New term - Gunfighter?

<p>Saw an ad looking for a photographer - with a twist -</p>

<p>Ad title is Photographer (Gunfighter) - what the heck is a photographer (Gunfighter) ?</p>

<p>The ad basically says they want some one for day shoots - part of a team of people, they provide memory cards, you don't delete, edit or use the photos in any way shape or form and turn in the cards at the end of the day. Basically the restrictions on usage make this job very undesirable since you can't delete images, can't use images in your portfolio, or even keep a copy of the images.</p>

<p>Any idea what the term gunfighter means in this context? I'm assuming some reference to being a hired gun, come in, do the job and leave. (and don't take any suveniors with when you're done)</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure it matters that you can't delete images if they're not going to be credited to you.</p>

<p>Well, I get that the role is mercenarial, and I suppose that someone hired into that role "just shoots"- and makes no editorial decisions whatsoever. Just show up and shoot.<br /><br />As for not deleting ... that might be a little annoying, but only in the sense that the person who hired you is going to see every focus flub, poor lighting decision, etc. But maybe that's how they identify people they want to hire (or not) for other, more high-pressure gigs where they have fewer people in the trenches. I don't mind the name, as <em>anything</em> is better than "togs."</p>

<p>Good point Jeff -<br>

But I think (reading between the lines of the ad) that they (whom ever is paying the bills) is paranoid enough about a missing image in sequence that if one where missing they'd assume you moved it to another memory card or folder. </p>

<p>As they put it later - they want "all activations of the shutter"</p>

 

They want to hire you as essentially an employee, but you bring your own equipment. And it looks like your own vehicle

and insurance.

 

Sounds like a rip off scam to me. I assume they meant 'hired gun'. You gonna be a henchman.

<blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a rip off scam to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At what level of pay for the day would that no longer be true? I can think of some (not unreasonable) numbers that would make me perfectly happy to shoot-and-wash-my-hands-of-it for a day. It might actually be kind of liberating, if the pay was right.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a rip off scam to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's work for hire. If you don't like it, don't take it, but being work for hire doesn't make it a scam. A scam would be if they didn't pay you. As Matt points out, there's a pay rate that would make it just fine to a lot of people.</p>

<p>I've worked for clients that take the bag of film at the end of the day. One-off jobs that do not facilitate my brand but the client wanted to work with me. No different than turning over cards.<br>

I've never felt ripped off or disadvantaged.</p>

<p>I can think of numerous (non advertising) scenarios where the parameters set forth make perfect sense.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It doesn't sound like a scam, but it sure sounds like the person could be a difficult employer. I think I would ask "why," and if it had anything to do with the client's distrust of the photographer(s), I wouldn't take the job -- just my feeling. Irregardless, get everything in writing, and be careful, because people who can't trust are often not trustworthy themselves.</p>

<p>Just thinking of how I would do such a shoot... Hmmmm... I think I would be very conservative about what I shot. I wouldn't take but a quarter of the shots I usually do. Many of my shots are simply to verify exposure or lighting. Many are quite redundant, e.g. three shots to ensure that at least 1 doesn't have some random problem like an eye blink. I think I would explain to the employer that he or she had a choice -- seeing a whole lot of crap and redundant photos with a few great keepers, or seeing a substantially smaller collection of good, but not great, shots. (Their choice.) They obviously don't know how photographers work. ;-)</p>

I have no idea why the employer sounds "difficult" or where you see signs of distrust. The employer is making it quite clear that they want someone to take photos and turn over the cards--no editing, no post processing, no obligations after the shooting is done. Sounds quite simple to me. As long as you get paid a satisfactory rate, there's very little room for "difficulty" (as least with the employer).

<p>As described, it's no different from most temp jobs. It'd be a good gig for photographers who are very good in the moment when photographing the action, but not so good with business and administrative chores. Probably be more fun than working as a department store portrait photographer.</p>

<p>Mike, note the word "if." I think it's prudent to size up any potential employer. There's no harm in a question as to "why." In my half century of experience on this planet, if something smells funny, it's often because it is, but YMMV.</p>

"if something smells funny, it's often because it is,"

 

True, but I'm not clear on why people think this smells funny. It sounds like a straightforward, work-for-hire job.

<p>Right, it doesn't sound "difficult" or "funny." In fact, it's refreshingly honest. </p>

<p>I've done plenty of these disposable gigs. It <em>is</em> liberating. And it's work.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>I've worked for high profile clients in the scotch whisky industry in my recent film days and the deal is I shoot a stack of stuff to their brief, and hand over the lot, unprocessed and therefore unedited.</p>

<p>They process using a lab they regularly work with so quality is assured. I'm confident enough in my skills to be sure thats whats on the film wont embarrass me or the client, and they obviously are too otherwise they would not hire me.</p>

<p>For my efforts I get a high day rate and a nice letter of thanks with the cheque.</p>

<p>I've done similar jobs with digital. No scams, no rip-offs. Its just the way its sometimes done.</p>

You'd have to bring two cameras, one for you and one for the employer.

<p>Recently in Baltimore a production company came to town to do location shooting for a new TV show.<br>

They set up special lighting at different places around town, and on several occasions I believe that the actors were on the sets. If you were a still photographer working for them, you would be most likely working under the stipulations that were indicated. After all, they don't want you selling the images to magazines, or releasing images of "outtakes" or rehearsals to the internet. Additionally, you could always turn a knob or press a button on your camera and record video with sound for your own use and distribution on the internet.</p>

<p>Gunfighter is the natural outlet for a 'scattergun' photographer?</p>

<p>They want a hired gun. Shades of 'Shane' and Jack Pallance playing that guy whose name escapes me but he dressed in black. I'd be very wary.</p>

<p>National Geographic worked much the same way. They would only use one lab for processing and after you were done shooting you sent the Kodachrome to their designated lab.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"They want a hired gun. Shades of 'Shane' and Jack Pallance playing that guy whose name escapes me but he dressed in black. I'd be very wary"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The gunfighter who dressed in black that I can recall was Richard Boone in the TV show "Have Gun - Will Travel" Perhaps his updated motto should now be "Have CANON (or Nikon) - Will Travel"</p>

<p>Chris, his name was Paladin:<br>

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050025/<br>

http://www.hgwt.com/HGWT19.jpg</p>

<p>The choice of words for the title of this add is indeed odd. When I saw the term, "Photographer (Gunfighter)", I thought for a moment that they might be looking for a photographer who could portray a western role in some sort of performance or re-creation of an old western town or movie set. This would be similar to the advertisements for photographers at ski resorts that are sometimes worded, "Photographer / Skier". I then Googled the ad in question and see that this is not the case.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Apply for the job and tell them you've killed six people in a gunfight and see if they call you.</p>

<p>Stock agencies use exactly this technique for the generation of Agency Owned content, where they hold the rights and so have to pay no royalties in return for a fairly decent day rate and all your travel/accommodation etc paid and they take all the hassle of fixing releases etc. They don't allow deletion because their criteria for acceptance are different to those a photographer would use. </p>