Published & Credited but not payed. Why?

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

please do :)

yeah, that last sentence wasn't the best phrased or put sentence in my life >_>
 
itsdavedotnet said:
please do :)

yeah, that last sentence wasn't the best phrased or put sentence in my life >_>
Click to expand...
Agreed... :bonk: just a little like your last sentence above, too... hehe

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

How's that... better...? :D
 
theMusicMan said:
...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.

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...
Click to expand...


OK so the ability-gap isn't as huge, but you get the point I'm trying to make. By purchasing the right kit, I can look indistinguishable from the Pro's on the start line (well, 10 years ago I could :lol: - my burgeoning waistline has put a lid on that ambition).
That was the point.
Anyone can look like a Pro and act like one as well - and may even produce a few images to back those claims up if they get lucky - but that's the point - they have to get lucky.

Whereas a Pro uses their experience, skills and training to get the job done regardless...it's a repeatable success...

In the past, you had to have a significant level of skill to compete - film wasn't as forgiving and because it lacked the immediate confirmation-factor that digital capture allows, consequently it also took time to achieve that skill-level. Also the cost of decent kit was fairly prohibitive - not so today.
Now you can buy a reasonably-priced DSLR and achieve technically brilliant images with almost no in-depth photographic knowledge whatsoever other than how to switch on and point the camera over to where the action is. Look at the Photo-sharing sections on TP to see this for yourselves - lots of technically well-exposed, nicely-focussed images, but where's the art?
(My future mother-in-law is a case in point - she's getting very good results with her D5000 without any clue as to how she did it or how to replicate that success...).

So while the weekend wariors might get the occasional good, saleable (or give-away-able) image, it's the Pros that will always be required when guaranteed images are needed.
 
er, hello?
deliberate, non?

irony is wasted on some...
 
Arkady said:
OK so the ability-gap isn't as huge, but you get the point I'm trying to make. By purchasing the right kit, I can look indistinguishable from the Pro's on the start line (well, 10 years ago I could :lol: - my burgeoning waistline has put a lid on that ambition).
That was the point.
Click to expand...
Yep, I got the point you were making, Rob.

My point was: being indistinguishable from the Pro's on the start line isn't enough, you have to be able to keep up with the pace of the leaders - which... in the case of photography... many amateurs are more than capable of so doing.

I chose a sport to participate in where my burgeoning waistline (yep, we approaching middle aged males all get 'em eh) doesn't stop me from whipping the arses of young whipper snappers half my age. Squash.:thumbs:
 
You should try dealing with ITV. Last year they made a film called Bolero about the lives of Torville and Dean. As it happened, I had photographed the couple in practice before they became well known. (4 o'clock in the morning was practice time:shake:) . ITV asked permission to use the shots and I sent them a CD with the files to have a look at. They then sent me a copyright release form with no intention of paying.

Naturally, I refused and they then found some old black and whites elsewhere and pointed out that, as they had found these, they wouldn't need mine. I was delighted to reply that the shots they had found were also mine.:lol:

In the end they paid.
 
Coaster said:
You should try dealing with ITV. Last year they made a film called Bolero about the lives of Torville and Dean. As it happened, I had photographed the couple in practice before they became well known. (4 o'clock in the morning was practice time:shake:) . ITV asked permission to use the shots and I sent them a CD with the files to have a look at. They then sent me a copyright release form with no intention of paying.

Naturally, I refused and they then found some old black and whites elsewhere and pointed out that, as they had found these, they wouldn't need mine. I was delighted to reply that the shots they had found were also mine.:lol:

In the end they paid.
Click to expand...


Haha... classic! Nice one.
 
As Rob says, the amateur will occasionally get lucky. I remember the first time I acually used a camera to create an image rather than have what I used to call a happy accident. I was hooked, that is what I wanted to do....all the time.

I also think that the public in general is happy to accept a lower standard of photography (Bear in mind I'm talking general terms here and there will be examples a plenty to contradict this) You just need to look at faceache and flickr to see just how some dismal mobile phone pic can become a lauded piece of art. Yet many of the amateur photographers for all the technology offers them are missing a couple of vital ingredients.

Technology will not help you in picking the right location for a shot, technology will not help you pose a person and technology will not be able to prompt genuine emotion out of someone at the drop of a hat. There is a fab quote from one of the Benetton ad photographers who says that they young hide their head behind their cameras these days. But they need to see the image in their head first, then put the camera in front of it.
 
Coaster said:
You should try dealing with ITV. Last year they made a film called Bolero about the lives of Torville and Dean. As it happened, I had photographed the couple in practice before they became well known. (4 o'clock in the morning was practice time:shake:) . ITV asked permission to use the shots and I sent them a CD with the files to have a look at. They then sent me a copyright release form with no intention of paying.

Naturally, I refused and they then found some old black and whites elsewhere and pointed out that, as they had found these, they wouldn't need mine. I was delighted to reply that the shots they had found were also mine.:lol:

In the end they paid.
Click to expand...

Quality...:thumbs:

Don't you just love it when that happens...?
 
AliB said:
As Rob says, the amateur will occasionally get lucky. I remember the first time I acually used a camera to create an image rather than have what I used to call a happy accident. I was hooked, that is what I wanted to do....all the time.

I also think that the public in general is happy to accept a lower standard of photography (Bear in mind I'm talking general terms here and there will be examples a plenty to contradict this) You just need to look at faceache and flickr to see just how some dismal mobile phone pic can become a lauded piece of art. Yet many of the amateur photographers for all the technology offers them are missing a couple of vital ingredients.

Technology will not help you in picking the right location for a shot, technology will not help you pose a person and technology will not be able to prompt genuine emotion out of someone at the drop of a hat. There is a fab quote from one of the Benetton ad photographers who says that they young hide their head behind their cameras these days. But they need to see the image in their head first, then put the camera in front of it.
Click to expand...
Thing is Ali, that's a tad insulting to amateurs.

I am an amateur, and I must get lucky a lot of the time, because it's not occasionally. Neither am I happy to deliver a lower standard of photography to anyone who is kind enough to want to book me for any job they want me to do.

I am able to pick great locations when needed, I am able to request and get models to adopt many poses (well OK... animals are harder :) ), and I am good with people such that I can make them relax and feel at ease.

I am still an amateur though, and there's many amateurs who are better than I.
 
John, that is a thoroughly professional approach for which you should quite rightly be commended.

I hate to open the old amateur vs pro debate (so let's please not as I have no access to neurofen) but there is a gulf between the "Happy accident" shooter and a "professional approach" shooter regardless of income stream.

I hope that sounds better as I have no wish to offend (well not you anyway ;))
 
theMusicMan said:
....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....
Click to expand...

I think that's nail on the head there.

If someone gets burnt once or more by someone cr*p, I think they will pay to get the results they want. However, if they can get the same quality etc for cheaper they'll go that route I would say, and in the limit, cheaper will and is becoming gratis.

Photography is so easily accessible (and let's face it, not exactly rocket science) that the sheer volume of image data being produced every day means that there will be an increasing proportion of work used which actually needn't be paid for.

I detest the argument - if you can call it that - which purports that people shouldn't hand things over free simply to get acknowledged and have pride in their work being good enough to be used in a certain way. If the area in question is so easily accesible, it's impossible to stop.

Quality counts. If you're doing something that anyone can do if they have some good kit (sometimes not even that), and a bit of natural talent, then I think you can't hope to make a living unless you have something of value to add. I guess many people who started as hobbyists and then moved on to try to make a living will then complain about the other hobbyists. Tough in my opinion - if you're no better, you're stuffed really. Things are tough nowadays - too many people vying to do the same thing in every field.
 
found this on twitter
12 Excuses for Shooting Photos for Free — and Why They’re Bogus http://SPAM/2uy72yn
 
AliB said:
John, that is a thoroughly professional approach for which you should quite rightly be commended.

I hate to open the old amateur vs pro debate (so let's please not as I have no access to neurofen) but there is a gulf between the "Happy accident" shooter and a "professional approach" shooter regardless of income stream.

I hope that sounds better as I have no wish to offend (well not you anyway ;))
Click to expand...
Thanks Ali.

I do see where you're coming from though, I admit.

Moral of the story: I count myself as a moderately proficient squash player, and when at my prime (a long time ago though) occasionally played in the county Premiere League. I was receiving coaching from the then Welsh #1, Andrew Evans. I asked him if during one session, instead of coaching me, to play me as he would any other player, as I wanted to see how far I had really progressed. He said fair enough John, no problem, your money!!. He beat me 9-0, 9-0, 9-0. :)

It's all relative :)
 
desantnik said:
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!
Click to expand...

And if you use free CRM/Invoicing software to run your photo business, you're depriving other professional software programmers of an income... :nono:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=212740

:)

Actually, there's a serious compare/contrast with the Open and Closed Source Software to be made here. If you rely on photography for your business, do you think twice about using free (as in beer) software to run it?

If you object to amateurs giving away their photos, would those principles also make you object to a company like the makers of Studio Cloud, whose business model is to give away their core product and perhaps charge for the 'extras' like support or specific additional functionality?

Or would you object to using Open Source software (such as a Linux OS or GIMP, or your ISP's mail server software) which has been written by both amateur and professional programmers in their spare time?
 
Musicman said:
Or would you object to using Open Source software (such as a Linux OS or GIMP, or your ISP's mail server software) which has been written by both amateur and professional programmers in their spare time?
Click to expand...

yes, I would (my isp's mail server is part of the service that they provide, as long as it works black box, who cares), because they are not as good for my business as using paid for equivalents.
 
Coaster said:
You should try dealing with ITV. Last year they made a film called Bolero about the lives of Torville and Dean. As it happened, I had photographed the couple in practice before they became well known. (4 o'clock in the morning was practice time:shake:) . ITV asked permission to use the shots and I sent them a CD with the files to have a look at. They then sent me a copyright release form with no intention of paying.

Naturally, I refused and they then found some old black and whites elsewhere and pointed out that, as they had found these, they wouldn't need mine. I was delighted to reply that the shots they had found were also mine.:lol:

In the end they paid.
Click to expand...

Now that must have felt good :lol:
 
itsdavedotnet said:
yes, I would (my isp's mail server is part of the service that they provide, as long as it works black box, who cares), because they are not as good for my business as using paid for equivalents.
Click to expand...

To the general public, newspaper production is essentially a black box. If the photographer is being paid or not, who cares?

And you're paying your ISP in the same way that the readers pay for a newspaper.


itsdavedotnet said:
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.
Click to expand...

This does rather suggest an objection in principle, rather than the results.

What happens if the free software solution happens to be better than the paid-for one? I'm just curious.

From your user name, I'm guessing this is your site (if I'm wrong about this accept my apology, but it still serves a useful illustrative purpose).

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.itsdave.net

Netcraft report for itsdave.net [B said:
OS[/B] Linux
Server Apache
Click to expand...

Both Open Source products, given away free by their creators. Arguably, Apache is the best web server software available and superior to most of the commercial products against which it competes - it dominates the http server market because it is a great piece of software.

I'm pretty sure that there's plenty of software that you use daily which is free, though sometimes you may not realise it.
 
Another thing to consider on the subject of payment for "amateurs" is the tax implications. If I asked x company £50 for some photo's I have taken it goes through there books. 6 months down the line HMCR want there pound of flesh from me as undeclared income.
 
It's definitely a problem for the industry but I don't worry too much. The most recent case does prove the power of citizen media - all the shots of Moat on the front (bar the one of him lying down from behind) were all taken from footage obtained by members of the public. BUT they were all 2 days later, not in the next days. For me it's not just taking the photo, it's correctly captioning it (being 100% certain the person in the frame IS the person in question) and wiring to meet deadlines.
 
thats called a free market and if you don't like it tough.


different people will always charge different amounts like wise different people will settle for different pictures.

AliB said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
AliB said:
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?
Click to expand...


Fair enough Ali but that's not really how it is though :thinking: I look at this a little differently ... Imagine a landscape photographer who takes a beautiful shot of a castle in stunning scenery! .... Consider the time, effort and cost that has gone into restoring and making the castle into the photogenic piece that it has now become! Would it be right for the castle owner to charge for the use of his work in the photograph? personally I don't believe it would be reasonable, I would imagine that most would just feel proud that their castle was liked so much that someone would want to take the photo :)
 
AliB said:
It is when you work though Lucy. You work and you get paid. :naughty:
Click to expand...

I know and do understand ... TBH I've had 10 images published this year :cool: two in a book, six on TV and two in newspapers and although I did receive some payment from the book the others were all freebies with full credit ... Had I demanded payment I seriously doubt those would have been published at all ...

Beside the book shots all the other images could not have been taken by a pro photographer as they weren't there at the time! Don't get me wrong, if I took something that was asked for then I would expect to be paid, sometimes it's nice just to get the recognition and I'm honestly not interested in opening doors.

BTW it's Steve :D
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: - The words professional and Armature have NO relationship to someones ability to take a photo.
Click to expand...
This is very true and I have seen work from some work from some Amatures that has been a lot better than some pros have produced, if somebody gives up there day job to do weddings or whatever then they become a pro photographer but does it make them a better photographer?
 
To quote a local photographer from my twitter feed "Credits don't pay bills", he was referencing this to a magazine feature he had been approched to do.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: - 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.
Click to expand...

yeah, but there aren't many hobby car washers that would offer you to wash your car for free, or for credit - hey ! just tell someone I'm a cool chap and i'm giving away free car washes.
 
Starastin said:
yeah, but there aren't many hobby car washers that would offer you to wash your car for free, or for credit - hey ! just tell someone I'm a cool chap and i'm giving away free car washes.
Click to expand...

Nope, "freetard" is a distinctly digital world problem. Its free because its a pile of bytes and that doesn't cost anything.

I've said in just about every one of these type of threads, its not photography/writing/music (or insert other creative art form) thats changed, its the internet thats changed things.

The internet is "free" everyone knows that. If it can be seen with a web browser or emailed or downloaded its not something you pay for.

If it is something you have to pay for but fits the criteria above, someone will be offering the same thing for nothing - legally or illegally.

The "freetard society" was actually encouraged by the driving forces behind the internet (and still is to some degree) but some of those people have found that their utopian dream has consumed them as well as "the man"...
 
Starastin said:
yeah, but there aren't many hobby car washers that would offer you to wash your car for free, or for credit - hey ! just tell someone I'm a cool chap and i'm giving away free car washes.
Click to expand...

No probably not, and that's the price you pay for doing a job that's enjoyable and many people consider a hobby :shrug:
 
To all those who love the ego stroke of a credit. If someone stole your pic off flickr and used it for the cover of the Sun Newspaper with a credit, what would you do?

There are times where free work is fine, Helping people out is great, but If someone is making money off your work, then you are being taken advantage of.

Splog said:
I know and do understand ... TBH I've had 10 images published this year :cool: two in a book, six on TV and two in newspapers and although I did receive some payment from the book the others were all freebies with full credit ... Had I demanded payment I seriously doubt those would have been published at all ...
Click to expand...

Why does this make you feel cool??????? I cannot understand this. The paid ones, great you did a good job, but the paper pays others who work for them, newspapers pay other photographers, so why not you? Obviously you are not good enough to be paid.

What you are in reality saying is "My photos are not as good quality as those people usually use, as if I asked for payment they wouldn't pay me like the others". I feel a lot of the not asking is due to insecurities of people not feeling good enough.
 
ding76uk said:
I feel a lot of the not asking is due to insecurities of people not feeling good enough.
Click to expand...

I agree.

If a photographer doesn't consider a picture good enough to be worth getting paid for, they shouldn't be proud of it being published.
 
If you decide to choose to make a living doing something that a lot of people do as a hobby, then you are going to have to compete with people that aren't in it for the money. Don't like it? Tough ****. We all suffer circumstances arise that impact our careers, adapt, learn, get over it.
 
ding76uk said:
To all those who love the ego stroke of a credit. If someone stole your pic off flickr and used it for the cover of the Sun Newspaper with a credit, what would you do?

There are times where free work is fine, Helping people out is great, but If someone is making money off your work, then you are being taken advantage of.



Why does this make you feel cool??????? I cannot understand this. The paid ones, great you did a good job, but the paper pays others who work for them, newspapers pay other photographers, so why not you? Obviously you are not good enough to be paid.

What you are in reality saying is "My photos are not as good quality as those people usually use, as if I asked for payment they wouldn't pay me like the others". I feel a lot of the not asking is due to insecurities of people not feeling good enough.
Click to expand...

Surely if you these photos "aren't good enough" to be paid for....you professionals won't have any trouble providing superior images that the media will pay for?

Taken advantage of? Maybe we are good enough at our chosen professions that we don't need the money....and certainly don't have to spend our time worrying about 'mere amateurs' stealing our livelihoods.
 
mid_gen said:
If you decide to choose to make a living doing something that a lot of people do as a hobby, then you are going to have to compete with people that aren't in it for the money. Don't like it? Tough ****. We all suffer circumstances arise that impact our careers, adapt, learn, get over it.
Click to expand...

Don't those people who aren't "in it for the money" still want to buy new lenses? eventually upgrade their body? perhaps buy a flash or two? larger memory cards? spare batteries? a new camera bag perhaps?

Why not have the hobby pay for its own upgrades?
 
Kaouthia said:
Don't those people who aren't "in it for the money" still want to buy new lenses? eventually upgrade their body? perhaps buy a flash or two? larger memory cards? spare batteries? a new camera bag perhaps?

Why not have the hobby pay for its own upgrades?
Click to expand...
You'd potentially make the situation worse if you encouraged more hobbyists to earn money from their photography. You'd get more weekend warriors shooting weddings, more happy snappers sharging for family portraits and more lucky shooters selling their images to the press. All of which would increase the amount of business taken away from the estabilished professionals.
 
Kaouthia said:
Don't those people who aren't "in it for the money" still want to buy new lenses? eventually upgrade their body? perhaps buy a flash or two? larger memory cards? spare batteries? a new camera bag perhaps?

Why not have the hobby pay for its own upgrades?
Click to expand...

Why bother for a few quid? I don't partake in hobbies to start counting pennies and sending invoices. Money in, enjoyment out.
 
-Rob- said:
You'd potentially make the situation worse if you encouraged more hobbyists to earn money from their photography. You'd get more weekend warriors shooting weddings, more happy snappers sharging for family portraits and more lucky shooters selling their images to the press. All of which would increase the amount of business taken away from the estabilished professionals.
Click to expand...

And the rubbish professionals would go out of business. C'est la vie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top