More redundant photographers!

DT01 said:
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!
Click to expand...

As I seem to be the only person in this thread who has mentioned working in IT, I guess that's aimed at me?
Not all content in local newspapers is paid for content you know. It's not just some of the images that are contributed for free. Quite a bit of the written work is contributed by the readers too, often in the form of a press release from local groups or match reports from local teams.

By the way, I've never sent any images into a newspaper, just for the record.
 
PaulF said:
As I seem to be the only person in this thread who has mentioned working in IT, I guess that's aimed at me?
Not all content in local newspapers is paid for content you know. It's not just some of the images that are contributed for free. Quite a bit of the written work is contributed by the readers too, often in the form of a press release from local groups or match reports from local teams.

By the way, I've never sent any images into a newspaper, just for the record.
Click to expand...

Not at all!!! I know currently know several amateur photographers who work in IT and have met many more over the years so I was just latching on to a stereotype.

I know that not all content is paid for and that's the problem; that's what the thread is about is it not?!
 
ghoti said:
You think one could reliably calculate profit generated from a particular, non-exclusive, unremarkable, illustrative photograph vs not running that photograph in particular?
Click to expand...


I think that I can reliably see what is and has happened to the newspaper industry.

You know....

...seeing as I work in it.
 
PaulF said:
Not all content in local newspapers is paid for content you know. It's not just some of the images that are contributed for free. Quite a bit of the written work is contributed by the readers too, often in the form of a press release from local groups or match reports from local teams.
Click to expand...

Press releases have a purpose, and that purpose is normally to promote the person, group, or organisation which the release concerns. I have submitted several press releases over the years if I've done something interesting or noteworthy - the paper gets a bit of content and I get a nice plug for my business. It's a two-way street, unlike some of the photography where no one is going to even look at the photo credit (if the paper bothers to print it, or even gets it right).
 
Ed Sutton said:
Comedy gold! :D
Click to expand...
I aim to please :-D

On a more serious note, I'm not self employed and the time it would take to declare tax on an image sale of say £10-£15 is simply not worth it to me.

When people have asked to use any of my images I request a donation to their local scouts group ;-)
 
DT01 said:
Not at all!!! I know currently know several amateur photographers who work in IT and have met many more over the years so I was just latching on to a stereotype.

I know that not all content is paid for and that's the problem; that's what the thread is about is it not?!
Click to expand...


No worries.
 
PaulF said:
On a more serious note, I'm not self employed and the time it would take to declare tax on an image sale of say £10-£15 is simply not worth it to me.
Click to expand...

Would you really consider declaring £15 for tax purposes? You could probably find more than that in expenses to nullify it making it a waste of your and the taxman's time.


Steve.
 
DemiLion said:
I think that I can reliably see what is and has happened to the newspaper industry.

You know....

...seeing as I work in it.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here.

What I said was that it would be difficult to measure the potential profit generated by including a particular, individual image (for an image that is unremarkable - e.g. non-exclusive). Let's say there's a story about Westminster Abbey. And the paper wants to illustrate the story with a generic shot of Wesminster Abbey. What I'm saying is that it would be difficult to calculate different profit potential from different shots, and it might even be difficult to calculate the difference in potential profit if no shot was run at all.

Are you disputing that?
 
PaulF said:
I aim to please :-D

On a more serious note, I'm not self employed and the time it would take to declare tax on an image sale of say £10-£15 is simply not worth it to me.

When people have asked to use any of my images I request a donation to their local scouts group ;-)
Click to expand...

I take your point for a tenner, but I was thinking more along the lines of £150 upwards. Or whatever price point would make it worthwhile for a given income level.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I take your point for a tenner, but I was thinking more along the lines of £150 upwards. Or whatever price point would make it worthwhile for a given income level.
Click to expand...

Yes, charging a tenner isn't much different from giving the picture away for free. I can't see the point. If that's all someone wants to pay then dealing with their request isn't a good use of your time, and it does perpetuate the belief that photography is more or less worthless.
 
I think it very much depends on the value people place on their images.

Pros who earn a living from their photographs place a very different value on their output than amateurs who take photographs for the enjoyment of doing so. Semi-pros also have a very different outlook. @Lindsay D articulated it very well by writing how publishing a photo for credit does nothing for the photographer unless they are promoted - however in some instances, the mere attribution is promotion, depending on the publication and context. At @Lindsay D 's level, this is not sufficient value for her (and I don't blame her) but it may be sufficient value for someone starting out in the industry - someone who needs the exposure more than the cash value.

The point is, the interpretation of 'free' is subjective - an amateur who gets an image credited to them in a publication may not consider that they had received nothing in return for their image. Someone who has overheads directly associated to their photography would in all likelihood disagree - they have to pay for them somehow.

I don't subscribe to the view that anyone who gives away the fruits of their labour in return for 'something' that has sufficient return on investment for them will impact those who don't, but I do appreciate that we should draw attention to the thought process behind doing so. Discussions like these have really made me think about the value I place on my images and whether I would be prepared to work for 'free' or not. Also, I think that the awareness raised regarding unscrupulous tactics and practices by newspapers and (insert professions here) in soliciting images from people for the promise of exposure, should be a warning to anyone who values their images.

In my own career (non-photographic related), I have had to adapt and change my course to ensure I stayed ahead of the game. If I had sat back and moaned about all the amateurs who were encroaching on my space rather than diversifying and pushing myself to excel despite them, I'd never be where I am today. This is what sets pros (read, people who care enough about their chosen profession) apart from amateurs.

I don't care if people pimp themselves out for free or not. I don't believe that I will be unemployed because a few amateurs will somehow work me out of a job by performing my services for free. I excel at what I do and I will adapt or die.

If a newspaper asked me if they could publish my image for free, I'd be flattered. Would I allow them to do so? No... not unless I got sufficient return on investment, whatever that may mean to me.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here.

What I said was that it would be difficult to measure the potential profit generated by including a particular, individual image (for an image that is unremarkable - e.g. non-exclusive). Let's say there's a story about Westminster Abbey. And the paper wants to illustrate the story with a generic shot of Wesminster Abbey. What I'm saying is that it would be difficult to calculate different profit potential from different shots, and it might even be difficult to calculate the difference in potential profit if no shot was run at all.

Are you disputing that?
Click to expand...


Yes I'm absolutely disputing it. How do you think the editor assigns the size of images used and page placement? It's measured by gut instinct, feeling and experience.
 
DemiLion said:
Yes I'm absolutely disputing it. How do you think the editor assigns the size of images used and page placement? It's measured by gut instinct, feeling and experience.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? What has that got to do with calculating the extra sales expected from running one image vs another?

Can you say what it is you think I'm trying to argue?
 
ghoti said:
What are you talking about? What has that got to do with calculating the extra sales expected from running one image vs another?

Can you say what it is you think I'm trying to argue?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware an editor can gauge the 'value' of a photograph by determining its level of interest to their target audience. In image making terms this will include how unique the photograph is and how much impact it has, in other words if it is particularly newsworthy. The editor will determine the size at which the photograph will be printed based on these criteria. Historically there have been 'going rate' for images published at say quarter page, eighth page etc, and these rates have dwindled in recent years - partly due to the increased supply of images which are now deemed acceptable (rather than exceptional). It could be my imagination but I am seeing far less of the bigger images being published in certain newspapers and I have seen more and more newspapers trying to concentrate more on advertising. You can get an idea of what some journals or papers charge for advertising, advertorial, or editorial content by looking up their rate cards. You might see some extremely high figures.
 
Lindsay D said:
As far as I'm aware an editor can gauge the 'value' of a photograph by determining its level of interest to their target audience. In image making terms this will include how unique the photograph is and how much impact it has, in other words if it is particularly newsworthy. The editor will determine the size at which the photograph will be printed based on these criteria. Historically there have been 'going rate' for images published at say quarter page, eighth page etc, and these rates have dwindled in recent years - partly due to the increased supply of images which are now deemed acceptable (rather than exceptional). It could be my imagination but I am seeing far less of the bigger images being published in certain newspapers and I have seen more and more newspapers trying to concentrate more on advertising. You can get an idea of what some journals or papers charge for advertising, advertorial, or editorial content by looking up their rate cards. You might see some extremely high figures.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I made it explicit that I was talking about illustrative, unremarkable (e.g. non-exclusive) images. For example, a generic shot of Westminster Abbey illustrating a story about Westminster Abbey.
If someone has captured an image that shows something newsworthy as it happens (an "I was there" image), that's different. You may be able to get a somewhat firmer handle on how much that may be worth (although it's not going to be a science - as DemiLion said, that would be more gut instinct).
 
ghoti said:
What are you talking about? What has that got to do with calculating the extra sales expected from running one image vs another?

Can you say what it is you think I'm trying to argue?
Click to expand...


I'm repeatedly proving that you haven't got a scoobie-doo about the newspaper industry and probably very little about professional photography either.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm repeatedly proving that you haven't got a scoobie-doo about the newspaper industry and probably very little about professional photography either.
Click to expand...
So you're saying there's a reliable way to predict % increase in sales based on the image content of generic photographs. That sounds very interesting. What's the method? You spoke of accountants - who work with solid numbers and mathematical relationships - what algorithms are they using?
 
Most people who buy a newspaper will buy the same one every day and the inclusion of a single image will not dictate how many more or fewer copies are sold (other than an exceptional image on the front cover).

However, a paper which repeatedly has good images all the time will probably attract a different readership to one which doesn't. This might lead to higher sales.

It's a continuous process and perceived quality issue rather than one of choosing a single image.


Steve.
 
I actually look forward to the day when every single image in the newspapers are freebies from anyone with a camera or a phone, and to the day when those who send them sit back and say to themselves "well im not buying this crap anymore as the standard of images is shocking for a professional Daily Newspaper"
 
Steve Smith said:
Most people who buy a newspaper will buy the same one every day and the inclusion of a single image will not dictate how many more or fewer copies are sold (other than an exceptional image on the front cover).

However, a paper which repeatedly has good images all the time will probably attract a different readership to one which doesn't. This might lead to higher sales.

It's a continuous process and perceived quality issue rather than one of choosing a single image.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Sunday times magazine spectrum section. The guardian pieces, with Sean ohagan, sometimes the telegraph runs good photo based articles.
 
Do all that many people care about the quality of pictures in their newspapers?

Since page 3 is now not that socially acceptable (it never was to me) will all that many people care if the (non young lady) pictures are crappy ipone shots taken by someone at the back? Some readers of the better publications might care but I suspect that an awful lot of red top daily readers wouldn't, maybe they'd care about the pictures in the sports section but other than that I'm not sure picture quality matters all that much.
 
Thought provoking thread!

My local paper often runs a page of readers' photos at the weekend and frequently includes a shot or two throughout the week. I'm sure this helps them fill space at very low cost. To be honest, it often feels that the choice of local news stories is more about filling space than recounting interesting news. I guess there's simply not enough happening in a small town to fill a daily paper.

I don't see these photographs as being worthless simply because they've been offered freely to a commercial paper. They tend to come from the same small group of local photographers and I'm sure those photographers are delighted with their photos being glimpsed, however fleetingly, by many thousands of people. I know I would be if ever I achieved their level of competency.

One of the biggest puzzles to me as a newcomer to this photography lark is what does one do with all these photographs we take? A photograph needs to be seen. What point a photograph on a hard drive somewhere that's never viewed? Or printed off and beautifully mounted and kept in a box? Flickr, Facebook, Instagram etc. etc. all give a little more life to an individual photograph, as does sharing it at a camera club or at an exhibition or with family and friends. Every time someone looks at a photo, to me, it gives a little more life and value to that photo's existence. Having it appear in a paper adds to that life. It's nothing to do with exposure of name, building a reputation, or preparing the way for a future career. It's just about knowing that a photo you made has lived a life, however brief.

It's no different to a story needing to be read, or a song listened to. Otherwise we're all just sat in our bedrooms entertaining ourselves.

Clearly it's different for professionals. It's a different relationship to a photograph and they need to make a living. The value of their photos is what they've been paid. I'm sure there are many other levels of value - but that's a key one. If I were my local paper's photographer would I be annoyed that all these amateurs are offering work for free? Maybe. But again, looking through today's issue there are over 60 photographs relating to today's news stories that must have either been taken by the journalist or the staff photographer. If the journalists themselves are doing more photography then why blame the few amateurs who are offering their own pictures to the paper? If the photos are being taken by the staff photographer then they're clearly very busy and would they have had time to take more photos to fill up the 'scenic' pages?

My local paper also features a page of readers' letters every day. This fills up a page, too. Are these letters and the opinions contained within worthless because they've been offered free? Today there's a page of poetry - worthless? There's also a page of reader's blogs. Same question. In fact the same question could apply to any blog, not just these printed in a commercial paper.

I actually wonder, if it wasn't for all this free content, if my local paper would continue to exist. It maybe that all these submissions from amateurs is actually helping keep the local journalists, editors, advertising staff, and few remaining news photographers in a job.

Kind regards
Derek
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
If you don't 'do' anything with your pictures that's fine. Otherwise see above.
Click to expand...
That's half right. I'd say it's 'fine' whether I do (or intend to do) anything with my images or not. I don't see that any outside agency should have any kind of influence on the images I take, the process I choose, or what is eventually done with them.
 
Lindsay D said:
Press releases have a purpose, and that purpose is normally to promote the person, group, or organisation which the release concerns).
Click to expand...

This - as i said earlier images acompanying press releases are the only time i'd give work away (although techincally as its day job the copyright of the image concerned isnt usually mine anyway). Getting a PR printed is clearly to our benefit and thus we are recieving value in exchange for our words and pictures
 
I'd happily give away any of my images for free (not that anyone would want them anyway;)) as I take pictures for the enjoyment i get from the process of taking/editing them, and don't expect to ever really make any money.

If a photo is good enough for a paper to want it, and the photographer doesn't want paying for it, then thats fine by me.

If a few photographers have to find other jobs then (in the nicest possible way) so what?
Just think of all the jobs (and indeed industries) that have been made entirely redundant over the last 50 years, it's just 'progress'.
 
mjScall said:
I'd happily give away any of my images for free (not that anyone would want them anyway;)) as I take pictures for the enjoyment i get from the process of taking/editing them, and don't expect to ever really make any money.

If a photo is good enough for a paper to want it, and the photographer doesn't want paying for it, then thats fine by me.

If a few photographers have to find other jobs then (in the nicest possible way) so what?
Just think of all the jobs (and indeed industries) that have been made entirely redundant over the last 50 years, it's just 'progress'.
Click to expand...

Your conclusion in regard to it being progress is far too sweeping a statement, why do I say that?

Well in the case of heavy industries such as coal mining and ship building in the UK the 'progress' was (not withstanding the politics at the time) due to the world economics of such industries.............imported coal, though much dirtier in the main, was cheaper to import than we could dig it out of the ground here! As for ship building well likewise our European and far eastern competition were more competitive and that started the decline and going back that bit further the car and motorcycle manufacturing.

Edit~ do not forget that in the case of such multi employee industries the workers even when made redundant had Union support and a payout but the most if not all the photographers you slam down by your statement are sole traders/self employed who have no such support behind them.

However the prime impact on photography has indeed been the progress but of technology as the advent of digital cameras has democratised the 'industry' to the point in some sectors where the professional has been marginalised because those needing such imagery took advantage of the situation where folk with the same outlook as you just confirmed their decision e.g the newspapers.

It has been said before that 'what is your job that you have this view of others livelihoods....' I would just ask anyone who takes your position to tread carefully because should such sea change happen in your jobs sector would you feel the same if others told you "so what if you have lost your source of income..............go find another job............."

Oh as for the quality of the imagery! If an amateur produces a high enough quality surely they should get rewarded afteral it will help pay for the new bit kit later down the road! If however the quality is so so then all that does by the newspapers taking advantage of the free stuff is belittle the 'industry' but I suppose the old adage of today's news is tomorrow's chip wrapper applies :LOL:
 
Last edited:
mjScall said:
I'd happily give away any of my images for free (not that anyone would want them anyway;)) as I take pictures for the enjoyment i get from the process of taking/editing them, and don't expect to ever really make any money.

If a photo is good enough for a paper to want it, and the photographer doesn't want paying for it, then thats fine by me.

If a few photographers have to find other jobs then (in the nicest possible way) so what?
Just think of all the jobs (and indeed industries) that have been made entirely redundant over the last 50 years, it's just 'progress'.
Click to expand...
There it is you see! You are making the same mistake as some others who do not want payment for published photos.

Let me correct you: it is not as you say "If a photo is good enough for a paper to want it, and the photographer doesn't want paying for it, then thats fine by me.

What it really is " a photograph is only good enough for a paper if the photographer doesn't wanting paying for and that's alright by them". :LOL:
 
As with everything that is technology assisted, there is a tendency towards mediocrity and most people are fine with this.

The best will survive and the rest disappear amongst the mediocrity, that's how it works.

I've shot a few weddings for some mates and am by no means as good as any average/good pro but that said I've seen results that people have paid lots of money for and I have been shocked at how bad they are - I certainly wouldn't have put my name to them. Why should anyone pay for that?

I got to the point where lots of people were asking me to do jobs but I couldn't be bothered with the responsibility or 'mates rates'. If you're a proper mate its free and if you're not then it's full pro price and for that money you may as well get a proper pro.
 
mjScall said:
If a few photographers have to find other jobs then (in the nicest possible way) so what?
Just think of all the jobs (and indeed industries) that have been made entirely redundant over the last 50 years, it's just 'progress'.
Click to expand...

Im sure those who lose their jobs will also feel 'so what'....

As i said earlier in the thread, this attitude of so what if others lose their jobs because of my own ego really is terrible...
 
fastworldimages said:
Im sure those who lose their jobs will also feel 'so what'....

As i said earlier in the thread, this attitude of so what if others lose their jobs because of my own ego really is terrible...
Click to expand...

How would you suggest we deal with 'progress' then?

Not saying its right or wrong, just interested.
 
Nawty said:
How would you suggest we deal with 'progress' then?

Not saying its right or wrong, just interested.
Click to expand...
I think "progress" is the wrong word.Change is the correct word to use as progress can mean improving things and it is not improving things for everyone by any means.
 
StewartR said:
OK, I'll take the bait. How would you suggest we deal with 'change'?
Click to expand...


Well it was Darwin that said "It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change".

I don't know the answer but it seems to me there are two implications: 1) more mediocrity or 'good enough' which means more people competing for less money and 2) a scarcity of excellence. Sadly what that means is fewer people being able to make a living from it but that there is still room for those adapting and providing a product that is way above the average (be that images, service etc).

Which is stating the bleeding obvious really but as has been said, it happens all the time. When was the last time you bought a vinyl record, or a CD for that matter! (HMV failed to adapt and are dying, Virgin sold up their megastores and refocussed), or made a phone call from a landline? VISA and banks are currently bricking it as methods of payment are changing (Paypal, Apple Pay etc) and they're not part of that change - the number of people who don't use banking services is on the rise and in large parts of Africa all you need is a mobile phone.

So what's the answer? I don't know but the consequences are inevitable, if you accept that then you have a chance of surviving. I would suggest that that is the first step to make.
 
The answer is to be "the person who is changing things to the detriment of others for your own benefit" rather than being "the person who is disadvantaged by other people who are changing things to the detriment of you".:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top