hectorroldan

First please let me explain. I live in Guatemala, Central América (just below México and next to Belize). Wedding photography is a hot business here, yet I don't participate for personal reasons, it is annoying, people here are often (mot of the times actually) annoying. I wonder how do you deal with this if you ever face such situations. The usual thing around here is you get hired and when you show up you discover there are about other 3 photographers hired by other members of the family, and around 3-5 freelance photographers that are permanently present at the churches/temples looking for work. Yes, it is common to end up dealing with about 8 photographers at the same time, not to mention the guests with their tablets. If you think this sounds like some poor town wedding: yes, it's kinda like that, at times it's like diplomatic events where people fight over a picture and in the process will ruin other people photographs. Well, that's the easy part of the problem o_O. The worst part is the family and guests. It doesn't matter who hires you, and it doesn't matter what part of the wedding is taking place, you will surely have to face random people telling you at any moment "hey you, hey... you, picture me, picture her, now a group photo". They believe the photographer has been paid by the family to serve anyone and everyone for free, and they will be rude. If you are thinking this only happens on poor weddings you are wrong, sadly this is very common and often caused by far related family, not even direct family of the people getting married. I have seen photographers kindly explaining "sorry I was hired to... " [interrupted, then told something rude]. People will actually get up, walk to you and grab you by the arm or touch you in the shoulders to interrupt you (no matter what you are doing) to take pictures of a random kid in cheap ugly looking tuxedo or a lady in a dress, things can be that annoying. If you try to explain or just turn around you are likely to engage in more interruptions where people explain/demand why you should do what they are asking you, and how rude and pretentious you are by refusing. Things turn into a long uncomfortable interruption, often with complains to the family. I don't do wedding photography because of this. I find the money being paid ends up being too low or too dirty/complicated/nasty. Talking and explaining when hired that you won't do that but only focus on the husband and wife means nothing, things will happen anyway. Here... it is very rare that weddings take place in really private ways with access control (no strangers). As explained many temples have permanent freelance photographers that have caused a big part of this issue because they try to serve anyone and everyone to get paid. It was easier in the past because FILM and instant pictures were expensive. Today they take pictures of anyone because digital is free and they can later try to sell it. Well... that was a long detailed explanation. I have talked about this with fellow local photographers and asked the what they do, the answers vary but everyone shows how irritating this is, how they also hate such situations (hate is a strong word I'm not using lightly here), and often brings all sort of short stories of irritating events taking place at weddings. One guy method is telling people "sure sure, I'll be back right away" and moves away, if asked again he repeats, he basically plays the fool. I don't think such attitude is pretty but he faced less annoying situations than other people trying to explain why they can't interrupt their work to picture silly things. BTW photographers refusing to talk and just carrying on get it worse. I don't pretend or expect exclusivity but such things around "the job" make it cheap and easy to end up hating it.

Laberls? It depends on the paper quality. You can solve it using a pigment printer (Epson Durabrite or something alike) but they are a pain to deal with over time. Lightscribe is amazing but only B/W and takes longer. If you want the easy way, very simple: use an UV spray and use it on your disk, it will create a transparent protective layer that (depending on your brand and quality) it will eventually become waterproof. Just be careful to firmly press the disc so no spray gets to the bottom of it. Exactly, and the labels can end up looking terribly after the expansion.

I forced myself to stop thinking as a photographer, felt difficult at the beginning but then it came easily. At present time I have no issues watching people do whatever they do while taking pictures (except ridiculous cases), and it is very relaxing, I don't know if everyone experiences the same in the sense that this could be just one of several stages. The thing is I started taking pictures with a professional camera around 1998-1999. Used to bring my camera with me to every place I visited and then noticed I was always in "photographic mode", my then trained eye didn't have any "off button". I wanted to capture lots of details in many situations but mostly it was my eye and my brain thinking that way. As you describe, I was also aware of other people making terrible mistakes with their cameras. I honestly didn't like that, if you think about it, it is some kind of compulsion (in a way) and so I stopped having my camera around, in fact I took some years off and traveled without my camera, life was better that way. Then one day I came across an interesting article on the web written by a photographer, he explained how sometimes by taking pictures you buy a one way ticket to photography land and suddenly you can't turn off your photographic eye, unable to experience everyday average situations like an everyday average person, it resonated with me. Eventually I was able to be present at ceremonies or diplomatic events watching people do terrible things with their cameras and I was fine with it, in fact many of them were invisible to me unless someone told me to watch and pay attention to something. I personally think it's a temporary stage.

BTW I do remember religious places where people where standing, on their knees or even lying on the floor begging for mercy, forgiveness or whatever to their God. Some people bring their cameras to capture the moment (if there are some tears better) and some shut their cameras off, I do that out of respect to their beliefs and what they are feeling. It's in the public eye yes but it's not my moment to take away, it's theirs. After years around theology that's the usual result when people are invited to question their actions: going to extremes in order to be way forgiving on their own actions. It's some form of super compensation and denial.

As a reference I studied my share of theology and philosophy, been around lawyers (my wife is actually a lawyer) and I can tell you ethics is a large area of discussion. Many things seem inocuos but it isn't, sometimes your knowledge is your limitation. As for the comment on legality, you can have long conversations with lawyers regarding lots of things that don't break the law (and thus are legal) but offend or hurt people, and are absolutely questionable. My personal opinion is prudence, humbleness and having a really open mind can open our eyes to why some things are in fact not ethical at all. All it takes is willing to listen, unless you want to take the long way to learn: when life puts you in that situation and thus you understand why it is unethical (in other words: when we are on the other side of the lens). I'm not here to lecture nobody, just to try con contribute, and I will address a bit of your post with some examples. Nature. I manage a website (my own) with lots of traffic regarding travels and some specific stuff... I learned by reading and then by personal experience NOT TO include some places I visit because it can drive too many visitors to that area. Is it bad? lots of locals might be happy to receive them (tourism) but there is a LIMIT to what amount of people an area can receive in X amount of time. I can't control how many people find out about those places BUT I did specialize on visiting remote places so it makes sense, there is a responsibility on how much exposure you give to those areas. Other photographers will do as they please, but there are ways to help those areas and the locals, and not to the expense of me taking a picture and having the ownership of the image. Shooting kids? some areas will punish you, someone I knew (rest in piece) got one of his best friends murdered by a crowd because someone yelled in a local language "they want to steal your kid" (someone was taking a picture at some market DESPITE this guide telling them not to), true story, guy used to cry when remembering this because the one killed was his friend (and driver). Homeless people? you need their permission and many will refuse to approve. Why? with friends we did lots of social work in the past including the homeless. Well, a lot of them have issues with the authorities and also have problems with specific groups, they don't need to be exposed, they need to keep a low profile. Taking their picture and posting it can translate on people knowing their location and hurting them or killing them, no kidding. Things change a lot once you engage on conversations instead of just shooting a picture. I could go on, many could say "nahh" but life teach some valid lessons to those willing to listen. Post long enough by now. BTW I worked for years on digital imaging and modifying pictures for newspapers (quality control) but in my work (photography) always worked hard to learn to use the camera and avoid photoshop at all costs unless it's pure post-pro. To me it's like learning to play the guitar instead of digital editing the sounds.

X2 to what everyone already said. BTW I didn't know about Phatch, nice recommendation. In my case I've been placing the watermarks using Photoshop or XNview (free) because it can also resample images in smart ways. I've been involved on managing photos for articles, newspapers, etc. The reason why I mention this is because I've seen a lot of stuff and IT IS very important to resample your images to a suitable size as Les said, why? it is interesting how a lot of people can find pieces or segments of your work to be useful on their work and thus crop the images to remove the watermarks. Size can make that more difficult. The more you add to your picture the less pretty it looks but... it's useful to add a brand name and your personal name (I've seen cases where people say it's their picture because somehow they work or worked at "that place"), amazing what people can do to impersonate or take credit on your work.

Well said, and the first part really makes things clearer.

Great points have been made, I read all the comments. I'm also in favor of results and practicality, some devices have diff limits, and so and so. Yet I'm curious on some (possibly absolute regional tendencies) as people (clients) trying to judge photographers based on their gear. Some people don't care, some do care, but as a service provider we not always have the chance to choose the client, the client select us instead and we just arrive there. I did experience some of this years ago where people at least in my region had some sort of expectation based on (at least in my area) Nikon vs Canon and Sony left behind at the end of the spectrum (that's the simplified list). At present time I see some flexibility on the market towards expensive smartphones. It's not a healthy standpoint, it's not a healthy practice or way to look at the market, but it is the market and one has to learn how to deal with it. I'm seeing huge impact on clients when you set up your gear and somehow you add a monitor/screen to check the pictures in detail, "it looks pro" it sells... specially if your pictures are good. Some setup like this one: LINK Anyway... it's funny when you get some respect from your clients and instead of allowing your setup to be judged, you setup your limits and they have to deal with it. There was this "pro" photographer always talking about lenses, cameras, expensive stuff, but you never get to see his camera except "this old useless camera I carry with me", he said. He was known for hotel photography and the trick is: when it was time to take pictures of the rooms, he would demand to be left alone, closed doors. You would never know what kind of setup he used for the pictures.

Ha ha ha, all the comments were read, I agree with what you posted, absolutely.

Thanks for all the comments. Yes, absolutely. Sometimes that brings new challenges that have absolutely nothing related to the photographic skills. In my region it's said salesmen are judged by their car because it's a sign of their success. Makes no sense to me, people can arrive in someone else's car, borrowed, the car might end up taken away by the company because they didn't pay on time, etc, but still to many people this is the real deal (along with their watches), makes no sense to me but it's how some people actually measure others. That way of thinking also manifests on the photographic field sometimes, leading to the following: True. The thing is, sometimes we might have to accept it, we are free not to like it BUT... we are left to choose what to do about it, meaning it's not just a personal choice but also a work decision. True. There were lots of situations where I worked amazingly well with a high quality smartphone camera: the resolution of the image (preview) was great, not to mention the freedom and versatility of sharing or sending the content to the computer. Many big cameras don't allow this. The results were great, fast, practical but yes not as easy in terms of image enlargement, and sure while it was fast and practical, the session did't look "cool", felt like going to war with a laser pointer instead of a gun, this matters to some people. I have enjoyed the benefits of smartphones with high quality cameras but still holding on to a camera. As a photographer, taking the camera out of the bag feels like "ok now we are getting serious about this".

Hi, there are lots of forum discussions and articles on the web about professional cameras VS smartphone cameras, this thread is not about comparisons or the pros and cons of each one as your working device for pictures. Smartphone cameras are getting more and more powerful every year but its not secret there are physical limitations when it comes to how the optical system is built, not to mention the algorithms behind the smartphone cameras trying to figure out how the picture should look like (this is more aggressive on smartphone cameras than on common photographic cameras). My intention and curiosity is: about the client. Straight to the point: I have seen some youngsters working their way up in photography using expensive smartphones. Yes the pictures are amazing, yes they use a lot of filters, yes... they have limitations both technical and physical due to a camera being very diff than a smartphone camera. Yet... the clients seem to bee ok with that because many of those photographers are actually selling their photos and specially their services. What do you think about this? at this point I wouldn't consider that a professional practice, and I don't know how many clients would accept this to take place during a photo session (specially about food photography), I'm seeing people accepting this but I'm not sure how much. What do you think? While I have some powerful gear I'm still sure a photo camera will always do a better job, specially the impact on the client. So yes I'm seeing more and more youngsters selling photographic services using their smartphones, What do you think about this as photographers? What do you think the clients think about this? - - - - - Some context about the topic: Yes, the photographer makes the photo. In the past when I started you could arrive with your manual film camera and do your magic, people would rarely interfere or complain because a camera was a camera (weird big device) and so the photographer was usually respected just for having a camera with several moving parts. LATER over the years it was more common to see photographers being asked about their camera model or their features because people were starting to learn or to get involved, and so, some photographers would be judged for not having powerful modern equipment. What I mean there is, for some people in the industry (as clients) your camera matters, and if your camera is not impressive enough they won't like it and will tell you about it. Yes... it's their problem but it's also yours (and mine) because we can't exactly always choose the client, we might find out about this too late. Today: clients might even have more powerful cameras than the photographer (my sister husband has an amazing one but he can't even operate the microwave oven). The thing is client perception about the cameras and photographers has changed immensely.

I've been thinking about that lately for the past whole year. Birds are magical and don't exactly cooperate (if ever), and it´s not up to you to "control and overcome" the difficulties exactly, it's more about adapting, listening, blending, etc. Like a kind hunter that only grabs the image and let the bird in piece to keep on living. They are absolutely amazing. Years ago I wondered if... just like most photographers, over time, I would slowly move to bird photography and now I can say the answer is yes. BTW a great film about this is The Big Year (2011). The Big Year (2011) - IMDb

Hi there, it's been years since the last time on this forum, enjoyed reading and posting between year 1998 and 2004. Unfortunately I have no idea what my old forum user was or any credentials to my account so I opened a new one. I'm not even sure if the site keeps the old database records anymore. Lots of things have changed since I started, both in the photography industry (leaving film and prints behind) and also the amount of people working in the field. Personally changed as well choosing some specific areas of work inside the photography universe. Kinda miss how the old website used to work, rudimentary but faster, nothing bad, just the hit of old memories here. Will be browsing and posting some here and then.

Been there, I hate to calculate photo prices, it's been years and still hate it and consider myself terrible at it. My comment/advice might not be what you expect but it is realistic. Where you live (country) and the company buying the picture mean a lot, also the culture around photo rights. Calculating a price based on Getty sounds easy but some people can tell you "you are not Getty" so there goes a possible failed sales pitch. Some companies are only interested on paying ONCE for a picture, make it exclusive for them and forget about you and your credits, I consider this the best case scenario because it's simple and easy business. Having a company paying you royalties for months/years, every year? that's possible but honestly in my opinion: VERY RARE today, many great pictures are available online and since several years ago some people are willing to give pics for free as long as companies provide a credit and a written contract if that's the case, it's portfolio and it's cheap. I wouldn't laugh or criticize the original idea: If you can get away with that expensive plan you mention then good for you but it is unlikely unless they know and respect your work and do want to work with you. Other than that think of an attractive sum for you, specially one time payment, just like most products you have to think about how the company would prefer to engage in business with you. My 10 cents.

I have experience on this kind of things but from the other side (the one taking legal action against the scrapers, people who take work without permission), I have some advice to you but it's not precise as I don't know what the other part is demanding from you, this means: the specifics. People, owners and companies can send you kind letters to stop using their material, invitations to negotiate, remove, cease and desist, etc... and also can send you plain and direct legal actions where there no point on talking or discussing because things have to continue on court (things will vary depending on your country). That's an explanation that covers pretty much of it without having specifics on your side. First it would be wise for you to remove that picture and any other picture that might violate any copyright terms from any author, include credits as possible and never again use work from someone else without written permission, in fact try to use only original content or buy your pictures. Try to show the best attitude possible and accept your wrong. How things can go from here depends on the other part, again my comment is quite general because there are no specifics on what was sent to you. Anyway most of the times desist, remove, apology work really well for most people in most cases. Good luck.