 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Have you ever started out not charging for your photo work?
Hi, About a month ago, I shot 5X7 digital portraits for a parent/child youth group event. These were done indoor with a simple backdrop (white butcher paper) and a few props (1950's). I used my Canon 20D on a tripod and used studio strobes for flash. I ended up taking 120 portraits. The woman who held the event thought I did really good and wanted to pay me (a pro photographer quoted her $6.00 per picture). The woman's budget was about $1.50 each. I did the picture taking for free but she paid for the printing and cardstock frames. She did give me a gift card as a thank you. This was my first real photo job. I ran into the woman recently at a local park. She was there with her 8-year-old daughter. I was shooting candid pictures of my own daughter climbing around the play structures. The woman's daughter was making lots of effort to get me to take her picture as well. So I took about 50 of her and told the mother I would burn them to a disk and give it to her (free). Turns out the little girl has been trying to break into the modeling and commercial business. She has taken extensive classes in acting; musical theater etc. however, enjoys print work most. The mom has her headshots but no real full-length body shots. The girl did do a photo shoot for the Federal Government for an emergency response promo (think: FEMA victim). After the mom saw her daughter's pictures I took the mom wants to hire me. We made plans for an outdoor location and the mom wants me to take a variety of poses to capture her daughter's natural essence. Like character type shots. She wants a cute and soft girlie look, rough and tough with a tomboyish look, and maybe an all American look. She planned for a few change of clothes and hairstyles. Although I am only a serious amateur, and the girl seems to know how to pose I think I pull this off. The only problem is, I don't know if I could charge her. If things don't turn out then there is no financial loss for her or me, just our time. Has anyone ever started out doing photo shoots for free? Should I watermark my work regardless? I have a well paying job so this is just a hobby I enjoy. I could see myself doing pro work after retirement but I still need to build up my confidence and put together my own portfolio of my work. Thank you for your advice. Dave I've had many an argument over this :) In my opinion we as humans all have needs - the full-time job fulfils my need for money - and photography fulfils my need for "a nourished soul". Some participate in photography as a means of making money - and good on them - others just do it for the pleasure they get doing it, or the pleasure they get seeing the pleasure that others get. At the end of the day there are no rules. If you want to make a little money you could start by saying "if these turn out OK, would it be OK if I charged you something small like $xx.xx just to cover the wear and tear on my equipment (or the likes)? Whilst on the topic of photographing a minor with only a female parent present - some here may have some sensible advice to offer about chaparones etc. > Has anyone ever started out doing photo shoots for free? One of the big problems many professionals have is guys who want to do their jobs for free. It does not matter whether you need the money or not, or whether it is just a hobby. This sounds like a professional photo shoot and it demands a professional fee. >It does not matter whether you need the money or not, or whether it is >just a hobby. This sounds like a professional photo shoot and it >demands a professional fee. I can see why this is a problem for professionals, but nobody is going to tell me what I have to do in my own free time. If the amateurs destroy the market for professionals, then professionals just have to find something else to do. The strange is that professional photographers seem to be the only group that express this kind of thought regularly. I never saw a professional writer or a journalist complain about other people not charging for their work. Or professional programmers complain about open source.  SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > I can see why this is a problem for professionals, but nobody is > going to tell me what I have to do in my own free time. You got it! > If the amateurs destroy the market for professionals, then > professionals just have to find something else to do. Good advice. > The strange is that professional photographers seem to be the only > group that express this kind of thought regularly. I never saw a > professional writer or a journalist complain about other people not > charging for their work. Or professional programmers complain about > open source. The crux of the problem for the "professional" is they feel threatened by the simple fact that there are some amateurs and occasional hobbyist shooters that can squeeze out a good percentage of great shots that fulfill the targeted need. Plus, with the influx of inexpensive digital equipment that gives the general public a cheap way of discovering and honing their talents. That said, I have, and most others in here, have seen some spectacular shots from amateurs using minimal equipment. This just means the "professional" will now have to offer a better product for the money they charge. A little competition is great since it keeps these guys on their tows. Rita > The crux of the problem for the "professional" is they feel threatened by > the simple fact that there are some amateurs and occasional hobbyist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they charge. A little competition is great since it keeps these guys on > their tows. I never felt threatened by amateurs...annoyed would be a better word. It pissed me off to see amateurs photographing weddings poorly and charging people money for it. Just like everybody is a computer expert these days, so it is with photography. And the inborn cheapskate in all of us gravitates to the guy who charges the least. The sad thing is that after years of doing amateur photography and charging people money for it, most of these people never learn how to do it right. > I never felt threatened by amateurs...annoyed would be a better word. > It pissed me off to see amateurs photographing weddings poorly and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is that after years of doing amateur photography and charging people > money for it, most of these people never learn how to do it right. Why would you even be the slightest bit annoyed? To me, if you are good at what you do your work speaks for itself and you will always have a following that will want your services. Word of mouth is the best advertising. Of course you will get cheapskate and problem customers, but do you really want them as customers? Best to leave them to the amateurs. Realistically, lots of these ill feelings towards "amateurs" can be attributed to feeling threatened by the competition, imagined or otherwise. It cuts both ways, both groups can produce great and lousy shots just as equally. Rita > The crux of the problem for the "professional" is they feel threatened by > the simple fact that there are some amateurs and occasional hobbyist [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they charge. A little competition is great since it keeps these guys on > their tows. The difference between a professional and a non-professional is more than just the quality of the pictures. It's also all the other stuff that goes into running a business like it's a business. If I hire a professional photographer to shoot an event, I'm not just paying for the pix, I'm paying for the peace of mind that the job will get done. If he's not feeling great that day, he'll drag himself in anyway (or get somebody to cover for him). If some piece of essential gear breaks, he's got a spare (probably several). If it's an outdoor event and it rains, he's got equipment that can work in the rain (or umbrellas to keep it dry). If there's beaurocracy to be dealt with (anything from from police to the father of the bride), he's got the credentials and personality to deal with it and still get the shots I'm paying him to get. None of that has anything to do with looking through a viewfinder and pushing a button. >The difference between a professional and a non-professional is more than >just the quality of the pictures. It's also all the other stuff that goes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >paying for the pix, I'm paying for the peace of mind that the job will get >done. I assume that the photographers who complain about amateurs have to operate in a different market. A market where potential customers demand prices that simply cannot be met by somebody who has to make a living of photography. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >The difference between a professional and a non-professional is more than > >just the quality of the pictures. It's also all the other stuff that goes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > prices that simply cannot be met by somebody who has to make a living > of photography. There are lots of ways to make money, one can work all the time and charge less or charge more and work less, the choice is the photographers. Without talent it sometimes, but not always could make justifying what charges difficult. Feeling satisfied at whatever level is the key to getting more jobs,.... but also knowing when not to take crap and knowing how to diplomatically stay out of it. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > The difference between a professional and a non-professional is more > than just the quality of the pictures. It's also all the other stuff > that goes into running a business like it's a business. True, as a business owner myself my customers are more concerned about the end product they are paying me for than what logistics I need to perform on a daily basis to run my business, rightfully so. > If I hire a professional photographer to shoot an event, I'm not just > paying for the pix, I'm paying for the peace of mind that the job [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > he's got the credentials and personality to deal with it and still > get the shots I'm paying him to get. Again, all good and valid points that definitely justify the *need* to hire a "professional" photographer. This still doesn't address the issue of whether or not he or she is capable of providing a satisfactory product at the end of day. Case in point, we had our wedding done by a "professional" photographer. We did all the research and checked the references, which were impeccable. We have seen some of his prior work, which was outstanding. It seems our photographer was "not feeling great that day" and was more interested in the open bar we had at the reception. Plus, it must have been the lighting since the pictures we got back were average at best. And the one picture we wanted him to get right at the reception he blew it. We went over exactly what we wanted at the rehearsal and explained how important that one picture was to us. It wasn't a difficult pic, but he still blew it. Then again, it could have been us, the paying customer that had unrealistic expectations of getting what we paid for? > None of that has anything to do with looking through a viewfinder and > pushing a button. Maybe 20-30 years ago this would hold true. Today with cheap technology available to the average Joe taking pictures that rival the "professional" I can see why they are so up in arms. Rita >Maybe 20-30 years ago this would hold true. Today with cheap technology >available to the average Joe taking pictures that rival the "professional" I >can see why they are so up in arms. I doubt it. The average joe doesn't know the first thing about composition, light, etc. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>Maybe 20-30 years ago this would hold true. Today with cheap technology >>available to the average Joe taking pictures that rival the "professional" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > composition, > light, etc. Having said that, I think there are a LOT of 'professional' photographers doing some pretty average work. Additionally, average Joe public probably hasn't seen much professional photography on a regular basis; so to them, Aunty J's point and shoot stuff on a modern camera probably looks pretty good (or certainly good enough, especially considering the price). I think that, like it or not, professional photographers are going to have to raise the bar even higher. Pete Mitchell wrote (in article <M%j3g.16731$JZ1.630034@news.xtra.co.nz>): >>> Maybe 20-30 years ago this would hold true. Today with cheap technology >>> available to the average Joe taking pictures that rival the "professional" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Aunty J's point and shoot stuff on a modern camera probably looks pretty > good (or certainly good enough, especially considering the price). Even more of a problem, so many people have become accustomed to point and shoot photos, that any picture that is *not* composed with like your Aunt Martha took the picture bothers some people. They think it's wrong if the subject isn't dead center in the middle of the frame. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Even more of a problem, so many people have become accustomed to > point and shoot photos, that any picture that is *not* composed > with like your Aunt Martha took the picture bothers some people. > They think it's wrong if the subject isn't dead center in the > middle of the frame. That's an interesting point. Personally I'm of the brigade that likes things centred (by-and-large), and I've been criticised by some as "not doing it the way it's done these days" - but I've also observed a lot of examples where people have gone for this new-age 'uncentred' look, and to me, it just didn't look right. Having said that, I've also seen many good shots that DO look good with the 'off-centre' look. Having thought about it, I've come to the conclusion that some people can create off-centre shots that work well - others can't, but they continue to do so anyway as they think it's some kind of rigid rule. It's a bit like the old saying about computer programming: "It has been observed that only 5% of the programming population can write a significant program without the aid of a flow chart. It has also been observed that 95% of the programming population think they belong to that 5%!" I see so many photos from people obviously who think that off-centre composition works for them, but in my opinion it often doesn't. > Even more of a problem, so many people have become accustomed to > point and shoot photos, that any picture that is *not* composed > with like your Aunt Martha took the picture bothers some people. > They think it's wrong if the subject isn't dead center in the > middle of the frame. Maybe that's the crux of the problem, not giving the customer what they want? After all, they are the ones paying for it. Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote (in article <124rrchnqjjtu3e@news.supernews.com>): >> Even more of a problem, so many people have become accustomed to >> point and shoot photos, that any picture that is *not* composed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe that's the crux of the problem, not giving the customer what they > want? After all, they are the ones paying for it. Exactly. In fact, I think it might have more to do with why pros are losing business to amateurs than the experts would like to admit. Far too often "artists" refuse to "compromise their artistic vision" or whatever weasel words they're using that week, and the customer doesn't like it at all. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >Additionally, average Joe public probably >hasn't seen much professional photography on a regular basis; so to them, >Aunty J's point and shoot stuff on a modern camera probably looks pretty >good (or certainly good enough, especially considering the price). This is of course a big problem (for professional photographers). However, there is sometimes the suggestion that with digital cameras that are fully automated and that have a decisive moment indicators, the average joe can take good pictures. And as far as I can tell, that is simply not the case. >I think that, like it or not, professional photographers are going to have >to raise the bar even higher. The problem here is that if customers don't recognize quality, there is no point in providing even higher quality. Sometimes, educating customers may help. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > The problem here is that if customers don't recognize quality, there is > no point in providing even higher quality. I'm not so sure. I've seen lots of work from professional photographers where amongst the finished collection are numerous shots with blown highlights - levels all over the place - poor composition - artifacts - poor focus -(the list goes on) - the kind of shots that could be taken with a P&S camera. In the same breath I've seen shots from others (professionals and 'amateurs' alike) that are simply stunning. I don't know about you, but I suspect I'm not alone in saying I know many 'amateur' photographers that I would choose in preference to many 'professionals' if I had to get one to photograph an important event for me (assuming that that money wasn't a deciding factor). I could be wrong, but I suspect that the public general can see the beauty in an exceptional photo. It seems to me that in many cases we have 'professionals' who aren't doing professional-quality work - they're doing average work - the only point of difference is that these people are getting paid for it. I think it's these people who need to be in fear of Aunty J with her P&S - and quite rightly so. I have a feeling that in years to come we're going to see a re-definition of the term "professional photographer" to mean someone who can really pull a rabbit out of the hat (and who may or may not require a healthy compensation for that ability). > I've seen lots of work from professional photographers where amongst > the finished collection are numerous shots with blown highlights - > levels all over the place - poor composition - artifacts - poor focus > -(the list goes on) - the kind of shots that could be taken with a > P&S camera. Yep, and I scratch my head when I see this. I just can't understand how some of these people can look the customer in the eye and ask for compensation. I guess the Internet eliminated this problem? > In the same breath I've seen shots from others (professionals and > 'amateurs' alike) that are simply stunning. I don't know about you, > but I suspect I'm not alone in saying I know many 'amateur' > photographers that I would choose in preference to many > 'professionals' if I had to get one to photograph an important event > for me (assuming that that money wasn't a deciding factor). You got it. That is what I have been seeing as of late with some of the stunning photos on the Internet. I think that the general public has expectations or a vision of the "professional" to produce a winner in every shot. The difference between an amateur and a professional is you never get to see the professional's cutting room floor or waste bin. > I could be wrong, but I suspect that the public general can see the > beauty in an exceptional photo. Hey, if it is good what more can be said? > It seems to me that in many cases we have 'professionals' who aren't > doing professional-quality work - they're doing average work - the > only point of difference is that these people are getting paid for > it. I think it's these people who need to be in fear of Aunty J with > her P&S - and quite rightly so. The good thing that came out of all of this is there are now a lot of them pesky 'beach photographers' out of work. Rita > The good thing that came out of all of this is there are now a lot of them > pesky 'beach photographers' out of work. What is a "beach photographer"? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> The good thing that came out of all of this is there are now a lot >> of them pesky 'beach photographers' out of work. > > What is a "beach photographer"? Well, I guess you can call these pests "photographers" or "pros" since they do charge for their services. You know the ones, they come up to you while you are working on a tan and ask you to let them take your picture? Then you can buy the fancy keychain viewer with your pic for a nominal fee? Rita > > What is a "beach photographer"? > > Well, I guess you can call these pests "photographers" or "pros" since they > do charge for their services. You know the ones, they come up to you while > you are working on a tan and ask you to let them take your picture? Then > you can buy the fancy keychain viewer with your pic for a nominal fee? The best one of those I ever saw was in Key West. I was walking down the main street (Duval?) with my sister when a guy came up to us, placed a 2-foot long iganua on my sister's shoulder and asked if she wanted her picture taken with the lizard. It's a good thing I was with my sister and not my wife. My wife would have freaked out. My sister was thrilled and bought a picture. Of course, this is the sort of thing one expects to happen in Key West. >> What is a "beach photographer"? > > Well, I guess you can call these pests "photographers" or "pros" since they > do charge for their services. You know the ones, they come up to you while > you are working on a tan and ask you to let them take your picture? Then > you can buy the fancy keychain viewer with your pic for a nominal fee? No, thankfully I have never encountered such a thing. (And I can't imagine such a thing would be legal on the local beaches here...) But that's sure a pretty extreme example of bottom-feeders. :) In touristy places when I see those guys who will take your picture and print it for you, I'm always half-tempted to stand around telling people "no, I'll take your picture for free, just give me your email address and I'll send it to you tonight." Just because it would be funny. But I haven't. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> The good thing that came out of all of this is there are now a lot >>> of them pesky 'beach photographers' out of work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you are working on a tan and ask you to let them take your picture? Then >you can buy the fancy keychain viewer with your pic for a nominal fee? They are all over places where tourists frequent, all over the world. With these p&s digitals so affordable nowadays, just carry one, even if you do have a pro or prosumer dslr. Just thank them and show your p&s. They will leave you in 'peace', hopefully. As an amateur freelance photog myself, I do charge a fee, depending on so many circumstances but guided by the local market-force. One other thing to bear in mind though, once you set a lowly fees and when words get around, it would be very difficult to up the current fees - need some marketing skills to work around getting a better fees. :-) Now... do anyone charge a service if a tourist walks up and request that you take a snapshot with their own p&s? No... I guess. I won't. SignatureCHLooi > One other thing to > bear in mind though, once you set a lowly fees and when words get around, > it would be very difficult to up the current fees - need some marketing skills > to work around getting a better fees. :-) The best thing is simply honesty - often overlooked in this world. "John, I used to charge $5, but to be honest, at that rate I was going backwards financially - especially since I've invested in new equipment so that I can do an even better job. I know that $8 is quite a bit more, but when I worked it out I was actually losing money (especially when I took my time, insurance, R & M etc into account), and as much as I love doing what I do, I just can't afford to keep subsidising other peoples photos. I hope you can understand" > "Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message > >>The problem here is that if customers don't recognize quality, there is >>no point in providing even higher quality. > > I'm not so sure. Regular people *do* recognize great photography even if they can't explain it. They may see a good amateur's work as 'great' compared to their own snapshots and be happy with that. They will also get a chill up the spine if it's truly exquisitly framed and exposed. Many amateurs naturally have a great eye but don't know how to expose or hold steady or process or print. It takes work to learn those things so the best comes out. Auto setting cameras help. Good quality equiptment & expensive lenses help. Pros know lots of other tricks which are less intuitive for a natural amateur to make a photo work. Some pros don't have an artistic eye but can at least get a competent well exposed sharp set of prints reliably. > I've seen lots of work from professional photographers where amongst the > finished collection are numerous shots with blown highlights - levels all [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > rabbit out of the hat (and who may or may not require a healthy compensation > for that ability). SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >I've seen lots of work from professional photographers where amongst the >finished collection are numerous shots with blown highlights - levels all >over the place - poor composition - artifacts - poor focus -(the list goes >on) - the kind of shots that could be taken with a P&S camera. I guess that in any profession, there will be people who do a poor job. Hopefully, employers and/or customers kick them out the game. >In the same breath I've seen shots from others (professionals and 'amateurs' >alike) that are simply stunning. I don't know about you, but I suspect I'm >not alone in saying I know many 'amateur' photographers that I would choose >in preference to many 'professionals' if I had to get one to photograph an >important event for me (assuming that that money wasn't a deciding factor). I'd go for a professional who can do the job. I'm not interested in the professionals who can't do the job. The one thing that usually has to go right is wedding photography. If amateur regularly photographs weddings and makes a profit on it, it is no longer an amateur. If the amateur is a great photographer, but with no experience in weddings, then it is better to get a (good) professional. >I could be wrong, but I suspect that the public general can see the beauty >in an exceptional photo. There is a difference between an exceptional photo as a work of art, or ordering good quality photos. For example, in a lot of companies, an employee with a camera is allowed to take the pictures for a publication. Even if the employee takes more time (during working hours) and the end result has lower quality. >It seems to me that in many cases we have 'professionals' who aren't doing >professional-quality work - they're doing average work - the only point of >difference is that these people are getting paid for it. I think it's these >people who need to be in fear of Aunty J with her P&S - and quite rightly >so. I think that the average photo that gets published in a journal, magazine, etc. is still way ahead of what the average amateur is doing. There is some bad stuff out there that reaches average amateur levels, but there is a lot of good stuff as well. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > However, there is sometimes the suggestion that with digital cameras > that are fully automated and that have a decisive moment indicators, > the average joe can take good pictures. And as far as I can tell, that > is simply not the case. Autoexposure and autofocus are nice and useful things, but I suppose we have to wait until Canon or Nikon implements autocomposition before the pictures of the average joe gets significantly better. OTOH, the immediate feedback that modern digital cameras provide should steepen the learning curve of the eager photo amateur considerably. When I started shooting flowers thirty years ago, I typically had to wait for a week to get to know what worked and what didn't - supposing that I actually remembered what I had been doing at any given shot by then. These days, it usually takes like two seconds. Jan Böhme >> I doubt it. The average joe doesn't know the first thing about >> composition, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think that, like it or not, professional photographers are going to > have to raise the bar even higher. BINGO! Rita >> I can see why this is a problem for professionals, but nobody is >> going to tell me what I have to do in my own free time. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> charging for their work. Or professional programmers complain about >> open source. Ah, I've heard some moaning from those groups, but I'm not about to prove it by combing usenet! <s> > The crux of the problem for the "professional" is they feel threatened by > the simple fact that there are some amateurs and occasional hobbyist > shooters that can squeeze out a good percentage of great shots that fulfill > the targeted need. Plus, with the influx of inexpensive digital equipment > that gives the general public a cheap way of discovering and honing their > talents. Yes, it's hard to charge even $10.00 for a small print of someone sliding into home when Aunt Jean provides it for free, albeit it at a much lower quality. ' That said, I have, and most others in here, have seen some > spectacular shots from amateurs using minimal equipment. This just means > the "professional" will now have to offer a better product for the money > they charge. A little competition is great since it keeps these guys on > their tows. ' I say: Mules of the world, horses, oxen and jackasses: Untether thyselves! Unshackle, and throw down the harnesses of oppression. Barges are mostly self-propelled now anyway. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Yes, it's hard to charge even $10.00 for a small print of someone > sliding into home when Aunt Jean provides it for free, albeit it at a > much lower quality. What would you base your standard of quality on? Would it be Aunt Jane's photographic skills she possesses or if she were using top of the line Nikon or Canon gear? Would you base it against *YOUR* perception of her skills against yours? > I say: Mules of the world, horses, oxen and jackasses: Untether > thyselves! Unshackle, and throw down the harnesses of oppression. > Barges are mostly self-propelled now anyway. Isn't technology wonderful? You don't hear the beasts of burden of yesteryear bitching because a better machine has replaced their services do you? Rita >> Yes, it's hard to charge even $10.00 for a small print of someone >> sliding into home when Aunt Jean provides it for free, albeit it at a >> much lower quality. > > What would you base your standard of quality on? Would it be Aunt Jane's It was Aunt Jean, f'r'eaven;s sake. > photographic skills she possesses or if she were using top of the line > Nikon > or Canon gear? Would you base it against *YOUR* perception of her skills > against yours? Neither. Or both: the final print is it. >> I say: Mules of the world, horses, oxen and jackasses: Untether >> thyselves! Unshackle, and throw down the harnesses of oppression. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yesteryear bitching because a better machine has replaced their services do > you? Yes, all the time. It's partly what is driving the hysteria over immigration. SignatureJohn McWilliams >> What would you base your standard of quality on? Would it be Aunt >> Jane's > > It was Aunt Jean, f'r'eaven;s sake. Hey, she's a natural with a good eye. >> photographic skills she possesses or if she were using top of the >> line Nikon >> or Canon gear? Would you base it against *YOUR* perception of her >> skills against yours? > > Neither. Or both: the final print is it. And if Aunt Jean's final print satisfies the need of the targeted audience why should a $10 bill change hands? Rita >>> Yes, it's hard to charge even $10.00 for a small print of someone >>> sliding into home when Aunt Jean provides it for free, albeit it at a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes, all the time. It's partly what is driving the hysteria over > immigration. I know of no hysteria over immigration, I do see it over illegal aliens, and for good reasons. Of course some do not mind shoddy work any more than they mind having poor quality photo's. >>It does not matter whether you need the money or not, or whether it is >>just a hobby. This sounds like a professional photo shoot and it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > writer or a journalist complain about other people not charging for their > work. Or professional programmers complain about open source. I couldn't agree more. I think the "irony" in "professional -v- hobby" is that often the "hobbiest" can do a better job simply because he can choose to spend as much time as he chooses, whilst the professional has to produce at a certain rate, or the whole exercise becomes unprofitable and hence unsustainable. Additionally, I might add that I've seen many a "professional" photographer charging outragous prices - whilst doing very mediocre work - whilst at the same time criticising me for not, essentially, ripping people off like they are. (I hasten to add that this is not a dig at the true professionals whose work I admire enviously, and strive to match - and who's work is worth every cent). Pete Mitchell wrote (in article <vy13g.16368$JZ1.619630@news.xtra.co.nz>): > Additionally, I might add that I've seen many a "professional" photographer > charging outragous prices - whilst doing very mediocre work - whilst at the > same time criticising me for not, essentially, ripping people off like they > are. (I hasten to add that this is not a dig at the true professionals whose > work I admire enviously, and strive to match - and who's work is worth every > cent). There is some truth in this, a few years back my wife hired a local "pro" photographer to shoot family pictures of us (outdoors), so we could all be in them, and I wouldn't be running back and forth from the camera to pose. It seemed like a good idea at the time. He showed up with a Nikon D70, a platic-barreled kit lens, no flash, no tripod, no nothing. There, sit on that rock. Smile. There, stand over by that tree. Smile. etc., etc. The worst was he wanted me to come to his HOUSE to help him decide on photoshop edits to the photos. His "office" was a computer nook with a computer and monitor. I wound up doing some of the image sorting and editing myself because I didn't have time to watch him try and figure out how to use his tools, and then he sent them off to some internet print company and we waited weeks for them, when I happen to know one of the finest pro printing and film processing facilities is less than 30 miles away. So, just because someone charges for their work doesn't mean ANYTHING unless you've heard of them or seen their work in print before. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > So, just because someone charges for their work doesn't mean > ANYTHING unless you've heard of them or seen their work in print > before. Natch. It also begs the question: What were you thinking when you engaged him? SignatureJohn McWilliams John McWilliams wrote (in article <lMednQN2HtSggNDZRVn-vA@comcast.com>): >> So, just because someone charges for their work doesn't mean >> ANYTHING unless you've heard of them or seen their work in print >> before. > > Natch. It also begs the question: What were you thinking when you > engaged him? As I said before, I didn't. I just showed up as a result of the wife nagging... she learned her lesson, so mission accomplished. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw I remember my hairdresser saying, quite seriously, that perming rods should not be available for purchase by other than professional hairdressers. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : The strange is that professional photographers seem to be the only group : that express this kind of thought regularly. I never saw a professional : writer or a journalist complain about other people not charging for their : work. Or professional programmers complain about open source. Philip Homburg wrote (in article <bg7e7u79omin7701qugcbvleh4@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>): >> It does not matter whether you need the money or not, or whether it is >> just a hobby. This sounds like a professional photo shoot and it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If the amateurs destroy the market for professionals, then professionals > just have to find something else to do. I agree. There are a lot of parallels between this and the open source software movement. The real pros will (in any market) will stay employed, and those that are calling themselves a pro but not really at that level will get run out by the "amateurs" or those willing to do it for free. > The strange is that professional photographers seem to be the only group > that express this kind of thought regularly. I never saw a professional > writer or a journalist complain about other people not charging for their > work. Or professional programmers complain about open source. I have definitely heard pro programmers complain about open source. Same is true with the current media people whining incessantly about "citizen journalism". They disguise it as being "bad for society" instead of "bad for my wallet", but its there. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >I have definitely heard pro programmers complain about open >source. Same is true with the current media people whining >incessantly about "citizen journalism". They disguise it as >being "bad for society" instead of "bad for my wallet", but its >there. I make my living writing software. I don't have any problem with open source software. A lot of OSS is crap, but then again, so is a lot of very expensive commercial software. What you get when you buy commercial software is an 800 number that's staffed 24 hours a day, guaranteed response time on problems, bug fixes, upgrades, fancy documentation, etc. Some people find that necessary and are willing to pay the price. That's the only thing that keeps some really crappy commercial software products alive in the face of superior OSS alternatives. What I really fear is "offshoring", which is a polite way of saying that there are people in Bangalore who can do my job at a fraction of the salary I demand. But, such is life. Competition is what keeps us strong. Roy Smith wrote (in article <e2j0s7$plj$1@reader1.panix.com>): >> I have definitely heard pro programmers complain about open >> source. Same is true with the current media people whining [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I make my living writing software. As did I for almost 20 years, until, thanks to the 'dot com' insanity, I retired early and have time to focus on things more exciting, like photography. I still write software some for my own amusement, which is more fun than any commercial products I worked on. > I don't have any problem with open source software. A lot of OSS > is crap, but then again, so is a lot of very expensive commercial > software. Exactly right. > What you get when you buy commercial software is an 800 number that's > staffed 24 hours a day, guaranteed response time on problems, bug > fixes, upgrades, fancy documentation, etc. Except that technical support is frequently NOT available 24 hours, is often now on a non-800 number, (email is free, but never answered), and the documentation is increasingly bad. The commercial software companies (apart from a very few exceptions) are actually providing worse service today than they were in the 1980s, but at higher prices. > Some people find that necessary and are willing to pay the price. Obviously true, or there would be zero commercial software out there right now. > That's the only thing that keeps some really crappy commercial software > products alive in the face of superior OSS alternatives. Must be how MS is surviving. > What I really fear is "offshoring", which is a polite way of saying > that there are people in Bangalore who can do my job at a fraction of > the salary I demand. But, such is life. Competition is what keeps us > strong. Yes. Of course, the latest word is that India can't fill all the jobs. Yes, they have zillions of people, but they aren't all trained for the work, and they are actually recruiting programmers from other parts of the world (including the US) to move to Bangalore and work there. Talk about irony. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > still need to build up my confidence and put together my own portfolio of > my work. Whether you charge or not and what to charge is up to you. The downside on doing things for free is that it becomes expected that you will and if you're good you may eventually get enough work that it becomes a burden to you--at that point it's difficult to start charging people who you weren't charging before. A more important issue IMO is rights to the images--if she's looking to be a professional model and she becomes successful those images are going to have significant value, not only to you but to her--if the rights are clouded then you could both end up in a legal mess that neither of you wants. It doesn't really matter who has rights to do what with which, what's important is that you have it spelled out. > Thank you for your advice. > > Dave Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > The downside on > doing things for free is that it becomes expected that you will and if > you're good you may eventually get enough work that it becomes a burden to > you--at that point it's difficult to start charging people who you weren't > charging before. It can make one feel a little ackward asking, but I've found that if you're honest (and you think about what you'd like to say first) then it's doesn't have to be too difficult. Something like "Mary, I've taken quite a few free photos for you and many others in the past ... I've really enjoyed taking them and I hope you'd agree that we've got some pretty good shots ... unfortunately I've been doing so much of it recently that the costs are starting to add up a bit for me ... and I was wondering if you would mind if I were to charge you just a 'little something', say $x.xx for each print that you'd like" To which I can think of three outcomes ... (a) If they really can't afford it they might tell you so, at which point you can decide if you want to do each one on a case-by-case basis for nothing, (b) They can see how what you're asking is fair and reasonable (especially if you can give them an idea as to what some of the pros might charge) and be happy to pay (c) They might not only be willing to pay, but actually be relieved that you'll take a little something for it - I know many people who feel guilty if they can't contribute something (doesn't have to be money - often you can do a bit of a contra, depending on what kind of business they're in) > Has anyone ever started out doing photo shoots for free? Should I watermark > my work regardless? I have a well paying job so this is just a hobby I > enjoy. I could see myself doing pro work after retirement but I still need > to build up my confidence and put together my own portfolio of my work. The thing is, she'll be using the pictures professionally. You're doing work that is meant to result in her getting paid. If you do it for free, you're kind of being taken advantage of, there. Think of it in the other direction. If you were being well-paid for the pictures, would you ask her to model for you for free, same as if you were all doing it "just for fun"? I wouldn't, even if I were merely *planning* on selling the pictures and it might not end up working out. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Has anyone ever started out doing photo shoots for free? Should I watermark >> my work regardless? I have a well paying job so this is just a hobby I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >work that is meant to result in her getting paid. If you do it for free, >you're kind of being taken advantage of, there. I assume that she will be using the pictures to get a job. Why is that bad? The actual money will be made from modeling, not from selling the pictures. >Think of it in the other direction. If you were being well-paid for the >pictures, would you ask her to model for you for free, same as if you were >all doing it "just for fun"? I wouldn't, even if I were merely *planning* >on selling the pictures and it might not end up working out. To some extent, that is different. This is about a product, where the model is supposed to put in work for free. The first case is about advertising, where the photographer is helping out for free. If your neighbor need help starting his car when he goes to work, do you charge him, because indirectly he will be using to car to make money? Anyhow, the strange thing is that a lot of open source specifically allows commercial use in every possible way. Not only is it allowed to use the software to make money, but software itself can be sold as well. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > To some extent, that is different. This is about a product, where the > model is supposed to put in work for free. The first case is about > advertising, where the photographer is helping out for free. Advertising, to me, is a business use where the person's whole point is to make money, and so should pay the photographer, even if not hundreds of dollars per hour. > Anyhow, the strange thing is that a lot of open source specifically allows > commercial use in every possible way. Not only is it allowed to use > the software to make money, but software itself can be sold as well. There is *no* parallel here with programmers and open source. I make my living writing code; open source doesn't hurt me, it helps me *a lot*, both as someone who uses the code and someone who releases it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >There is *no* parallel here with programmers and open source. I make my >living writing code; open source doesn't hurt me, it helps me *a lot*, >both as someone who uses the code and someone who releases it. In your opinion there is no parallel. In my opinion, programming for free and taking pictures for free is the same thing. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Philip Homburg wrote (in article <i3331arvg1g30mh9n6veu11pm3@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>): >> There is *no* parallel here with programmers and open source. I make my >> living writing code; open source doesn't hurt me, it helps me *a lot*, >> both as someone who uses the code and someone who releases it. > > In your opinion there is no parallel. In my opinion, programming for free > and taking pictures for free is the same thing. They're not exactly the same, but there are strong similarities. Some programmers benefit from open source, some are now flipping burgers as a result of it. Some that were once starving in a third-world country are now making a living wage. I've not seen much evidence that this is a massive group of pro photographers out of work now, or being forced to move to India to get work, so they're not directly analogous. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Some programmers benefit from open source, some are now >flipping burgers as a result of it. Some that were once >starving in a third-world country are now making a living wage. I don't what that has to do with open source. Moving production to cheaper countries has been going on for decades. For programming, this depends on the level of education and on good communication facilities. As far as I can tell, most programming jobs that get off-shored are for in-house custom made software. >I've not seen much evidence that this is a massive group of pro >photographers out of work now, or being forced to move to India >to get work, so they're not directly analogous. I think that are a lot less photographers now than there would have been if the general public didn't cameras. In the first half of the 20st century, people ordered many more photographs than these days. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > I don't what that has to do with open source. Moving production to cheaper > countries has been going on for decades. Programming isn't "production", and treating it as such lowers the quality of the product. It doesn't have a lot to do with open source, though; "offshoring" is a threat, while open source is a benefit. Neither of them has much to do with the photography business, though. > As far as I can tell, most programming jobs that get off-shored are for > in-house custom made software. As far as I can tell, most programming jobs that *exist* are for in-house custom made software. So, that stands to reason. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com There are plenty of bad "professional" photographers charging too much. I you are building a portfolio then it makes sence to do a few free shoots. But maybe a trade would make sense as well. There is nothing wrong with shooting for free. I just hope the free client and parent are easy to work with! (reshoots, etc) For headshots $150 is cheap, $300 is bearable, and $400+ had better be super-pro!...having experience on both sides of the camera on this issue. If you are still learning how to take great shots or only do it for fun then by all means, do it for free! ZG Keep in mind what Oscar Wilde once said, "Aritsts think in terms of money. Amateurs think in terms of art." Gene Charge per final good useable shot if they come out good and get a simple little contract to sign which gives you some share in the shots in case they come out great and she becomes famous. or Charge a low and very reasonable hourly rate & give them full rights & original files. I would do the contract thing which also gets their permission to use the shots for promoting yourself (model release) and just ask them to pay whatever they feel is reasonable if they are happy with the results with some bare minimum number for your printing expenses. They probably have priced pros and will offer something that is not too embarassing to them or close to pro rates if it comes out spectacular. You might even ask for royalties if the shots end up published or a contract that gets you in on that deal. Don't give away your copywrite for nothing. Do get their permission to use the shots yourself. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Dave SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.