More redundant photographers!

[simonblue]

But that was then and this is now.

Some of the 'amateur' content for example on Flickr is mind blowingly good. People are cutting their teeth in different areas.

But its not just about the photos its about learning a trade,and the trick of it from those who been before,and in really bad situation about keeping you alive.

 

[simonblue]

Maybe it is the future where the readership of papers,care more about silly celeb photos,or at it worst hacking into the mobile phone of an poor murder girl

 

[Lindsay D]

I don't think many people are saying otherwise, the overriding message is regardless of the fine print of the situation if someone is happy with he terms on offer and they accept them it's their choice.

e.g.
Media behemoth : Can i use your pic even though i'm a commercial enterprise for my benefit and i'll print your name underneath.
Punter : Hell yeah i'll get me name in the paper and show my friends on Facebook. /walks away happy

Yes, absolutely, it is entirely up to any individual what they do with their photos. But to answer a previous point, I would think the discrepancy in opinion between pros and amateurs should be obvious. A working professional knows exactly what it costs him or her to step out of the door, and that won't include any variable costs which are potentially associated with the pictures they come home with. Whether the photographer is a hobbyist or not, those costs still exist. Whether they engage in photography for pleasure or business (and whether their photography is good or bad), they still have a financial burden associated with their photography (assuming we are not talking about a smart phone, but a half decent camera and lens, computer power and software). So aside from handing over their work, it has cost them something to produce it and their subsidy of the business in question is twofold.

This is the fundamental difference in thinking between amateur and professional camps and this is why professionals will try to encourage amateurs to think differently - it's not argument for argument's sake, it's given as genuine advice and the vanity aspect is something which most professionals cannot readily comprehend (although I fully accept your point that it exists). And here is the other thing - when an amateur is asked to justify this so-called satisfaction quotient, they usually can't. We know that it's not going to bring them work or recognition (which, interestingly, is often raised as a hopeful consequence of what they've done) unless accompanied by a specific feature, and even then the prospect of work is likely very limited. We also hear the portfolio argument which is mostly meaningless - and so on and so on. Most of us also know that a photo credit is worthless. So as you rightly say all that is left is the premise that the photographer can show their mates one of their pictures in the local rag and hope that someone will be impressed. I would think that nobody is going to be impressed - making it that much harder to be impressed with yourself.

If that gives them a thrill, then so be it. Professionals really can't be blamed for taking the stance that they do - it's because they're business people. And if this debate takes place in the business section of the forum (which it sometimes does) then of course a given OP should expect businesslike advice by default. I think that if a person wants to give his or her work away then it makes far more sense to seek out a cause or charity they believe in - an entity which would genuinely benefit from some help. I did that recently for a special and much-loved bird sanctuary and conservation centre which may be facing closure due to spiralling running costs - in return I was given complimentary tickets for next year (I hadn't asked for anything), which I really appreciated because I care about what they do. This is where that elusive feelgood factor should come from - not to pandering to a faceless suit who gloats every time he or she gets something for nothing.

 

[big soft moose]

. This is where that elusive feelgood factor should come from - not to pandering to a faceless suit who gloats every time he or she gets something for nothing.

nicely put Lindsay

Its an interesting point - you've got a lot of people saying that having their name in the paper will impress their mates and thus make them feel good about themselves, but is that really the case ? In an era where virtually anybody can get a picture printed regardless of an photographic talent or the quality of the shot, a more likely scenario is the tog saying " I haz picture in the paper look" and their mates saying "meh , so what" which isnt going to lead to feeling great about it.

One exception to that is photographic magazines - but here the quality is being tested so getting your shots featured in say outdoor photography might be something to be proud of , because its still reasonably difficult to do. But saying in essence "hey I did something that anyone with a smartphone can do" isn't exactly much of a brag unless your freinds are very easy to impress.

 

[fastworldimages]

Some peoples egos considerably out weigh their respect for others sadly it seems.

The attitude of 'you should re-train for another career' because I want to give my work away really is an awful example of human nature.

Why should others re train because you are individually selfish/self absorbed....

meh..

 

[Laudrup]

Yes, absolutely, it is entirely up to any individual what they do with their photos. But to answer a previous point, I would think the discrepancy in opinion between pros and amateurs should be obvious. A working professional knows exactly what it costs him or her to step out of the door, and that won't include any variable costs which are potentially associated with the pictures they come home with. Whether the photographer is a hobbyist or not, those costs still exist. Whether they engage in photography for pleasure or business (and whether their photography is good or bad), they still have a financial burden associated with their photography (assuming we are not talking about a smart phone, but a half decent camera and lens, computer power and software). So aside from handing over their work, it has cost them something to produce it and their subsidy of the business in question is twofold.

This is the fundamental difference in thinking between amateur and professional camps and this is why professionals will try to encourage amateurs to think differently - it's not argument for argument's sake, it's given as genuine advice and the vanity aspect is something which most professionals cannot readily comprehend (although I fully accept your point that it exists). And here is the other thing - when an amateur is asked to justify this so-called satisfaction quotient, they usually can't. We know that it's not going to bring them work or recognition (which, interestingly, is often raised as a hopeful consequence of what they've done) unless accompanied by a specific feature, and even then the prospect of work is likely very limited. We also hear the portfolio argument which is mostly meaningless - and so on and so on. Most of us also know that a photo credit is worthless. So as you rightly say all that is left is the premise that the photographer can show their mates one of their pictures in the local rag and hope that someone will be impressed. I would think that nobody is going to be impressed - making it that much harder to be impressed with yourself.

If that gives them a thrill, then so be it. Professionals really can't be blamed for taking the stance that they do - it's because they're business people. And if this debate takes place in the business section of the forum (which it sometimes does) then of course a given OP should expect businesslike advice by default. I think that if a person wants to give his or her work away then it makes far more sense to seek out a cause or charity they believe in - an entity which would genuinely benefit from some help. I did that recently for a special and much-loved bird sanctuary and conservation centre which may be facing closure due to spiralling running costs - in return I was given complimentary tickets for next year (I hadn't asked for anything), which I really appreciated because I care about what they do. This is where that elusive feelgood factor should come from - not to pandering to a faceless suit who gloats every time he or she gets something for nothing.

I keep seeing this 'so be it' attitude from pros followed by telling an amateur what they should and shouldn't do. Do pros think they are the custodians of photography or something?

 

[Steve Smith]

I keep seeing this 'so be it' attitude from pros followed by telling an amateur what they should and shouldn't do. Do pros think they are the custodians of photography or something?

They shouldn't be because they are very much in the minority.


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

The attitude of 'you should re-train for another career' because I want to give my work away really is an awful example of human nature.
..

course what's really gone wrong is papers printing any old crap - if they demanded a reasonable quality then the pro would have a sporting chance of competing on quality rather than price (as a wedding photographer thats my view - i don't worry about people doing it for £100 or for experience, because I can offer something they can't). However if the papers print the cheapest possible (ie free) image regardless of whether its any good or not then theres no way any pro or aspiring pro can compete, and in that market i would tend to advise either finding a niche that only you can deliver (such as with top end football where any random can't get a dataco licence) , or retraining to do something more lucrative.

 

[Laudrup]

Some peoples egos considerably out weigh their respect for others sadly it seems.

The attitude of 'you should re-train for another career' because I want to give my work away really is an awful example of human nature.

Why should others re train because you are individually selfish/self absorbed....

meh..

If a kid can do your job with what they have in their pocket then you are on a shoogly peg.

 

[ghoti]

Some peoples egos considerably out weigh their respect for others sadly it seems.

The attitude of 'you should re-train for another career' because I want to give my work away really is an awful example of human nature.

Why should others re train because you are individually selfish/self absorbed....

meh..

Individuals should retrain or diversify because, unfortunately for many pros, that market only valued photography due to limited historical supply. Now that the supply is astronomical, the value has crashed and stamping their feet about it and saying that it's not fair won't do them any good. The cat's out of the bag.

It's reminds me a little of that episode of The Simpsons with the Flaming Moes.

 

[fastworldimages]

Markets change and evolve it will always have ups and downs.

As i said, the attitude of I don't give a damn about the damage I can do to others is the sad part.

That has nothing to do with quality/a kid with a phone. Thats to do with peoples attitudes.

 

[simon ess]

Some peoples egos considerably out weigh their respect for others sadly it seems.

The attitude of 'you should re-train for another career' because I want to give my work away really is an awful example of human nature.

Why should others re train because you are individually selfish/self absorbed....

meh..

With the greatest respect, I think this rather misses the point.

This is an interesting discussion, but actually largely irrelevant.

It's not about what people think or believe, or what people should and should not do, or even amateur v pro.

The bottom line is what is actually happening within the industry. Is the professional photography industry changing? Yes.

Why? All the reasons discussed.

The only relevant question for pros is what are they, as individuals going to do about it?

If they fail to adapt or to come up with a business model that works in the new environment, then yes they will have to look for another career.

 

[ghoti]

course what's really gone wrong is papers printing any old crap - if they demanded a reasonable quality then the pro would have a sporting chance of competing on quality rather than price (as a wedding photographer thats my view - i don't worry about people doing it for £100 or for experience, because I can offer something they can't). However if the papers print the cheapest possible (ie free) image regardless of whether its any good or not then theres no way any pro or aspiring pro can compete, and in that market i would tend to advise either finding a niche that only you can deliver (such as with top end football where any random can't get a dataco licence) , or retraining to do something more lucrative.

Papers don't care because their market doesn't care (print quality in papers and most mags is 5h1t anyway). A while back they had little choice but to go with pros because pros would be out there finding the news, or responding to requests. The pros would have equipment that could produce images that weren't a total dog's dinner. Being technically perfect was never much of a consideration; it was always mostly just about not being awful. Now that decent cameras are everywhere, all the time, that's no longer an issue.

 

[Laudrup]

What amuses me the most are the amateur photographers crying about their right to give away their shots for nothing so that their 'artwork' can be admired by a wider audience.

Well I've got news for you...

Your vanity publishing is going to disappear far faster than the media's need for professional imagery.

Within five years local and regional print versions of titles will have ceased to exist apart from the very odd exception. Everything will be online.

Once that happens, your 'reader submitted pic' will languish on an out of the way URL that no one will ever see.

Have fun!

How difficult is it going to be to link to a URL in 5 years? The future is already here with people consuming their news in video from mobile phones and tablets. If anything the phone camera technology, new distribution platforms, social media and increased connectivity of the world would make it likely even more people will see your pictures rather than being in the dying print media.

 

[Sharky]

Its an interesting point - you've got a lot of people saying that having their name in the paper will impress their mates and thus make them feel good about themselves, but is that really the case ? In an era where virtually anybody can get a picture printed regardless of an photographic talent or the quality of the shot, a more likely scenario is the tog saying " I haz picture in the paper look" and their mates saying "meh , so what" which isnt going to lead to feeling great about it.

I think feel good about themselves isn't the best wording, happy to see it printed or online yes certainly. Case in point (and can get screenshots if required to prove not a BS story) a friend of mine took some images and posted them up on Facebook. Then a week or so later posted a link to a BBC 'Your Pictures' feature and i quote "no2 is stunning, no5 looks familiar ". He was certainly pleased to have an image he'd submitted published online enough to share it with his Facebook friends, it got a number of likes include his mum and i imagine she was pleased / proud. He's not a adhd teenager who is constantly craving attention or recognition, he's a 40 odd year old civil servant who likes taking pictures and to him to get it on a section of the Beeb was cool, certainly enough to share that with his friends and family.

The situation above isn't like for like what we're discussing e.g. newspapers filling their pages with user content vs staffers. But my point is people can be very happy with a simple name in print or similar and that is reward enough.

@Lindsay D , reply later to your post as its worthy of a good read over

 

[DemiLion]

How difficult is it going to be to link to a URL in 5 years? The future is already here with people consuming their news in video from mobile phones and tablets. If anything the phone camera technology, new distribution platforms, social media and increased connectivity of the world would make it likely even more people will see your pictures rather than being in the dying print media.

Considering how many on here are saying that they want to see their images in print, that would sort of belie your comment.

It's a crying shame. Photographs should be printed, not constrained to digital pixels.

 

[DerekL]

Why do most pros have the opinion the all amateur output is inferior. A look at the photo forums on here prove this is not the case.
As for giving photos away I did it once. Did I get a buzz yes I did. Do I consider myself a dork no I don't.
I was the only one with the picture and enjoyed seeing it in the paper. I don't need to make money from photography
I have a job to do that.
Before anyone asks it's enterprise network configuration and Oracle databses so not much of a hobby.

 

[big soft moose]

Why do most pros have the opinion the all amateur output is inferior. A look at the photo forums on here prove this is not the case.

Who said it was ? - what I said was that the papers don't care about quality, an amateur might have taken a fantastic picture but thats not why the papers use it, they use it because its free (along with a whole load of dross - if you look in any local paper you'll see a lot of woeful pictures , in our local the sports section is particularly poor... i know paper print quality can account for softness etc but it doesnt account for awful composition)

As for giving photos away I did it once. Did I get a buzz yes I did. Do I consider myself a dork no I don't.
I was the only one with the picture and enjoyed seeing it in the paper. I don't need to make money from photography
.

If it was newsworthy and you really had full exclusivity then they had your keks off - thats about the only circumstance in which even an amateur can demand cash and get it (though of course it depends on how newsworthy - the lorry driver who got that buring concorde coming down a few years back alledgedly got 4 possibly 5 figures)

 

[Moadib]

Some peoples egos considerably out weigh their respect for others sadly it seems.

The attitude of 'you should re-train for another career' because I want to give my work away really is an awful example of human nature.

Why should others re train because you are individually selfish/self absorbed....

meh..

Really? I'd have thought that "newspapers can operate at lower costs, but everyone needs to keep paying more because the world owes me a living" is just as awful?

These days semiconductor facilities become ever more automated, a process that rapidly escalates each generation. We're not far off the point of silicon arriving at one end, and image sensors coming out the other, with robots having carried silicon from process to process. When we reach that stage of full automation, will you insist to pay the same original high price for your camera, in order to keep the semiconductor workers in a job? Or do you expect that the image sensor and chipset can be cheaper, therefore the camera must be cheaper (and force those poor semiconductor workers to retrain...)?

That's the rub. An acceptable service is available at a lower cost - it's a benefit to society (lower image input costs to books, newspapers, websites), but comes at a cost to some individuals. Which carries the higher weight? For sure each individual has their opinion (the "pro" and "amateur" photographers), but it's the overall impact on society that is the important one in my opinion.

 

[GeeJay57]

It gets worse. Now Prince Harry is giving away pictures to magazine publisher(s)...

 

[munch]

Some peoples egos considerably out weigh their respect for others sadly it seems.

The attitude of 'you should re-train for another career' because I want to give my work away really is an awful example of human nature.

Why should others re train because you are individually selfish/self absorbed....

meh..

You could totally turn that around, if you were so inclined. Like so many other things in life we are were we are and whilst I personally may not be altogether happy with that. It wouldn't stop me giving away my photographs if I felt like it.

 

[PaulF]

One of the main differences between pro's and amateur's is in the the way they both see and describe their images.
Pro's tend to see their images as their 'work' amateurs see their images as just that, their images.
So when a pro says an amateur is giving their 'work' away for free (or very little etc) that's not the way most amateurs would see it.

If the pro's in this thread could get away from thinking of everyone's images as 'work' they might have a better understanding of the amateur's viewpoint.

Just to be clear and before anyone asks, I have let loads of my images be used for absolutely free, mainly by the Scouts but others by grass roots level motor sport competitors.

I have no intention of ever selling my images, this to me is a hobby, something I enjoy doing and I never intend turning it into a job of any kind.

My work, Computer Server Engineer for want of a better title. So, as has run through this thread not something anyone can just do as a hobby, unlike photography.

Do I give my work away for free, no. Do I let my images be used for free by those I choose, yes.
Is it my concern if a pro looses out because I have let someone use one of my images, no, if that's an issue for the pro they should get images I either can't (access etc) or can't be bothered to.

Someone mentioned they sold sports images with with the proceeds going to a charity but if a pro turned up then they would not put the images up online due to not wanting to take any sales away from the pro. I would look at that the other way, unless the pro has been contracted by the event with exclusivity of course, the charity is loosing out on potential income there so I would carry on as normal.

 

[Ed Sutton]

If the pro's in this thread could get away from thinking of everyone's images as 'work' they might have a better understanding of the amateur's viewpoint.

Or perhaps the amateurs need to stop thinking of everyone's photos as worthless snaps? If you've put time and effort into making them they are work.

I'm not a pro photographer by the way, I just believe that the majority of creative endeavours in this country are undervalued - in financial terms and appreciation.

 

[PaulF]

Don't think anyone has suggested that the images produced by amateurs are to be categorised as 'worthless snaps'.
My point is that as pro's see their own images as their work they assume (in general) that everyone see their own images as 'work' too and that is not the case, some will but an awful lot won't.

Not everything you may put time and effort into is classed as work, some stuff is just fun, or a hobby. For instance you may put a lot of time and effort into training your dog, what you produce is not work but an obedient pet.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Don't think anyone has suggested that the images produced by amateurs are to be categorised as 'worthless snaps'.
My point is that as pro's see their own images as their work they assume (in general) that everyone see their own images as 'work' too and that is not the case, some will but an awful lot won't.

And my point is that everyone should see their photographs as work. If they don't then they are admitting their photographs are worthless.

 

[ghoti]

And my point is that everyone should see their photographs as work. If they don't then they are admitting their photographs are worthless.

That's a very money-centric way of looking at things. You don't have to measure the worth of your creative output in monetary terms. Money is just one of many ways in which things can be valued.

 

[Moadib]

And my point is that everyone should see their photographs as work. If they don't then they are admitting their photographs are worthless.

No, and no. The images I end up with are 100% the result of play, and I know from experience they're not worthless. But if I set out to create them as "work" then it would defeat MY object in making the images, which is purely to enjoy the process. At the end I may end up with "worth" or with "worthless" - I don't care. It's the process of making the images and the ongoing process of learning I enjoy.

 

[Ed Sutton]

That's a very money-centric way of looking at things. You don't have to measure the worth of your creative output in monetary terms. Money is just one of many ways in which things can be valued.

It's not money centric, it's fairness. If the pictures are being used by someone else to line their pockets then the photographer deserves a cut. If there's no profit involved then do what the hell you like.

No, and no. The images I end up with are 100% the result of play, and I know from experience they're not worthless. But if I set out to create them as "work" then it would defeat MY object in making the images, which is purely to enjoy the process. At the end I may end up with "worth" or with "worthless" - I don't care. It's the process of making the images and the ongoing process of learning I enjoy.

If you don't 'do' anything with your pictures that's fine. Otherwise see above.

 

[DT01]

The issue here is not whether an amateur's images are seen as 'work' but whether a publication sees them as 'content'. The purpose of the content is to make money from sales and advertising. Everyone involved in creating this content, from the editorial team to ad sales gets paid yet, it has become acceptable for photographers to be seen as fair game for exclusion from this arrangement. The reason for this has been well documented.

We're probably overdue a thread from a hobbyist photographer complaining about some pro being arsey when they were asked for some advice.

Give what you want to who you want but don't expect a pat on the back from those of us who are doing it for a living.

 

[rpsmith79]

And my point is that everyone should see their photographs as work. If they don't then they are admitting their photographs are worthless.

But if photography is not your job, why should i think of it as work

Most amateurs partake in photography as a hobby, myself included, and the last thing i want to do is treat my photography as work, isn't that the whole point of a hobby

My photos do not cost me anything to produce them, and yes i get that the camera i use wasn't free, or the electricity i use to power my laptop to edit them isn't free, but again, it's a hobby, and i don't know of many hobbies that are 100% free

For example, if i get asked to play in a mates 5 a side team, i won't ask him how much that are going to pay me to play because i had to buy some boots, and pay for petrol to get there, i do it as i enjoy playing football

 

[ghoti]

They might "deserve" a cut if they want one. What many people seem to struggle with is that many others simply don't care. They're not ignorant of the financial side of things, they're just not all that interested.

Also, as an aside, the amount of profit a newspaper is going to make from running a particular (unremarkable, non-exclusive) photo vs not running it is going to be ridiculously hard to quantify anyway. It's probably negligible in most cases.

 

[DT01]

Also, as an aside, the amount of profit a newspaper is going to make from running a particular (unremarkable, non-exclusive) photo vs not running it is going to be ridiculously hard to quantify anyway. It's probably negligible in most cases.

Then why bother? If they felt they didn't need the eye candy, they wouldn't ask for it. It's only the proliferation of amateurs who want their egos scratching that has created the opportunity to cut out that cost and come up with the 'we don't have a budget' line.

The race to the bottom on price and quality is evident everywhere. Fortunately, there are other markets to pursue.

 

[ghoti]

Then why bother? If they felt they didn't need the eye candy, they wouldn't ask for it. It's only the proliferation of amateurs who want their egos scratching that has created the opportunity to cut out that cost and come up with the 'we don't have a budget' line.

The race to the bottom on price and quality is evident everywhere. Fortunately, there are other markets to pursue.

The point is that the audience likes pictures but doesn't care a great deal about what those pictures are (except in certain niche publications). They're mostly window dressing. What I'm saying is that quantifying the contribution of "particular" non-exclusive photographs to profit is going to be difficult. You might say that having photos puts you at an advantage against a competing publication that has no photos at all but, beyond that, it's very difficult to stick numbers on it.

 

[Ed Sutton]

They might "deserve" a cut if they want one. What many people seem to struggle with is that many others simply don't care. They're not ignorant of the financial side of things, they're just not all that interested.

I bet they wouldn't turn some cash down if it was offered though.

 

[DT01]

The point is that the audience likes pictures but doesn't care a great deal about what those pictures are (except in certain niche publications). They're mostly window dressing. What I'm saying is that quantifying the contribution of "particular" non-exclusive photographs to profit is going to be difficult. You might say that having photos puts you at an advantage against a competing publication that has no photos at all but, beyond that, it's very difficult to stick numbers on it.

Of course it's difficult to stick numbers on it and nobody really would want to test it so, we are still in a situation where the content, whether good, bad or average, has a perceived value and is seen as a necessity. The problem is that getting the pictorial content for free, or at least for as little as possible, is now seen as a priority and there is no shortage of willing volunteers to supply that content.

So the editorial team get paid, the ad sales team get paid, the admin staff get paid and the contract cleaners get paid, but the guy who shot the double page spread gets 'exposure'! It doesn't matter though because, through his day job in IT, he personally subsidises the magazine and the editor gets a pat on the back from the publisher for keeping costs down!

 

[Ed Sutton]

For example, if i get asked to play in a mates 5 a side team, i won't ask him how much that are going to pay me to play because i had to buy some boots, and pay for petrol to get there, i do it as i enjoy playing football

Do the rest of the team get paid?

I enjoy writing. I write a blog that makes me no money (and one that indirectly promotes my business) which costs me nowt but my time as it's on Blogger, but if I write for a commercially available publication I expect to get paid. I've been offered the chance of writing chapters in couple of books for nothing more than a copy of the book by editors who will be getting a royalty - not to mention the publishers' profits. They get told to shove it. Like I said earlier - fairness.

 

[Lindsay D]

Years ago, people purchased newspapers for two main reasons - the stories, and the photographs which went with them. The same still stands for some the most respected journals. But many others (now that professional press photographers are becoming rare) now have such poor quality photographic content that I'm left in no doubt that this has partly contributed to the demise of some of them. You cannot expect to sell enough of something without quality content. But these days we have celebrity drivel and mostly poor photographs donated by readers or stolen from the Internet. No wonder people don't want to buy hard copy papers any more.

I see that some large high profile organisations are constantly issuing wave after wave of redundancies - getting rid of well trained and highly skilled personnel and instead bringing in new graduates from Eastern Europe who are very much cheaper (they can work from their home country) who lack experience and knowhow - the consequences have been very poor service to the clients and lost business. Some of the companies I'm talking about, after they lay off their best people, end up having to rehire those people as contractors - which costs the business even more in the long run. The endless quest for ever cheaper resources and suppliers very rarely pays off.

I know someone who invested a huge amount in a fitness business. Their website looked good, they prided themselves on offering only the very best service, experts, and facilities. And as you can understand, they were far from cheap. But they decided not to pay for professional photography when it came to documenting their premises, locations, staff, etc. They got a relative to take some snaps instead. And then they wondered why they weren't getting many bookings - it took them a little while to stop and consider the kind of message they were putting across to their prospective clients, and how the awful photographs made their business look. It's not that they didn't want fabulous photography, they just weren't prepared to pay someone to do it. When we look at a respected brand or a discerning local business we tend to see the same thing - excellent photographs which are the single most important factor in promoting their services or products. There is an argument that there are "plenty of great amateurs out there who can do the same job as a professional". I have contact with a lot of professionals and amateurs each week. In the years I've been doing this I haven't come across more than a couple of well skilled amateurs who can deliver top-notch commercial photography. They do exist, but not in the volumes some people might think. I'm sure there will be the odd exception, but the ones I have come across (if they get asked to do paid work on an occasional basis) charge about the same rates that I would charge.

Many newspapers will accept any old rubbish, and in my experience when they're using a noteworthy photograph it often turns out to be stolen.

 

[DemiLion]

Also, as an aside, the amount of profit a newspaper is going to make from running a particular (unremarkable, non-exclusive) photo vs not running it is going to be ridiculously hard to quantify anyway. It's probably negligible in most cases.

You must be some amazing kind of a savant.

If what you suggest is true, could you explain why photographic staff positions in local and regional press are now all but non-existent, freelance contracts have been torn up and the papers are full of reader generated content?

Perhaps you know something that the new-industry accountants aren't aware of?

 

[PaulF]

And my point is that everyone should see their photographs as work. If they don't then they are admitting their photographs are worthless.

Then your and my definition of worthless differ somewhat, which is fine, each to their own.

I bet they wouldn't turn some cash down if it was offered though.

You'd be surprised then I guess. Personally, can't be bothered with the extra tax forms to fill out.

 

[ghoti]

You must be some amazing kind of a savant.

If what you suggest is true, could you explain why photographic staff positions in local and regional press are now all but non-existent, freelance contracts have been torn up and the papers are full of reader generated content?

Perhaps you know something that the new-industry accountants aren't aware of?

You think one could reliably calculate profit generated from a particular, non-exclusive, unremarkable, illustrative photograph vs not running that photograph in particular?