Published & Credited but not payed. Why?

[Dave Stone]

Lots of people seem to be having their pictures published in various publications and only recieving credit. Seeing your pictures in print I'm sure is very nice. However, most people seem to justify not being payed by saying "I've been credited, so it's a foot in the door". I personally do not look at the credit on a photo in a publication. So, how is it a foot in the door? Has anyone recieved business through being credited in a publication?

 

[northernstar074]

I haven't received any business from having an image credited but I suppose I might have lost some business with a couple of companies via Flickr.

You know the routine - we love your photo blah blah we would love to use it in our promotional material blah blah and we will credit you. Errrrmmm no - you will credit my bank account !

Don't say that in so many words but you know what I mean. They then move onto the next photo in their list and see if they can use that one for nothing !

 

[Rovers_Andy]

For newspapers i would say NO NO NO NO NO NO NO dont do it it devalues the industry.

Having said that when i started shooting football in the 08/09 season i had an agreement with my local championship side that i would be allowed into 1st team games and womens/reserves etc in return for providing a set of images for use in programs.

Some may say i did the wrong thing but it meant i had a full season under my belt to learn and get used to shooting at that level. I don't think i would have got my foot in the door with an agency without this experience behind me, one because i would only have had "sunday league" footy in my portfolio and two because i was able to build contacts with agencies

You have to weigh up if you will actually benefit from the deal, with the budgets of local papers being slashed picture editors know there are plenty of people prepared to work for "credit" this means if someone is trying to start out and work for payment (however small) they are less likely to get it

 

[CarlOgden]

They either think that they'll get a foot in the door with the paper or it'll get them more work!

Problem is, they'll be looked upon as a free source of photos and that will be probably all they will get and once they say "I want money", they will be dropped and said paper/mag/whatever will move onto the next free photographer!

As for all the other forum members on here who have no intention of going pro, they'll just say "Good on you for getting your name credited and glad to see you're not one of those photographers who do it for money!"...Pity really as it's killing the freelance photography market!

And the other thing is, whoever is working for papers/mags etc isn't doing it for credit, they're getting paid! The paper is making money, everyone getting paid except for the photographer! It's wrong!

I agree with Andy, if you think you'll get there with an organisation, then it's worth doing to a degree but not one where you get shafted, but to an established paper - free photos are killing the trade!

Just my 2p worth!
Carl.

 

[-Rob-]

I've had my pictures on the paper a couple of times both of them were just for credits. The first time the photos were of a friends wedding so it was for the benefit of the bride and groom for the pictures to get in to the paper, I was credited but I knew I'd get nothing from it. The second time was a local parade that got in to the local village paper for a credit. The editor told me that photos from this parade were usually one of their biggest sellers of the year and I could sell any images I wanted to through my website but surprise surprise I got a few hits on my website but didn't get a single enquiry about a sale.

To be honest I don't really mind. I'm not in photography to make my fortune, any income is a bonus so I can afford to provide my photos for a credit and the satisfaction of knowing people are looking at them. I agree it's wrong that newspapers see photos as something they can get for free but while there are photographers that will provide them for free, the editors would be daft to pay for them.

 

[Dave Stone]

. I agree it's wrong that newspapers see photos as something they can get for free but while there are photographers that will provide them for free, the editors would be daft to pay for them.

If you agree it's wrong, why do it?

 

[itsdavedotnet]

This is just something that we as an industry are just going to have to come to terms with, sadly.

There WILL always be a need for professional photography, and we will just always have to rise above the soccer mums who walk into jessops, buy a dslr, snap a few photos of her kids and decide that she is now a professional portrait photographer, or the guys that take photos at minor newsworthy local events and 'send it in to the paper' happy to get something for the scrapbook.

We just need to prove that we are better than them, and that our work is worth paying for. Whether through our reliability, our photos (which, in all honesty, SHOULD be waay better than even an advanced amateur's), or even just presenteeism, this is what the uncle bobs of the world will never really match (though infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters...). All too often, we sometimes don't even get the chance to show our professionalism or work, because uncle bob gets approached first, I know, but still...

I am fortunate that my goal industry and type of work in photography is unlikely to be affected by this, but it is one of the few that is, but I have had my fair share of being undercut by essentially amateurs who will produce substandard work, or others working 'for a credit' having set a precedence.. it's something that will be damaging the industry now, but its damage will soon, if it hasn't already, reached a peak, and while it will not go away, we will find ways around it.


to the amateurs reading this: if it could be putting bread on someone's table, please just...think, and don't do it second shoot, or take candids, whatever, but please don't steal someone's work because it's your hobby.

 

[-Rob-]

If you agree it's wrong, why do it?

Because.........

I'm not in photography to make my fortune, any income is a bonus so I can afford to provide my photos for a credit and the satisfaction of knowing people are looking at them.

 

[bass_junkie83]

I am finding it hard to find anybody willing to pay for photos.

I recently got in with a local events company that do a lot of outdoor shows throughout the year (garden/flower shows, country shows, craft fairs etc).
They had seen some of my photos from one of their events i had attended the previous year and asked me to come back and do a couple this summer for them.
Being a bit green i accepted without asking for any kind of day rate, expecting to make off the photo sales.

Fast forward a couple of weeks later, i sent them the photos, they loved them and said they wanted the lot. I have them a price which i though was very cheap for the number of photos supplied, and they turned me down.

Having spoken to them, they wanted them for free and used the argument that they can get suitable images for £3 each from a stock photo site. The fact that the images would have no direct relation to any of their events was totally unimportant to them as long as the price was right.

No one wants to pay. Or maybe i just can't find the right people.

 

[-Rob-]

to the amateurs reading this: if it could be putting bread on someone's table, please just...think, and don't do it second shoot, or take candids, whatever, but please don't steal someone's work because it's your hobby.

That's the worse excuse for not doing it that you could possibly give. Why should photographers get special treatment?

There are gardeners out there losing business because I cut my own grass. There are taxi drivers losing business because I drive myself to work. There are electricians out there losing business because I can wire a plug myself.

There is still a big proportion of the market that is out there for the professional photographer, it's getting harder for them but I just see that as a challenge for the better photographers to survive and the not so good ones will fall by the wayside.

 

[grum]

Not this old chestnut.

This makes a lot of sense

We just need to prove that we are better than them, and that our work is worth paying for.

But then you contradict yourself and say this

to the amateurs reading this: if it could be putting bread on someone's table, please just...think, and don't do it second shoot, or take candids, whatever, but please don't steal someone's work because it's your hobby.

If someone enjoys taking pictures, isn't interested in a career in it, but likes the recognition of seeing them in print - who are you to tell them that's wrong?

Nobody is owed a living and we live in a market economy.

My main job is as a musician/workshop leader - there's lots of people out there who will do music work (playing gigs, helping run events etc etc) for free, and we have many volunteers at our place. But the people who end up with regular paid work are generally the ones who are the most talented, flexible, reliable etc etc

That doesn't mean the people who volunteer are chumps though.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

a newspaper photo probably isn't the best example of that, but take, say, an event.

A professional will usually turn up for FREE (no cost to the organiser, and will often even give a charity event a % throwback), shoot high quality images in their professional studio setup, print and mount the photos instantly, and give people a great reminder of their night to take away. Ranging from charity balls to school proms, this is pretty standard fayre.

Here, we've seen people setting up from nothing other than 'owning a big camera' to being asked to shoot these big, relatively profitable (IF you have the right skills and investment) events, and essentially making a mess of it, because they didn't have the right skills, were in a rush, and contrary to what some photo magazines try to make out, you can't just print money with a hired in dye sub - everyone loses - the professional doesn't make any money, the customers walk away with worse quality photos, often not a print at all but just a digital file, and the photographer gets a manically busy and stressful night for little to no financial return.

This isn't me feeling 'entitled' or whatever, it's wanting the best experience for everyone, and ultimately, the best photos to be produced.

 

[Splog]

I really don't see the problem with not getting paid! I believe that most people take photos for the enjoyment rather than for payment If they get a shot they like, then it is quite natural to want to show it to the world! .... Money isn't everything, but it's nice ...

 

[grum]

Here, we've seen people setting up from nothing other than 'owning a big camera' to being asked to shoot these big, relatively profitable (IF you have the right skills and investment) events, and essentially making a mess of it, because they didn't have the right skills, were in a rush, and contrary to what some photo magazines try to make out, you can't just print money with a hired in dye sub - everyone loses - the professional doesn't make any money, the customers walk away with worse quality photos, often not a print at all but just a digital file, and the photographer gets a manically busy and stressful night for little to no financial return.

This isn't me feeling 'entitled' or whatever, it's wanting the best experience for everyone, and ultimately, the best photos to be produced.

Then next time maybe they'll hire someone better.

 

[razor777]

Lots of people seem to be having their pictures published in various publications and only recieving credit. Seeing your pictures in print I'm sure is very nice. However, most people seem to justify not being payed by saying "I've been credited, so it's a foot in the door". I personally do not look at the credit on a photo in a publication. So, how is it a foot in the door? Has anyone recieved business through being credited in a publication?

Sometimes being publicised is a lot more important than being paid. For example, a lot of the 'bigger' events will only allow people to obtain press photographer access if they have been publicised or work for a media output (such as magazine) with a circulation of more than 'x'. So then, if you were to get published in a magazine then you may be able to obtain phototog passes for prestigeous events and at that point the opportunity to make money becomes more evident.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

We just need to prove that we are better than them, and that our work is worth paying for. Whether through our reliability, our photos (which, in all honesty, SHOULD be waay better than even an advanced amateur's

to the amateurs reading this: if it could be putting bread on someone's table, please just...think, and don't do it second shoot, or take candids, whatever, but please don't steal someone's work because it's your hobby.

- The words professional and Armature have NO relationship to someones ability to take a photo.

The next time you print a photo think of the poor printers your depriving of bread, next time you wash your car think of the car washer's business you are stealing - get used to the harshness of life.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

That's the worse excuse for not doing it that you could possibly give. Why should photographers get special treatment?

There are gardeners out there losing business because I cut my own grass. There are taxi drivers losing business because I drive myself to work. There are electricians out there losing business because I can wire a plug myself.

While I hate this argument in general as it comes up a lot, your point in this case isn't valid.

You aren't taking photos for yourself, you are taking them for a publication so...

If the gardener was doing other people's gardens for free professional gardners would lose money.

If you offered to give lots of random people free lifts taxi drivers would lose money.

If you went around repairing everyones electrics then the pro electricians would lose money.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

- The words professional and Armature have NO relationship to someones ability to take a photo.

They most certainly SHOULD. There are plenty of 'professional' chancers out there, but here I am defining a professional as someone for whom photography is their vocation, their full time job, and part of that is being able to produce high quality images in any circumstances. It's not solely the end images, but the attitude, the reliability, the experience that go into making sure that those images will be good, whatever happens.

 

[AliB]

I really don't see the problem with not getting paid! Money isn't everything, but it's nice ...

Now take that and apply it to your job Lucy. Do you honestly think your plumber is going to turn up and fit that radiator because he loves doing it? Do you think your dentist does it because they love rooting about in your mouth?

The problem as I see it is that people come into the photographic marketplace armed with their latest purchase and by selling photography either very cheaply or giving it away for nothing they devalue the whole marketplace. The consumer learns that photography need not be valued and they can pay very little, get it for free or even worse, steal it.

There are people out there who thankfully do value good photography and will still pay to have the job done. I can see the marketplace in my genre splitting into two sectors now. The new entrant, inexperienced and often not that knowledgable is being left at very much the bottom end of the marketplace with very low profit margins where it is difficult to survive. The other sector is moving away from that now and starting to look less for a "bargain" and beginning to appreciate that, like a lot of things in life, you get what you pay for. So I have deliberately made a move to try to get me as far into that second sector as I can because that's where the best business for me is.

 

[Dangleman]

While I hate this argument in general as it comes up a lot, your point in this case isn't valid.

You aren't taking photos for yourself, you are taking them for a publication so...

If the gardener was doing other people's gardens for free professional gardners would lose money.

If you offered to give lots of random people free lifts taxi drivers would lose money.

If you went around repairing everyones electrics then the pro electricians would lose money.

100% agree.

If you make the switch from taking photos for a hobby to it being your only source of income your opinion would turn on it's head in a millisecond. I guarantee it.
I'm going through the process now.

 

[-Rob-]

While I hate this argument in general as it comes up a lot, your point in this case isn't valid.

You aren't taking photos for yourself, you are taking them for a publication so...

If the gardener was doing other people's gardens for free professional gardners would lose money.

If you offered to give lots of random people free lifts taxi drivers would lose money.

If you went around repairing everyones electrics then the pro electricians would lose money.

So if I change my example to cutting my neighbours grass, giving my neighbour a lift somewhere and fixing my neighbour's electrics but not charging them for anything then you'd agree with my point right?

 

[itsdavedotnet]

So if I change my example to cutting my neighbours grass, giving my neighbour a lift somewhere and fixing my neighbour's electrics but not charging them for anything then you'd agree with my point right?

is that neighbour directly _making_ money, in the same way that a newspaper or magazine would be from your photos, if you cut their grass?




this paragraph has been floating around the internet forever:

You show off a shot of your dog with off-axis lighting, de-satched in PS with high contrast and all of the sudden you've got your Auntie's neighbor's friend calling you up to shoot her daughter's wedding, and you do it for chicken feed. Your photos will invariably suck becasue you have no experience. Auntie's neighbor will be ****ed but she won't say anything, and who cares because you didn't CHARGE anything, any way. That's the worst of it. If you would at least charge the going rate for your services--amaterish as they are likely to be--then at least the customer will know better for future reference. Word-of-mouth SHOULD be that potential clients should always seek out established professionals for guaranteed results. Instead, the conventional wisdom seems to be that hey, my nephew just got a fancy new camera with a removable lens, and he can even shoot his flash when it's not on his camera! Yeah! Let's save money and have him do it because you know what? I saw this great picture he took of his dog...

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

They most certainly SHOULD. There are plenty of 'professional' chancers out there, but here I am defining a professional as someone for whom photography is their vocation, their full time job, and part of that is being able to produce high quality images in any circumstances. It's not solely the end images, but the attitude, the reliability, the experience that go into making sure that those images will be good, whatever happens.

And there are probably plenty of people out there who are quite capable of

' being able to produce high quality images in any circumstances. It's not solely the end images, but the attitude, the reliability, the experience that go into making sure that those images will be good, whatever happens'

who just choose not to make photography there main source of income / any source of income - just because you have decided to make photography your main source of income it doesn't make you any better as a photographer , or have any exclusive rights to be able to supply a photo.

 

[-Rob-]

is that neighbour directly _making_ money, in the same way that a newspaper or magazine would be from your photos, if you cut their grass?

Are you implying that professional photographers only charge for their services for people or companies who will make money from receiving them? How about wedding and portrait photographers? Amateurs do that for free but professionals charge but the bride and groom don't make a profit from selling on the photos?

Let's just face it, some people charge for their work and others don't. There is no argument to be had, it's just an undisputable FACT!!!!!!

 

[Dangleman]

Let's just face it, some people charge for their work and others don't. There is no argument to be had, it's just an undisputable FACT!!!!!!

I'd have agreed with you there if you'd used the word 'photos' instead of 'work' in the sentence.

I don't 'work' for free, do you?

 

[-Rob-]

I'd have agreed with you there if you'd used the word 'photos' instead of 'work' in the sentence.

I don't 'work' for free, do you?

Actually I have worked pretty hard for the last few years learning how to take a good photograph and sometimes I have given my photos away for free so yes, I have worked for free.

I wouldn't turn up to my day job without being paid for it but that's not the only work I do. I work at my hobby to get good at it, I used to work hard on my golf swing without ever getting paid for it and now I work at spending as much quality time with my kids as possible.

 

[Arkady]

Now take that and apply it to your job Lucy. Do you honestly think your plumber is going to turn up and fit that radiator because he loves doing it? Do you think your dentist does it because they love rooting about in your mouth?

The problem as I see it is that people come into the photographic marketplace armed with their latest purchase and by selling photography either very cheaply or giving it away for nothing they devalue the whole marketplace. The consumer learns that photography need not be valued and they can pay very little, get it for free or even worse, steal it.

There are people out there who thankfully do value good photography and will still pay to have the job done. I can see the marketplace in my genre splitting into two sectors now. The new entrant, inexperienced and often not that knowledgable is being left at very much the bottom end of the marketplace with very low profit margins where it is difficult to survive. The other sector is moving away from that now and starting to look less for a "bargain" and beginning to appreciate that, like a lot of things in life, you get what you pay for. So I have deliberately made a move to try to get me as far into that second sector as I can because that's where the best business for me is.

The biggest problem in overcoming this is that photography is many peoples' hobby as well as being some peoples' livelihood...

I also know few people who would call plumbing a hobby...

Because of that there are many more amatuers - sorry: armatures - in the photographic world whose skills, real or imagined, allow them to participate in the same arena as professionals.

I cycle for laughs, and own bikes that cost more than some of the cars I own, but that doesn't mean I could start Stage 12 of the TDF on equal terms with Armstrong et al...

 

[TheBigYin]

...I cycle for laughs, and own bikes that cost more than some of the cars I own, but that doesn't mean I could start Stage 12 of the TDF on equal terms with Armstrong et al...

I could probably fall off as often as Armstrong

 

[AliB]

I wouldn't turn up to my day job without being paid for it

And there lies the problem. If I pitch up at your work tomorrow offering your boss the chance to have someone do your job for free you would soon see the other side of the coin. The fact that you are doing it to other people is the one that so often seems to be missed.

If you are capable of doing good work then charge appropriately for it!

The problem is that so many enter the market with little or no business skills and then assume that they can only compete on price and again the whole marketplace becomes devalued.

 

[jerry12953]

........ The editor told me that photos from this parade were usually one of their biggest sellers of the year and I could sell any images I wanted to through my website but surprise surprise I got a few hits on my website but didn't get a single enquiry about a sale.

To be honest I don't really mind. I'm not in photography to make my fortune, any income is a bonus so I can afford to provide my photos for a credit and the satisfaction of knowing people are looking at them. I agree it's wrong that newspapers see photos as something they can get for free but while there are photographers that will provide them for free, the editors would be daft to pay for them.

rob,

That IS the problem in a nutshell.

 

[konastab01]

I will give my photos away for photo credit when Nikon start giving me all the kit I need for free. Until that point ***,I wouldnt give jack away.

 

[-Rob-]

And there lies the problem.

You only see it as a problem because you are potentially losing business from other people doing photography for free. If you really do see it as a problem then maybe you should think twice about trying to earn a living from something that a lot of other people do as a hobby.

I earn my main income from negotiating defence contracts with the goverment, if you want to do that as a hobby and come and do my job for free then you are welcome to give it a try. Remember though you'll need to go on all the right training courses, get the right security clearances and build up the right network of contacts.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

I will give my photos away for photo credit when Nikon start giving me all the kit I need for free. Until that point ***,I wouldnt give jack away.

and my landlord starts giving me rent for free, and the tescos food for free...

Remember though you'll need to go on all the right training courses, get the right security clearances and build up the right network of contacts.

with the exception of security clearances (in most cases... arkady ), just like a high quality working photographer then...

 

[desantnik]

I think the problem you are looking at isn't photography in general, its more to do with journalism specifically.

Journalism is takinga battering from the internet and until that settles down there's going to be carnage on the way.

The news photos are only one part of it, the rest of the job is just as volatile.

Will there be paid jobs in journalism at the end of it? Maybe but whether or not its a good time to be in there waiting or better to jump in at the end is a judgement you have to make.

Maybe Murdoch's "paywall" is the beginning of the end of the war, but I doubt it.

All of this is a far different argument to people under-bidding wedding shoots or advertising for commercial photography or even trying the event photography game. All of that competition is just about free market forces and your arguments about amateurs and quality are just the same market pressures as Lidl vs Waitrose or Kia vs Mercedes.

My parting shot, if you are so anti the underselling of artistes work, don't read stuff on the internet that isn't subscription based. Stop reading this forum and instead subscribe to journals and magazines... see the parallels? Every click is depriving a journalist money!

And if you give people advice, you are depriving a trainer his/her income too!

(years ago I worked on a helpline service (a proper helpline, not a call centre!), people would pay to phone up and ask for advice - this was killed first by magazines aimed at beginners and they in turn were shot to bits by the internet)

 

[AliB]

You only see it as a problem because you are potentially losing business from other people doing photography for free. If you really do see it as a problem then maybe you should think twice about trying to earn a living from something that a lot of other people do as a hobby.

As I said earlier, I don't see it as MY problem because I do charge accordingly and that is only going to increase as my photography is still improving as is my business base. I'm not threatened by people like you Rob because I'm operating in a different market.

 

[desantnik]

BTW, also by not paying for this electronic club we know as TP we are establishing that electronic forums are free to join and take part in...

Watch out where those stones you like to chuck end up...

 

[swanseamale47]

Getting a foor in the door with somebody who doesn't actually pay isn't really a good step up is it.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think the problem you are looking at isn't photography in general, its more to do with journalism specifically.

Journalism is takinga battering from the internet and until that settles down there's going to be carnage on the way.

The news photos are only one part of it, the rest of the job is just as volatile.

Will there be paid jobs in journalism at the end of it? Maybe but whether or not its a good time to be in there waiting or better to jump in at the end is a judgement you have to make.

Maybe Murdoch's "paywall" is the beginning of the end of the war, but I doubt it.

All of this is a far different argument to people under-bidding wedding shoots or advertising for commercial photography or even trying the event photography game. All of that competition is just about free market forces and your arguments about amateurs and quality are just the same market pressures as Lidl vs Waitrose or Kia vs Mercedes.

My parting shot, if you are so anti the underselling of artistes work, don't read stuff on the internet that isn't subscription based. Stop reading this forum and instead subscribe to journals and magazines... see the parallels? Every click is depriving a journalist money!

And if you give people advice, you are depriving a trainer his/her income too!

(years ago I worked on a helpline service (a proper helpline, not a call centre!), people would pay to phone up and ask for advice - this was killed first by magazines aimed at beginners and they in turn were shot to bits by the internet)

Best post I've read on this subject in a very long time Looking at the bigger picture (hoho).

Both my wife and I were made redundant by the internet, one way or another, as the magazine business imploded.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

 

[barryhennessy]

In my opinion there are three types of photographer (in this context); the successful professional, the amateur, and the in-betweeners, the professionals who are not yet successful.
(Note: I'm not going to call them 'semi-professional', the term contradicts itself. In-betweeners will have to do)

The pro has a solid business (otherwise they'd still be trying) and is safe enough.
The amateur is simply trying to get recognition/the warm fuzzy feeling for their passion.
The in-betweener is trying to make it, to find the right people to pay for their work, trying to make a life out of photography. They're finding it hard.

The amateur looks to these newspapers and events and anyone who needs photography for their 'fix'. To take their images and mark them "worthy".

The in-betweener looks to these same sources and to take their "worthy" images and pay them what they're worth. Which to the publication is nothing, because they can get "worthy" images for exactly that: nothing.

We can't really blame the publications for taking such tempting bait, I mean who doesn't want a free lunch?
(We can blame them for lowering their standards, but that's another story...)
And we can't really blame the amateur for trying to get their 'fix'. It's a drug, and I for one can attest to how addictive it is!
But we can blame them for damaging someone's life plan for what effectively amounts to an ego boost!

In my opinion we have to give the amateur an outlet for their work, feed their passion and get their fix. And crucially this mustn't infringe on any up-and-coming photographer's job. This might be a competition, an exhibition or even a section in a magazine that has nothing but great amateur photographs. But, whatever the outlet, it has to be for the prestige, not money, not more gear, and definitely not another rights grab!

and then there's the problem of everyone letting publications get away with awful images. But I think this post has gone on long enough, so I'll leave it there.

 

[theMusicMan]

The biggest problem in overcoming this is that photography is many peoples' hobby as well as being some peoples' livelihood...

I also know few people who would call plumbing a hobby...

Because of that there are many more amatuers - sorry: armatures - in the photographic world whose skills, real or imagined, allow them to participate in the same arena as professionals.

I cycle for laughs, and own bikes that cost more than some of the cars I own, but that doesn't mean I could start Stage 12 of the TDF on equal terms with Armstrong et al...

Good post, but I think your last point fails in the analogy.

You may be able to purchase the very same cycle equipment as Armstrong - but you are actually unable to compete at that TDF level because you are not at the same level in ability as Armstrong. There is a huge gap in ability.

With photography; yes, I can go out and buy a D3s or whatever it is, and have the same lenses as a pro would use for a given job etc... and again yes, I won't be at the same level as a pro - but the difference in the levels is what is key here. Not many people are close in ability to being a pro cyclist, but many more people are close in ability to being a pro tog - they may not get there, but the gap is significantly smaller.

Let's face it, re photography - the gap is continuing to close, and closing fast. Amateurs are simply catching up to pro's and the pro's don't like it.

When the market sees that Uncle Tom Cobbley and all can get a decent enough image with what they see as an off-the-shelf camera, they are not going to be so willing to part with any serious money to have a pro come and do a job for them when they can get someone who is willing to do the same job with - for them - similar results - for (often) significantly less money.

Market demand forces at work here.

Also; advances in sensor/camera technology and the relative lowering in price for these advances has put cameras that pro's use within reach of many more people.

Pro togs need to stop worrying about Uncle Tom Cobbley, and concentrate on justifying why people should pay whatever it is that they charge for their services. Just differentiate yourselves, identify your USP.

Successful pro togs do that.

to the amateurs reading this: if it could be putting bread on someone's table, please just...think, and don't do it second shoot, or take candids, whatever, but please don't steal someone's work because it's your hobby.

Dave - sorry, this is total and utter twaddle, and I am certainly not, as you put it, "stealing someones work" either. Is this work 'theirs' to own, and thus I steal it. No, of course not. If you had the booking, and I undercut you - that's a little closer, but still not stealing - it's business!

So what am I to do when I (as an amateur) get asked to do a family portrait session. Let's seee... should I say "Sorry, I can't, I need you to call a pro because by my doing it I am being cruel to a pro tog who hasn't been asked to do this job, nor have they found this specific piece of business"

Naaah... I'll take their money and do a good job for them, thanks.

Get out there and find the work, just like I - an amateur - do.