Jump to content

Free is Killing Me!


Recommended Posts

As far as this applies to the digital vs. film debate, at least film was such a chore to deal with that it helped keep a lid on this kind of thing.

 

"Sure, I'll take some pictures of your wedding. What, I have to get all the film developed and then you want to pick and choose which ones you want? What am I supposed to do with all the other prints? It cost me money to have them done. Uh, maybe you'd better ask someone else."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><i>We have people who just love taking photos for free or dirt-cheap as a hobby and think that they can do what you do for a living (as a professional photographer). I went to school for photography and I have busted my ass to get where I'm at and for what? So some professor can do below average work for cheap? Why can't I teach biochemistry for little or no cost? I never heard back from the dean, too bad ... I was really looking forward to teaching biochemistry at UCLA.</i></p>

<p>If he can convince some college students to pay to hear his lectures on biochemistry, then why not?</p>

<p>I love how some professional photographers blame amateurs for wrecking their industry. This guy is trying to say that because he went to school, and because he has been doing it for a living, he's entitled to charge for something that others will do for free? The professor is no villain for doing something that he enjoys and saving his university a few thousand dollars at the same time.</p>

</p>The fact is that photography is fun. There are millions of people that do it just because they love it. If you're the best, you can charge. If you can't differentiate your work from that of amateurs to their clients, then you need to get out of the business.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some amateurs are very, very good. And they are free to charge, or not charge, whatever they please. Add in the fact that many people are happy with mediocre images, and you have a very difficult market place for making a living. I don't have an answer, except perhaps to shoot where the running costs are high. Models are paid, so you don't want some hack wasting time trying to figure out how his gear works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least in the wedding biz it appears that some of the more successful photographers are selling themselves. They are marketing a persona, a lifestyle ... IOW, an illusion. But because of this approach nobody can undersell them.

 

Being a pro photography can't be compared to being a doctor, engineer or teacher. It's more like being a "professional" novelist. There are plenty of hacks who've earned money. And plenty of good writers who couldn't market themselves.

 

And it can't be compared to shopping for groceries or hardware. Nobody really needs photos. They want 'em, but they don't need 'em. So, while entertaining, the article linked to starts off with a flawed premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To some extent it's the same in my profession -- Software Engineer. Here I am with a B.S. and a M.S. in Computer Science and 30 years in the field. Presumably all that training and experience provides me some qualitative advantage over someone who takes on online couse in website development and declares himself a software engineer, and it does. But that difference might be hard for an employer to see. Furthermore the lines are blurred by the fact that the blazingly intelligent can often trump years of experience and education and do a decent job.

 

So a photographer with years of experence and a degree(s) in art and/or photography finds himself in competition with an amateur who might have talent and years of hobby work to develop his skills. He might well be able to win a competition with the amateur if they both shot the event and compared results, but the amateur may only be shooting for glory (or hobby money) and the employer might not care (or might not think he cares) about that extra quality.

 

I can sympathize because I can see both sides.

 

I guess the photographer could shoot one of the games anyway, and send the school a collection of pictures demonstrating what the school loses by employing an amateur, but if they're not impressed, there is really no recourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I under stand Matt's perspective, if my job had the same issues I would probably be livid about it. When it comes

down to it however, what is a school going to do? If they know they can get a photographer who will do their games

for cheap or free and receive images that are of enough quality to convey something about their sports programs then

I am sure they are going to do that. Same goes with companies like CBS, etc. I don't necessarily think it is right, but

I can understand the attitude.

 

There is no out of pocket expense for them, so if they images aren't as good, they spent little acquiring them. As

Robert mentioned with modeling, if the company is paying for the model, travel and location fees, etc they are

already sinking a lot of money in, paying a pro-photographer instead of hiring Joe Shmoo who will do it for the photo

credit is well worth while (lets spend $10,000 for everything and then get someone to do a freebie on the shoot who

might have little talent, or lets spend $10,000 for everything and then $1,000 for a pro we know does a good job).

With marketing you are generally looking to provide the best you can afford to get your message across. For sports

shooting you just want something that will get the idea across, it doesn't have to be the best (unless you are gunning

for say SI best sports images of the year or something of the sort).

 

Heck, I am not a pro at all, but for most things I would be more then will to simply give an image away so long as I

controlled future use and had credit assigned. I wouldn't simply give away an image without getting credit and without

being able to tell the image user what they can and can't do with it (I don't need them then giving it away for an ad

campaign or something else and not getting subsequent credit or possibly money off of it, not like my images will

ever be that good).

 

David your points are perfectly made. I am in IT as well and I see some of that (though to a lesser degree where I am,

so it generally doesn't bother me).

 

I think the issue is that when a profession is talent based then you are going to have people who can get in with

relatively little formal training and maybe even little experience if they have a lot of natural talent (or even without a

lot), especially if the person looking for your talent is possibly willing or doesn't care about sacrificing some quality.

 

Other areas where this is true, but 'enforced out' are things like plumbing and electrical work. I am extremely good at

electrical work, but I have never been apprenticed, so I can't actually work as a master electrician...even though I

could handle 95% of the jobs a trained master electrician could do with 90% of the quality (and all up to code).

Photography is a bit the same in a lot of ways, there is just no law or regulation preventing people with none of the

formal training or years of experience from jumping in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Business is business. You have to offer a product/service that people want/need, at a price that people are

prepared to pay. In some cases, the photographer himself - or simply his name - may well be an important part of

the deal. Sometimes it's not only about the photographs.

 

Digital photography has certainly changed many things, though... Mostly for the better. With film, controlling

exposure and

enhancing a picture during processing were difficult, time-consuming skills for beginners to learn. For example,

many people were unwilling to use manual exposure (or exposure compensation) and fill flash and so on, simply

because they couldn't see the effect it was having on their photos as they were snapping away. Not any more...

 

The learning curve was pretty steep, partly due to the lack of in-camera feedback, and partly because the cost of

film and processing didn't lend itself to experimentation for many folk. And let's not forget that many

photography enthusiasts never did any of their own film processing at all. Now they can snap away all day long,

and they have a digital "darkroom" on their desk. And they have the internet to answer their questions, and they

can make a website to show off their work to the world.

 

What does this mean for the pros...? Well, that depends on what type of product/service they offer, and the

nature of their customers. Perhaps high-end studio photographers with fancy corporate clients shouldn't be

worrying too much, just yet...? But mainstream wedding photographers and the like certainly face more competition.

 

A mate of mine was asked to shoot a wedding quite recently. And he did. With a 400D, a couple of consumer grade

lenses and a flash gun. He did it as free favour to a friend who trusted his abilities. His pictures popped out

of his PC just fine.

 

I can easily see this becoming an increasingly common scenario. Sure, there's always a risk that someone with

less experience than a working pro may royally screw up in such situations, but many people will take that risk.

Because it saves money. And OK, perhaps they'll ask another mate to act as a backup... :)

 

If people want a high-end product/service, they'll still pay for it. If they just want some reasonable quality

photographs of something or other, or simply a few memories of a nice day, perhaps they'll be happy enough with

the work of an enthusiast...? Or even with Uncle Mike and his fancy new ultrazoom compact....?

 

Well, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photography is an unskilled entry level job I'm afraid. You need absolutely no qualifications to call yourself a photographer in the US and advertise your sevices as such. It's basically the same as serving behind the counter at a fast food joint (except you get less benefits and the pay may not be as good!).

 

You need qualifictions and certification to cut someone's hair or manicure their nails, but you only need a camera to be a wedding photographer. I've heard of people hiring wedding photographers who used a P&S camera. It happens.

 

That's the reality of the situation. You may not like it, but that's the way it is...and it's not going to get any better.

 

I recently got a request for an image from the US government (actually US Park Service). They wanted an image - but didn't want to pay for it. On principle, I won't give my work away, but since plently of people will, I assume they'll be able to find someone willing to work for free. I'm glad I don't (try to) make my living at this!

 

If they ever remove the need for doctors to be licenced, I hear there's great money to be made in cosmetic surgery and it can be a fun and profitable hobby...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Nobody dies when the photography screws up royally. We license the professions where the consequences of

failure are high (doctors, bridge builders, architects, etc.). And when you settle for mediocre, it's not usually clear

what you gave up since you don't have the "pro" shots to compare them to.

 

As an amateur landscape photographer, I like to think I've learned a little something over the years. I may not be a

professional, and may not have the fitness and determination to climb to the great locations pre-dawn to get those

best shots. But I like to think that I've managed to acquire some good shots from 30 years as an amateur. If you

dropped me and an experienced pro into a scenic location and gave us both a couple of hours, he'd probably get the

better shots, but I'd get some good ones too.

 

But I don't know how you work as an amateur wedding photographer for years ;-) Maybe you just go to every

wedding you hear about and take your own pictures? Wouldn't that just be special for the pros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can relate to Matt's issue in his article, but I'm afraid that's just the way things are. The only solution IMO is to diversify. There

are other demands for the use of a photographer other than sports shooter where you can still earn a living. Museums, high end

fine art galleries, aerial and product photography are a few that come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photographing the average wedding isn't rocket science. If it was, many of those currently doing it wouldn't be.

 

Some people will do a better job than others, of course, but many keen photography enthusiasts will get reasonable results, even at their first attempt. Especially if they've done a little homework beforehand, and asked for some "pro" tips on sites like this.

 

With the proliferation of consumer-level DSLRs, people will increasingly have friends and family members that they will trust to do a decent job with their "real" cameras. They'll be realistic, and they won't expect the best work ever, but they'll be confident that many of the shots will be good enough for their needs. Partly because it's so easy to take many, many shots these days, and then fix 'em up on a PC... Even a 10% success rate can make a nice little wedding album.

 

You have to remember that for family events, most non-photographers simply don't care about composition and lighting and all that stuff, unless they have something better to compare to... They're often happy enough just to see reasonably well-exposed happy smiles. Which may well be more easily elicited by a friend than a gear-laden stranger.

 

And some people will surely be smiling even more, in the knowledge that they've saved a substantial amount of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Software development is a pretty wide-open field too. There aren't really any formal educational requirements -- the richest software guy ever (also the richest guy ever) was a college dropout. "Amateurs" have done plenty of serious work, and many full-time professionals do work for free and give away their copyright too, or license it for nothing.

 

Maybe professional photographers need to develop skills that are worth paying for and spend less time whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Maybe professional photographers need to develop skills that are worth paying for and spend less time whining."

 

Who's whining? Actually what happens depends on the nature of the job. If you're writing some little program

unconnected to any sort of big project, then the worst thing that can happen is that it's a little buggy. If you're writing

software as part of a team of 20 engineers to run an aircraft avionics or diagnostic system with a few hundred

thousand lines of code (or in the millions) the consequences can be rather more severe. Experience helps if you

have a big project or a thorny problem to diagnose.

 

So far my employer is willing to keep paying me (knock on wood).

 

In the same way that a professional photographer can have a hard time demonstrating how his performance will be

better than a talented amateur, a professional software engineer can have an equally hard time demonstrating where

the newcomer is likely to "go wrong". An additional thing working against software engineers is that there are SO

many tools and languages and OSs and development environments that you can't possibly be an expert in

everything. It would be kind of like asking a professional photographer to be an expert in everything from wedding

photography to scientific photomicrography to the working of the hubble telescope to sports photography. It would be

hard to be even competent at everything. At best you would be prepared to "learn faster" than the less trained

newcomer.

 

I'd hate to think that the time might come when there is NO value in education or experience in photography OR

software engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not pertain to the original subject of this thread, but is a response to Scott Frindel Cole's commment.

 

I remember an article I read in Shutterbug (I think) awhile back about a wedding photographer that was getting

burnt out. A colleague suggested that he "price himself out of business" before leaving it behind and trying a

different market. So the guy started raising his prices...and raising his prices...and raising his prices. The

higher he went, the more in-demand he was, and he was already doing very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's little doubt that we're witnessing here will be looked back on as a significant period in the history of photography... People are being greatly empowered by digital technology, and information is being shared in a way that simply wasn't possible in the past.

 

The pro that made that remark to Scott all those years ago was right... Many aspects of photography were something of a specialist skill, back then. The equipment and techniques were a mystery to many non-pros... Given the inherent limitations of film, that working knowledge and those photographic skills took time and dedication to develop, so it was only right that they were rewarded appropriately.

 

Things have changed, hoewever, and are continuing to do so at a remarkably rapid rate.... People are learning very, very quickly, in the comfort of their own homes. Not least from resources such as this site. Why? Because they want to. Why? Because, for many folk, it's fun... Many people always wanted to learn, back in the film days, but simply never had the tools or information at their disposal to do so at a rate which didn't frustrate...

 

Let's face it, many people bought a film SLR years ago, played around with it for a while, and were often horribly disappointed by the prints they got back from the lab. And basically they just gave up the hobby, after a while. But now they have tools with which they can learn and improve very quickly, and they have access to the information they need to understand how best to use them. I suspect many PN contributors have learnt considerably more in a short time with digital than in all their previous years with film.

 

From a technical point of view photography is rapidly becoming a mainstream skill. And people are out there using their cameras on a daily basis, gaining valuable experience. Most importantly, they're then sharing their experiences, helping each other, and teaching each other. On a global scale. No photography school required.

 

If I were planning to make some money (or perhaps a career) out of photography these days - which I'm most certainly not, BTW - I don't think I'd be looking at a formal education in the subject. I'd be teaching myself whenever I had the chance, and I'd be actively looking for personal contacts, connections and potential customers in whatever field of photography I was most interested in. And I'd be researching my potential market's needs very intently.

 

The old pros shouldn't be complaining here... It's no-one's fault that their livelihoods are possibly being directly affected by these changes. It's plain, old-fashioned progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this and the responses my first reaction/thought was this: "No one said you had to go to college."

While technically that's a true statement, college isn't required, it is the preferred method of spending 4+

years drinking and chasing the opposite sex in a semi-controlled environment. Oh, and you might learn something

there too, its been known to happen.

 

About a year ago I responded to an ad looking for a photographer to shoot local college sports, mostly women's

basketball. I inquired, asked a few things and learned that they do not pay. I came to the conclusion that

lacking any photo credentials, which is what college does provide is a form of entry-level credential, (4 years

here learning about art and photography. Each successive job becomes another credential as well, 2yrs local

paper, 4 years regional paper, 8 months sports magazine. Each is a form of proof that you are a professional,

it becomes your resume.) So I agreed to work for them to learn about sports photography, is this something I

would be interested in pursing as a career choice/change. (oddly enough I've worked in IT fields for 15+ years

and needed change)

 

Initially it was interesting and for most of the people that answer such ads or try for such things, they're just

fans that want a little better access to enjoy something they are a fan of. I learned a lot and promised myself

I wouldn't let it go for more than a year considering it as an internship, nothing permanent as I want a paycheck

for the work I was doing. I learned that sports photography is hard work, a lot of running around during the

game, hours at the computer reviewing and submitting your work, and if you freelance, more time spent chasing

down buyers to your work. On top of all that, I was constantly sent to sporting events I had no interest in.

Basketball doesn't interest me, football doesn't interest me, lacrosse - no, swimming - no. The one sport I love

and was interested in is Ice hockey and they didn't want to send me to a game. I pushed, I shoved, I forced them

to let me shoot ice hockey, and when I did I loved it. Some hockey games I shot over 1000 pictures, I averaged

600 per game and had a very high percentage of 'keepers' so I was learning and proud. Friends and family would

boast how some of my stuff was as good or better than the AP or other 'paid' work, but I wasn't getting paid and

it bothered me. For the fan that isn't getting paid, they don't see photography the same way - they're fans,

not business people. Its not a business to them, the photograph is a perk of being on the sidelines, sure you

can have it! If somehow they got published, its just another perk for them.

 

After a year I left that organization for many reasons. I learned that I don't want to be a sports photographer.

For one thing I'm not getting paid plus I could be taking money out of someone else' pocket, secondly I'm not

getting to shoot the sport I like. If a photographer tells the editor, 'um, no sir i don't want to go shoot

the NFL game today.' he won't remain a photographer for long. And that will be the fan's response most of the

time. I'm busy with the family, I'm doing this or that.

 

I enjoyed my internship, learned a lot, and will find ways to continue to shoot hockey, but not for free and not

as often. I'm looking for more artistic ways to capture hockey. For the professionals that make a living - the

only thing I can say is stand up, be that professional you visualize yourself as. Remember, in a field as

subjective and dynamic as Photography, it is the photographer's responsibility to grow and change ones self to

reflect a changing market. If the unpaid amateurs are taking your business, find a way to re-market yourself to

reclaim that business. For my way of thinking, that's 1/2 the reason for getting into photography, is the

challenge of the business as much as the thrill of capturing an important shot. The alternative is to work 9-5

in a box otherwise known as a cubicle.

 

There are two options I see - the pro's can whine that the market they originally staked out is dwindling away,

or they can reinvent themselves, re-market themselves, and reclaim that market. It sounds good anyway...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a keen photographer the digital camera is much like a word processor is to a writer. Just a fairly trivial

tool. These days, a working knowledge of its operation should be assumed.

 

For a formal education in photography to be worthwhile, it would have to focus strongly on the artistic and/or

commercial aspects. In which case, it may be better to go the whole hog and study either art or business, and

learn the photography stuff in one's own time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...