Should I work for free?????

If you're a professional in a field and are asked to provide your services or product for free then the balance of probabilities says you aren't going to do. It's how you make your living so unless you feel it is a mutually beneficial arrangement then understandably the answer is probably no, you won't work for free. If on the other hand you're weekend warrior, enthusiast, keen amateur etc. and you're happy with the terms of the arrangement e.g. get your work out there, experience or a warm and fuzzy feeling at seeing your work in print with a credit. Then screw em all and do it! Your job is not to prop up an industry do whatever the hell you like.

The world has changed for professional photography. In 2014 1.8 billion images were uploaded to a handful of popular services per day. I imagine that number has continued to grow so the way we consume and share content is wildly different than it was previously. The cat's out of the bag and it's not going back and moaning about it will change nothing.
 
Last edited:
Anyone had a photographer try to get them to work for free?

I do a lot of assisting work and a handful of times I've had photographer try to take the p*** and get me to work for free with promises of more work if they get on with me etc etc. After moving to a new area I assisted on a 2 hour shoot for one guy for free just so I could meet him and impress. Shoot was great, got on with him really well, got a call next week to assist again, when I asked what his payment rate was, I got the old 'oh, I thought you'd like the experience' he also asked me to go on a three day shoot away from home over a weekend where he would only pay my expenses... Hmmm, no thanks! I have been assisting for 5 years and with respect I know there is always more to learn but I'm not really in need of work experience, my bills cannot be paid with 'experience'.

So some of us photographers are as bad as anyone trying to get images for free. Personally, I've used assistants for weddings and even absolute beginners were paid £50 for their efforts.

If you don't believe in giving images away for free, you must also believe in paying for other services. (Well I do)
 
Raptor Mike said:
I did motorcycle mechanics at college. I couldn't get a job so volunteered for my local bike workshop. He got jobs done from sweeping the floor up, I got experience. That led to part time work with him as that's all he could offer, to a part time job with bike shop with more hours as a valeter preping bikes for the showroom which then led to a full time job with them for 6 years. I wanted to be a mechanic but I was bloody good at preping bikes (painting parts eg fork legs, wheels, swinging arms etc. Servicing so the bike can be PDI'd once sold quickly etc,) that I really enjoyed it and didn't want to just do mechanics, but I digress.

What I'm trying to say is that experience helps. If you want an employed job then you are more likely to get it if you have experience. If you can say you have had a photo published at an interview for a photography job that can't be a bad thing.

I have given photos to my kids playgroup that I have taken for them like photos of their carnival float and sponsored dip in the sea at Halloween. This week I went in and photoed all the kids for what will hopefully be my first paid job. While I was there I took staff photos too which I will give them, but then they are a charity. But also they have given me my first break in paid photography. I'm 36 now and work experience was a good thing to do I when I left college, but these days I think its expected.

But if you do keep giving with no reward accept a credit over and over just to tell your mates hoiw good you are, then yes that's bloody stupid.
Click to expand...

As Simon says... that sounds like an internship. That's different. You're working WITH someone.. learning from them. There's value in that, yes.

Doing jobs for free when you're just on your own is not really that great as a learning experience is it? The client has no interest is teaching you anything.. nor could you learn much from them any way. You'll be getting no experience in running a business... because you're not running one... you're working for free. You'll get no experience in costing a job, because you're doing it for free. You'll get no experience in marketing, because you're doing it for free. You'll get no experience in networking because you're on your own. No experience in equipment, because you'll just be using what you have. In fact you'll get no experience in anything you don't already know, because you're on your own and you'll not learn anything new, because you've no idea what you should or shouldn't know.

If you want to learn, do what photographers have always done... assist another photographer. If you're serious... join the AOP and go on their assistant register.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick story of a recent experience of mine... A very close friend's daughter got married this month. They asked me to do the wedding photos months ago. They expected it for free. But I was also to be considered a guest as well.... (Scratches head)...yes I know, shoot me now.

Anyway, coming closer to the time, I wanted them to sign a 'contract' of sorts as I don't do weddings as a rule, but wanted to cover myself as well as have the photos for my own use. This upset the applecart. They didn't like that. They uninvited me and my family from the wedding and 'excused' my services.... And went out and hired a £1200 photographer.

Unfortunately, the 'unfriending' on Facebook, THE social media slap in the face, now has extinguished that friendship.
 
simonbarker said:
I'm not sure programming is the best comparison in general as they're two very different disciplines, a poor programmer's work especially so in anything but the smallest of environments will cause problems while a bad photographer's work can still be usable as many people are practically blind when it comes to things like composition or they just don't care about low standards.
Click to expand...

That is the crux of the matter. One of the local 'free newspapers' has run full page photos on the front page which are enlarged so much that the individual pixels are millimetres across. The vast majority of people simply don't have any standards when it comes to photography. If the picture shows what they want it to show it's good enough. If it's free, even better.
 
simonbarker said:
I'm aware of the open source community but I have never personally considered it a situation where one supplants the other, your requirements and preferences dictate which option is most suited to you and simply because someone is working on linux development it doesn't directly impact on say a .net programmer but then I'm more of the mindset that if someone eats all the pizza slices it doesn't mean the next guy only has the cardboard boxes left to eat..
Click to expand...

MS have been unable to dominate the sever market because of Free Software (free as in speech more than anything). The technology underpinning this forum is all FOSS, preventing a sale of a .Net licence and a MS SQL Server licence, odds are the software running your phone is based on work done for free by amateurs again preventing a sale of costly software, even the GIMP might prevent a sale of Photoshop for many people.

simonbarker said:
I'm not sure programming is the best comparison in general as they're two very different disciplines, a poor programmer's work especially so in anything but the smallest of environments will cause problems while a bad photographer's work can still be usable as many people are practically blind when it comes to things like composition or they just don't care about low standards.

Plus I don't think in the programming example we're talking about rank amateurs, I have no first hand of experience of open source but I've always assumed their code revisions needed to be of a high standard to be usable and no one produces good quality code when they start.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples of very good programmers who willingly spend hours or days working on software for no monetary gain, for the practice, the experience, the glory, the ego stroke all the reason an amateur photographer might work for free, this software might end up displacing or blocking commercial software putting other programmers out of work. I'd say its an excellent comparison, unlike the hypothetical plumber or taxi driver this actually happens, daily.

What difference does it make if the free photo comes from a crap amateur or a good one? Its still devaluing the field isn't it? The newspaper would rather have a really good free photo than a crap one but the important part is that its free. The high quality code revision has probably come from some one who once wrote poor quality code.
 
sunnyside_up said:
Just a quick story of a recent experience of mine... A very close friend's daughter got married this month. They asked me to do the wedding photos months ago. They expected it for free. But I was also to be considered a guest as well.... (Scratches head)...yes I know, shoot me now.

Anyway, coming closer to the time, I wanted them to sign a 'contract' of sorts as I don't do weddings as a rule, but wanted to cover myself as well as have the photos for my own use. This upset the applecart. They didn't like that. They uninvited me and my family from the wedding and 'excused' my services.... And went out and hired a £1200 photographer.

Unfortunately, the 'unfriending' on Facebook, THE social media slap in the face, now has extinguished that friendship.
Click to expand...
Ouch :(
 
I get it. It's crap.

You make your living taking photos and areas of the market are being undermined by publications choosing to use 'free' stuff instead of your patently better output.
Who are these 'idiots' giving stuff away and supporting this shift? Don't they realise they are destroying the industry they want to work in?

There are perhaps two types of 'idiots':
  • Some are exactly the same as you used to be; they are starting out, not quite confident of their skills; do a job or two on the cheap until they get better and then either give up or start charging. The churn of new people wanting to give it a go, even if they only do one or two jobs before charging is such that, in reality there is an endless supply of people willing to 'work for free for experience / exposure'.
  • The others do it just for s***s and giggles; it's a hobby, not a job. There are millions upon millions of them around and they do it just for the novelty factor. This group is getting larger and larger every day.
Regardless of which group people fall into, or even if there's a third, fourth, fifth group, the reality is there is and will always be people, who for their own valid reasons are going to give work away, and no amount of bitching about it from a group of professional photographers is going to change that.

I'll repeat - it's a crap situation for those who depend on photography for their income. I sympathise. But it is not unique to photography as an industry, it's happening all over the place. Things that we paid for before, now are free, and the value propositions have adapted around this. Jobs and professions have been lost, new ones have been created.
 
I wonder how many of the local papers that seem to have historically been the big market for local sports would still exist if they hadn't latched on to free photographs and copy when they did? My local chip wrapper has plunging circulation figures; if they had to increase the cover price to cover photography I doubt that would raise their circulation even if the quality of the photography was grade A. So the paper would either have no photos or go bust, I don't see how that benefits any one.
 
steveo_mcg said:
MS have been unable to dominate the sever market because of Free Software (free as in speech more than anything). The technology underpinning this forum is all FOSS, preventing a sale of a .Net licence and a MS SQL Server licence, odds are the software running your phone is based on work done for free by amateurs again preventing a sale of costly software, even the GIMP might prevent a sale of Photoshop for many people.
Click to expand...

They haven't dominated the server market because they simply didn't have the right products at the right time, it wasn't until what... NT 3.5/4 that they had a reliable server, they ignored the Internet as they didn't understand its importance and there's no real comparison between a bog standard mySQL installation and the £5-7k you have to plonk down for a SQL single CPU license. My point being Microsoft wasn't even competing for the longest time, the fault is theirs.

Does anyone actually use GIMP over Photoshop professionally? I don't get to play in many studios or design companies but I've never actually seen gimp used professionally. I'm sure there's a few people out there doing so but this goes back to my earlier point, I don't see it as competition for commercial products and just a viable alternative for those who see value in it.

steveo_mcg said:
There are plenty of examples of very good programmers who willingly spend hours or days working on software for no monetary gain, for the practice, the experience, the glory, the ego stroke all the reason an amateur photographer might work for free, this software might end up displacing or blocking commercial software putting other programmers out of work. I'd say its an excellent comparison, unlike the hypothetical plumber or taxi driver this actually happens, daily.
Click to expand...

That's an established person doing it though and them doing it isn't doesn't take anything from anyone else which is (I assume) the part that concerns many professional photographers.

In the sense of what actually happens in the real world it's a better example I agree but I think the work is too far removed, a photographer could be competing with someone who's prepared to work for free but a company paying for software development is unlikely to suddenly choose an open source alternative as they're normally tied into a specific environment or approach.

steveo_mcg said:
What difference does it make if the free photo comes from a crap amateur or a good one? Its still devaluing the field isn't it? The newspaper would rather have a really good free photo than a crap one but the important part is that its free. The high quality code revision has probably come from some one who once wrote poor quality code.
Click to expand...

This is partly why I don't feel it's a good comparison overall, bad coding tends to weed itself out so the problem of bad amateurs either goes away quickly or is prevented in the first place because it's such a technical profession. You'll often hear the cry of someone trying to break into programming that companies require you have x years experience but how do they get that experience unless someone hires them?
 
Last edited:
How many of the people on here complaining about others giving away their pics for free are using FREE software, AVs, firewalls, Linux, Virtualbox etc to name but a few?

How many use Wikipedia without donating a penny to it or to all the other shareware products?

We all want and use free stuff - why do you think the "Buy one get one free" adverts are still seen?

I have a lot of photos on Flickr - why am I showing them for free? - surely if I valued my work shouldn't I charge for people to view them instead of paying Yahoo?

The simple fact is we ALL want something for free, and that is never going to change so basically - suck it up!
.
 
petersmart said:
How many of the people on here complaining about others giving away their pics for free are using FREE software, AVs, firewalls, Linux, Virtualbox etc to name but a few?

How many use Wikipedia without donating a penny to it or to all the other shareware products?

We all want and use free stuff - why do you think the "Buy one get one free" adverts are still seen?

I have a lot of photos on Flickr - why am I showing them for free? - surely if I valued my work shouldn't I charge for people to view them instead of paying Yahoo?

The simple fact is we ALL want something for free, and that is never going to change so basically - suck it up!
.
Click to expand...
On the other hand:
How many people on here supporting free photos actually go out and buy stuff. They think photos should be free, but they buy music, food petrol, gas and electricity. FFS They're ridiculous.

Which makes as much sense as your post :)
 
Phil V said:
On the other hand:
How many people on here supporting free photos actually go out and buy stuff. They think photos should be free, but they buy music, food petrol, gas and electricity. FFS They're ridiculous.

Which makes as much sense as your post :)
Click to expand...

thats because tesco get the arse when you try and tell them that they should let you have your shopping in return for you telling your friends where you shop
 
simonbarker said:
Your post sounds like a pretty accurate description of an internship and it makes perfect sense to me why you'd do it as even though you weren't being paid as there was clearly a valuable trade occurring for both parties.

I keep thinking (in a very basic sense) if you're being asked to work for no reward it's actually fairly insulting. That reward can come in many forms as it did in your example but the few times I've been asked to work for free (not to do with photography) I've walked away and never considered it a difficult choice.
Click to expand...
To be fair the playschool is a charity and has helped us out in the past to raise money for one of my twins to have a special helmet to correct her head that as miss shaped at birth (plageocefily, not sure spelling is right). But I have done some for friends and family where I get the experience and they get the digital images. So its for free because they are giving their time.

But if a company was to ask me to do some I wouldn't do it without payment.
 
Pookeyhead said:
As Simon says... that sounds like an internship. That's different. You're working WITH someone.. learning from them. There's value in that, yes.

Doing jobs for free when you're just on your own is not really that great as a learning experience is it? The client has no interest is teaching you anything.. nor could you learn much from them any way. You'll be getting no experience in running a business... because you're not running one... you're working for free. You'll get no experience in costing a job, because you're doing it for free. You'll get no experience in marketing, because you're doing it for free. You'll get no experience in networking because you're on your own. No experience in equipment, because you'll just be using what you have. In fact you'll get no experience in anything you don't already know, because you're on your own and you'll not learn anything new, because you've no idea what you should or shouldn't know.

If you want to learn, do what photographers have always done... assist another photographer. If you're serious... join the AOP and go on their assistant register.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a learning experience because it gives you the opportunity to work in environments you can't normally to get practice and prepare for paid work so you can do it with conference. Working with a pro toggers would be ideal but is not always possible (I run my own business so would not have the time, not in photography). As for learning how to run a business I didn't know until I started my own.

Surely when you are learning/starting out experience is payment. I'm trying to start out and although most on here would think my work isn't brilliant we all have to start somewhere and the more experience I can get so I can provide a good service in the future the better.

But there are limits as you are rightly pointing out.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
They think photos should be free, but they buy music, food petrol, gas and electricity. FFS They're ridiculous.

Which makes as much sense as your post :)
Click to expand...
Who buys music...oh wait that's another debate ;)
 
Phil V said:
Why?
Is it OK to steal music / photo's / movies / groceries if you're in a certain age bracket?:thinking:
Click to expand...
So u never heard of Spotify lmao.

Pay peanuts to listen to any music you want! Same thing for movies and TV. Hardly anyone buys a specific music or movie anymore..

Streaming and a subscription is the future!

Heck look at photography software
 
jonneymendoza said:
So u never heard of Spotify lmao.

Pay peanuts to listen to any music you want! Same thing for movies and TV. Hardly anyone buys a specific music or movie anymore..

Streaming and a subscription is the future!

Heck look at photography software
Click to expand...
I believe 'Spotify' is still buying music. So the answer to your question 'who buys music' is apparently 'I do'.

You're welcome :D
 
jonneymendoza said:
Heck look at photography software
Click to expand...

Well although I do use a lot of free software and read the daily papers online for free etc, I DO pay for software if it fulfills a need - so over the years I have bought editing programs (NOT Photoshop), Neat Image, Easy HDR Pro, etc.

And I have also very occasionally bought music online.

And, since I kicked live TV into the kerb years ago I also buy lots of DVDs (films and boxsets) from Amazon and Ebay, which I can watch at my leisure as and when I wish.
.
 
jonneymendoza said:
So u never heard of Spotify lmao.

Pay peanuts to listen to any music you want! Same thing for movies and TV. Hardly anyone buys a specific music or movie anymore..

Streaming and a subscription is the future!

Heck look at photography software
Click to expand...

iTunes, Netflix and a host of other services would seem to prove you wrong.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Heck look at photography software
Click to expand...

That's because the companies making the software are running out of new features so we have less reasons to upgrade which jeopardizes their revenue stream, voila a subscription model! Now we're paying the upgrade price forever and ever.

In other words it's a business decision designed to extract the most money out of their customers, nothing to do with stealing the software or customer choice.
 
Last edited:
sunnyside_up said:
Just a quick story of a recent experience of mine... A very close friend's daughter got married this month. They asked me to do the wedding photos months ago. They expected it for free. But I was also to be considered a guest as well.... (Scratches head)...yes I know, shoot me now.

Anyway, coming closer to the time, I wanted them to sign a 'contract' of sorts as I don't do weddings as a rule, but wanted to cover myself as well as have the photos for my own use. This upset the applecart. They didn't like that. They uninvited me and my family from the wedding and 'excused' my services.... And went out and hired a £1200 photographer.

Unfortunately, the 'unfriending' on Facebook, THE social media slap in the face, now has extinguished that friendship.
Click to expand...

They werent your friends anyway... They were using you cause you are good at photography. Thought you'd fall for the ride and luckily you didn't and you got out of doing it. They sound like scum to be fair. :)
 
jonneymendoza said:
No it proves me right lol Netflix you stream and Spotify is larger than iTunes
Click to expand...


Sorry, I take your point - so you licence the music for a much shorter period than you did before?
Basically all you've done is change the terms of the licence under which you can listen to the music, because even on a solid medium (CD/DVD/Tape/Vinal etc) you weren't buying it anyway, you were licensing it.

Rather like photography then.
 
Furtim said:
I sympathise. But it is not unique to photography as an industry, it's happening all over the place.
Click to expand...

Only seems to be the creative industries though. Don't get it in bakery, or gardening, or transport... or building. Imagine that? "I see you've just set yourself up.. I'd love you to build me an extension... I have no budget, but it would be GREAT exposure for you."
 
Pookeyhead said:
Only seems to be the creative industries though. Don't get it in bakery, or gardening, or transport... or building. Imagine that? "I see you've just set yourself up.. I'd love you to build me an extension... I have no budget, but it would be GREAT exposure for you."
Click to expand...

Not really. In a previous life we'd do work for the big oil companies free or as good as just so we'd be able to boast we had Shell and BP on the books when we went round state oil companies and the small players looking for sales and consulting.
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
Not really. In a previous life we'd do work for the big oil companies free or as good as just so we'd be able to boast we had Shell and BP on the books when we went round state oil companies and the small players looking for sales and consulting.
Click to expand...


What kind of work?
 
steveo_mcg said:
Oil and gas consultancy. Only creative when it came to fudging missing data...
Click to expand...


:)

Again.... something with no real product at the end... just data. I think that's part of the problem. Photography has become something where the final product is a file you download for most people. The irony is, as more and more of us are taking images than every before, more and more of us understand photography less.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Not really. In a previous life we'd do work for the big oil companies free or as good as just so we'd be able to boast we had Shell and BP on the books when we went round state oil companies and the small players looking for sales and consulting.
Click to expand...
Previous life but not now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top