worthy of reward than club door staff? :thinking:
Click to expand...

the photographers get something from it, the same thing we get everytime we take a good image
 
Mitch.Carter said:
Sorry but surely a wedding is a lot more hassle than a few photos for a new band? :thinking:
Click to expand...

No:bang: Done properly it is hard if not harder!

Again to point out for local bands I have met and have been sound with me, I have done free stuff for them, I am not against it, I have done it before, and will again. But, and it is a big but. I do not do freebies for people who advertise for a photographer, people I have never met, and people who make it clear that they are using it for commercial purposes.

If you want pics, ask a friend with a point and shoot if you do not want pro quality, or put your hand in your pocket and spend a few quid to get someone to do it for you. 4 people in a band, £20 each is enough to pay someone for a shoot. A nights drinking money each will get you some high quality images and pays for the photographers time, and helps them get some money towards their next purchase as well as the promotion. It is that simple:bang::bang::bang::bang:

david1701 said:
the photographers get something from it, the same thing we get everytime we take a good image
Click to expand...

Yes, but if a National Newspaper asked you to shoot a cover, would you do it for free? "Well this is my hobby, I get a good pic out of it". Do you not mind people benefiting from your hard work, and making money from stuff you have done without you getting anything from it?

straycat said:
thats summed it up well, its a hobby for most of us with other values.
Click to expand...

It sums up the reason why photography is becoming harder to be a viable profession. Too many willing to work for an ego stroke, and to make themselves feel good.:shrug:

If anyone knows a plumber, carpenter and tv engineer or accountant. i need work from all of you to make my wife's business and our house more successful for me.

I cant pay as I am not very rich, but will put you on my myspace page (more than 200 friends), tweet about you (heck I have nearly 70 followers) put you on my blog (max hit was 243 in one day) you will get loads of exposure from me. I will put the kettle on for you and buy a pack of Hob Nobs, just form an orderly queue. anyone up for it??? Thought not

This thread is the encapsulation of what is wrong with photography at the moment!

I really am out of this thread now, as I do not want to get personal and peoples opinions are making me want to shout, so I will also leave you to argue how bad people like me and the Doc are.

I am probably too corporate, and not Rock n' Roll enough for you anyways.
 
so this site is for proffesional photographers whos income comes soley from photography them?

its horses for courses
 
Kaouthia said:
An "amateur" can still produce "professional" quality work, even if it his simply a hobby that brings in no income.

If they aren't asking for anything of "professional" quality, then why not just hand a point and shoot to a member of their audience? Why bother posting on here at all?
Click to expand...

Because they know people on a photography site would be interested in a shoot with a band, they might have thought people would like to have the opportunity to shoot a band... Or they might have just wanted someone who knew how to use a camera/create a nice image to take their pictures rather than someone snapping away with a p&s.
 
If people want the "opportunity" to shoot with a band, why wouldn't those people contact local bands and say "Hey, I'd like to have a go at shooting a band, I can't gaurantee results as I've never done it before, but if I get anything decent feel free to have a copy to stick on your facebook or whatever"? That person might not shoot anything decent and the band gets nothing out of it, the photographer still gets his lesson & experience, and gets closer to learning what works and what doesn't.

This is a completely different situation. This isn't a photographer asking if he can shoot a band, this is a band looking for a handout for COMMERCIAL QUALITY images for website and CD cover and to promote the band (something they hope to make them some money). Why do you seem to have a hard time grasping this?
 
Look at it like this.............

If I did the shoot

Cost to hire me.

2 hour shoot @ £35 an hour = £70

Cost to them

A pint of nice beer, a sandwich = £8

Advertising on their site for 1 year = £20

Advertising on their CD's = £100


Who is out of pocket?
 
It's only really advertising if it's promoting you. I've yet to see a CD cover with a URL on it to the photographer or artist who created the images for the covers.

Advertising on their website only really works if your potential market are looking at their website. Their local fans are often not your potential clients, and again it depends on whether they actually link to you or not.

So, even from a commercial aspect, is the income that you might receive due to the "job" even worth the £128 figure you've come up with (plus your travel costs, hourly rate to organise and post-process the images, cost of discs, packaging, head down to the post office, etc). Or is it just going to result in you getting contacted by a lot more people wanting freebies?
 
Kaouthia said:
It's only really advertising if it's promoting you. I've yet to see a CD cover with a URL on it to the photographer or artist who created the images for the covers.

Advertising on their website only really works if your potential market are looking at their website. Their local fans are often not your potential clients, and again it depends on whether they actually link to you or not.

So, even from a commercial aspect, is the income that you might receive due to the "job" even worth the £128 figure you've come up with (plus your travel costs, hourly rate to organise and post-process the images, cost of discs, packaging, head down to the post office, etc). Or is it just going to result in you getting contacted by a lot more people wanting freebies?
Click to expand...

I am not printing I am supplying images, ever heard of electronic mail, you need to read the thread.

I am confident that my PP work will be minimal and won't take more than 30 mins tops.

If you don't think you can do it in my time frame then maybe you are doing your stuff wrong.
 
tiler65 said:
If you don't think you can do it in my time frame then maybe you are doing your stuff wrong.
Click to expand...
Or maybe I just have higher standards regarding the final results I deliver to my clients?

Chase Jarvis, as an example, has a dedicated Photoshopper that can spend up to 18 hours on a single image post-processing for an album cover.
 
Good grief, these are not the Rolling Stones, they are a band starting out playing for free, giving their music away for free. Like I say, read the thread.

As a footnote, this will be my last post on the thread because I don't want to spoil the chances of the band gaining what they want.
 
Yes, they are a band starting out, which means they need to work even harder than bands like the rolling stones, to use your example, in order to try to achieve what they want. Often, that comes at a cost.

Also done with this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top