# Losing business to amateurs



## imagemaker46

I had to throw this out there. I was talking to a friend of mine the other night, he's been working as full time photographer for 6-7 years. As a photojournalist he shadowed a Reuters photographer for seven months and does a good job.  He told me the other day that he lost a client recently, one he has had for a few years, it made him around 15k a year, shooting sports for one of the local universities.  He had no idea what happened, so he went to them and asked, another photographer, and to be honest she does a pretty good job, went to them and said she would do it for free, she retired from a six figure job last year and just wants to shoot things. 

So he gets screwed out of trying to make a living by someone that has decided to poach clients at a price photographers can't compete with, free, and she doesn't see anything wrong with it.  This is what pisses me and so many other photographers off.

If anyone thinks that amateurs with full time jobs, that can afford to buy the best gear and then shoot for free because they can afford to, doesn't affect other people that are just trying to stay in the business.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  This is just one example.


----------



## The_Traveler

If the client can see no difference in the work, that is unfortunate for your friend but understandable from the part of the client.
Why pay a lot of money when you can get the same thing for free?
No business is a social welfare organization.


----------



## snerd

Gotta go with Lew here. If they're happy with the quality of FREE work, how can you not  switch?!


----------



## Derrel

Scribes complained about the same thing back when the masses learned to write a little bit.

My now ex-wife and I used to have a wonderful, $4,000 per-month gig writing and publish a monthly newsletter for a large trade union, way back in the early 1990's, in the days when knowing how to do "desktop publishing" with photos, using "a computer!!!" was a rare skill set. Four grand a MONTH to do a small newsletter! Back in the days of $500 a month house payments! Of course, the small Macintosh computer we had cost around $5k, and we have a VERY rare and expensive thing, a Texas Instruments laser printer to do our layouts on, then we took the flats to be shot and web-press printed.

Times have changed-a LOT. What were once precious and rare skills are now...not. There are plenty of amateurs who can shoot as well, or better than, professionals in many genres. it used to be that it was easy to make money with a camera, back in the film-and-print days, but those days are fifteen years behind us now.


----------



## MSnowy

I know how your friend feels. Amateurs working for free has cost me at least $20,000 a year for the past 8 years. Since the internet has really taken off where people can get gear, info and learn skills up to that of the professionals my business has been greatly affected. Many of my former clients have six figure incomes and now they can do their own projects for free.  Oh by the way I'm in the home improvement business.


----------



## 480sparky

Are people who shop for price alone for so-so imagery really your target market?


----------



## Braineack

I lost free logo/design work to a paid service because I took too long to provide returns.


----------



## Gary A.

This is a two edged sword. I do not blame the client at all. I'm a former pro, a photojournalist back in the film-only days. I got out in the '80's. The dSLR re-ignited my passion, but now I'm just a hobbyist. I've been so tempted to hit the theaters around here and volunteer just for the fun of it and to get some exceptional images. (Theatre is like shooting fish in a bucket. You have the lighting, the actors, the staging all there in front of you.) But, I've held back because I wonder who I might be taking paid work from ... for me it just isn't right.

Gary


----------



## hamlet

Losing your business is never easy. You've got to evolve with the times and technology to stay relevant. Plus with the global economy the way it is right now, everybody is hurting and cost cuts have to be made to survive. The reality is that thousands of businesses in the American economy are going belly up every week. It is time for a reality check and put ego aside.


----------



## KmH

That's just one more story about how doing photography as a career is becoming less and less viable.

Everyday I see low quality photos and videos being used for commercial purposes. 10 years ago those photos and videos would not have been used.
The bar has never been lower and I fully expect the bar to be lowered much further than it is today.


----------



## imagemaker46

Gary A. said:


> This is a two edged sword. I do not blame the client at all. I'm a former pro, a photojournalist back in the film-only days. I got out in the '80's. The dSLR re-ignited my passion, but now I'm just a hobbyist. I've been so tempted to hit the theaters around here and volunteer just for the fun of it and to get some exceptional images. (Theatre is like shooting fish in a bucket. You have the lighting, the actors, the staging all there in front of you.) But, I've held back because I wonder who I might be taking paid work from ... for me it just isn't right.
> 
> Gary


Thanks for this. It's appreciated.


----------



## imagemaker46

I'm not going back into the acceptance of crap over quality. I was just passing along another example of how things have changed. I've heard it all before, change or quit, modify how to work.  I feel for my friend, it's hard to recover from a 15k hit to the pocket book at the expense of someone that doesn't need it, and doesn't care.  It goes beyond just a work thing.


----------



## limr

I don't know - I didn't see this as a gripe about the business wanting to save money, but rather about the douche nozzles - who _aren't_ feeling squeezed by economic circumstances - who are taking away the livelihood of working professionals just because they feel like taking some pictures. It's not even about fair competition between established professionals and up-and-coming professionals at that point. It's a bored hobbyist undercutting the professional for no good reason. Just to practice. Can't they practice without screwing someone else over? No, you can't really blame the businesses for trying to maintain their own livelihood, but it's not right for people to make it even harder than it already is for professionals who are trying to make a living.


----------



## shefjr

I'm so thankful that no one wants to do masonry for free... It really sucks that a person's means of providing for their family can be taken away by a well intentioned and yet uniformed dolt.


----------



## cgw

Despite widespread fondness for the old "you get what you pay for" mantra, its corrolary "pay less, get less" doesn't seem to have the same currency. It should. A client more mindful of cost over quality never "got" it and never will see how their image can be impacted by sub-standard photography.


----------



## JoeW

First, it's a really tough time to make a living as a full-time photographer.  Whether you're shooting commercial work, as a photojournalist, or doing portraiture of some type.  Barriers to entry are almost nonexistent.  And while most amateurs with a camera aren't very good, the reality is that some of them are excellent.  I run in to so many shooters who have a day job and will shoot portraits or weddings on the side for a pittance.  For them, it's beer money.  It's not about paying a mortgage or healthcare or money for the kid's college fund--their day job covers that.

Second, it is true that in some cases, excellent work is given up for cheaper crap.  But that isn't unique to photographer.  Dell went from award-winning service centers to outsourcing it all to India as a way to save bucks (and then got savaged by customers regarding the service and tech help they got).  Businesses make all sorts of decisions based on money (as opposed to...quality of the service or work....relationship....proven track record).


----------



## manaheim

Photography really isn't a business to be in these days. If you're established, hopefully you can keep ahead of the wave, but I hear a lot of examples of folks falling.  Heck, I'm totally one of those "new professional" types, and >I< saw my business taken away by someone newer and cheaper. (who did lesser work)

There's a reason why I've shifted my focus to another art form. Photography will always be a love... but there's no reasonable way to make it a career and not go totally insane. (AND not destroy someone else's career in the process...)


----------



## Trever1t

There are hobbyists who are worlds better than so many pros. The problem as I see it is that most of these hobbyists do not value their own work and give it away....


----------



## JacaRanda

It's often tough for me to think of what's fair and what's not fair and when to apply either one to a circumstance.  

What if she does see something wrong with it, but feels her passion is more important than his 15k?  Her getting the chance to do what she wants to do may be more important (to her) than taking someone else's job.  

It gets weird to say the least.  When is it okay to be selfish, or is it being selfish?


----------



## AlanKlein

I'm sorry about your friend.  Changes in technology always effect business.  I lost my business because I got complacent.    I didn't spend the time and money getting involved in new things, establishing new niches.  I had some customers for twenty years so why bother.  So when it hit the fan, I was in dire straits to make end meets and along with other complications lost my business.

Sorry to be hard, but how come he learned about the switch after it happened?  Was he going to lunch with his client so he could have the possibility of heading this off at the pass by making adjustments to his pricing.   I can't believe that they're going to get $15,000 of photo work for free.  Assuming it was free, what happens in the second year when this "free" person decides to charge $20,000?  Is the school that stupid?  Or maybe they had a problem with his work and just told him that they were getting it for free.  Sometimes we don't get the whole story.


----------



## photoguy99

Why should some guy be accorded a living that, evidently, loads of people can do and will do for nothing?

How do we choose who gets to make money?


----------



## AlanKlein

My suggestion at this point would be for your friend to meet with the school photo buyer to try to get the "real" reasons for the switch and adjust for it.  If it is costs, let him make an adjustment they can live with.  If he can't adjust the price to their needs, then at least stay on good terms with them and stay in contact with them every few months.  No one works for nothing forever.  When she tires of it, they call him back assuming there are not other reasons for the switch.  But he has to be honest with himself as to the circumstances and adjust accordingly.  Good luck to him.


----------



## tirediron

There's something that strikes me as odd about this.  First and foremost, what university in this day and age can afford 15K for sports photography?  That aside, There must be more to the story, and before we castigate the "amateur" too seriously, we would need to know if she was even aware that she was displacing a hired gun.  As well, it seems doubly odd (as mentioned earlier) that the university would make a switch like this without some provocation.


----------



## snerd

tirediron said:


> There's something that strikes me as odd about this.  First and foremost, what university in this day and age can afford 15K for sports photography?  That aside, There must be more to the story, and before we castigate the "amateur" too seriously, we would need to know if she was even aware that she was displacing a hired gun.  As well, it seems doubly odd (as mentioned earlier) that the university would make a switch like this without some provocation.


I don't know............ but at the University of Oklahoma, they pay Bob Stoops $15 million over 7 years. So I would think $15K for sports photography would be a drop in the bucket.


----------



## tirediron

snerd said:


> I don't know............ but at the University of Oklahoma, they pay Bob Stoops $15 million over 7 years. So I would think $15K for sports photography would be a drop in the bucket.


Well... that part was said at least partly tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## chainsawal

Trever1t said:


> There are hobbyists who are worlds better than so many pros. The problem as I see it is that most of these hobbyists do not value their own work and give it away....



Best post of the thread.   And my response since I am technically one of the so-called "poachers."  So the OP can be mad at people like me all they want, but the reality is I wasn't getting what I needed from my local photographer, and he was unwilling to change and adapt, so he drove my passion for photography.

I myself got irritated when my local photographer wouldn't keep up with technology and kept wanting to sell me overpriced prints for $700+ a session while my kids were growing.  I asked for the digital prints one day (in addition to the prints he makes big money on) and you would have thought I robbed him the way he reacted (in 2009).  Very unprofessional.  I offered to pay him whatever he wanted for them so I would ensure I have them forever, and he was offended.  Having to take pictures of my kids at every holiday and special event each year would have cost me $4,000-$7,000 annually... so I figured, I have a few advanced degrees.. how hard can it be?  What I found out... if you have the money... it is not hard.

Then I had some commercial photography needs that would take him 2-3 weeks to turn around even though I needed them quickly.  He said he didn't have the staff and refused to hire them... his business was fine the way it was.  The things I needed literally take me 4-5 mins per photo today to shoot and about 120 seconds on Photoshop or lightroom to process.  But it took him 3 weeks because he was slow and refused to resource properly.

So I started with a D80... upgraded to a D7000... and today shoot with a D800 and am looking to buy a D4s because I shoot so many sports.  I love photography and over the last 5 years learned a tremendous amount online (e.g. Lynda.com, Youtube, and even from other photographers).  I started taking pictures of my own family and my own commercial photography.  I bought hi-end glass... and even have a home studio with about $30k of equipment.

And what I realize today (and other people do as well)?  My work is 100x better than what I got from my old photographer (who has since went out of business I might ad because he refused to change).  I look back at pictures of my kids and realize the eyes are out of focus... the lighting is bad... the composition is bad... etc.  2-3 weeks turnaround for a commercial picture of a screwdriver in and out of the package is ridiculous... most people around here now get it done in 48 hours.. and charge extra for same-day service.

So I still work at an executive management level job during the day where I make 100x more than I could doing photography full-time.  But I still do plenty of after-work jobs because I LOVE IT.  And I do it for cheap (or sometimes for free).

My old photographer use to sit in his business studio all day, working for the same 40-50 clients he worked with for most of his career who slowly stopped coming by.

I on the other hand joined local business groups, had lunch with many in the community, started sharing my work locally and online, etc. and things went viral.  Now I have more request than time.

Having lived in many different cities in the world... and always kinda being on the fringe of photography with my work until now, I can tell you most photographer's issues are their lack of business sense and the random elitist personality.

Just because you were successful at something yesterday, doesn't mean you will be successful tomorrow if you don't innovate and keep pace.  Technology is moving fast... 

And business models change.  Consumers bought pro photographs back in the day because that was their only option.. as shooting film was expensive and difficult for most people...today, most photographers can't handle what I call the "good enough" challenge.  Everyone today has a phone that takes ok pictures, and although yours may be better, theirs may be "good enough."  And entry level DSLR's are relatively inexpensive as well.    I couldn't tell you how many Cannon and Nikon cameras I see at sporting events for little one where people spent $1,400 on a camera and lens, and are shooting in auto mode with the flash up in the middle of the day while my shutter speeds without a ND Filter are in the 8,000 range on ISO 340 at 5.6.  Always makes me laugh, but then again, they may be "good enough" for them.

So although the OP may be mad that someone scooped his business for free... that is just business.  It happens everyday.  In my work, vendors will routinely offer things for free or at a price where they lose money the 1st year in order to secure business.  That is smart business... which is why the OP always need to be developing new relationships and new opportunities.  That job may come back in a year once she jacks the price.. who knows.  

So I wouldn't blame the people who took your business because they adapted, out-hustled, etc.  That is the nature of business these days.

Just my 2 cents... but the only person to blame for my passion for photography which led to me taking other people's business (many times for free) is my old photographer who made everything difficult and felt he didn't need to accommodate his customers.  It was his way or the highway... and that was unfortunate for him.


----------



## gsgary

The problem is with digital anyone can use a digital camera I bet the problem was not so bad when you shot film


----------



## Forkie

I'm also in the "why pay for it if you can get it for free?" camp.  

If people are buying a camera, learning how to use it on the internet and then stealing our clients, we're not doing a very good job.  Our service needs to be WORTH paying for.  

It's not the people giving freebies that need to change here, it's us - the photographers charging people.  We need to be better than the freetographers or offer something that the freetographers can't.


----------



## gsgary

80% of what you see on here is not worth paying for


----------



## RichieT

A lot of businesses need to adapt to the changing times or risk going under. A big box store like Home Depot put a lot of smaller hardware stores out of business though some survived by offering services that Home Depot couldn't. 
This photographer might think she is doing a good thing or she might be trying to make a name and establish a portfolio so she can charge later. If she is doing it because she thinks she's doing a good thing, she should look to the local High Schools which usually don't have a budget for photography for sports. She can get her experience and not affect the local pros. My sons' old high school used to use a teacher with a P&S for their pictures. I would take pictures  of all the athletes and give them to the school where they used them in the yearbook, school brochures, and a sports night slideshow. For that they listed me as a coach which gave me field side and mat side access which I wouldn't have had otherwise. On the flip side, when their soccer team won the state championship, they hired a "pro", and wound up going with my shots instead.


----------



## imagemaker46

It wasn't a matter of him sitting back and waiting to see what happened, it just happens. I don't know the exact details, but he is always hustling around, making calls and trying to stay ahead or at the very least even with all the other young freelancers in the city.  What does happen in our business is that you could do a shoot on a Saturday and Monday they hire someone else, it usually comes as a huge surprise, especially if you're doing a good job for the client.  It's tougher on the photojournalist side with newspapers dropping staff, sending out the writers with cameras or accepting cell phone shots. 

One of the biggest challenges of most photographers is  being able to buy new gear, losing 15k is the difference with being able to buy another camera body, or trying to get another year out of the one you're using.  Someone that has a stable bank account, because of a steady pay cheque can afford to just go out and buy what they want.  This person that is working for free, is also restoring a family owned villa in France, money isn't an issue for her.  She will start to find that it won't be a very friendly place among the other photographers when word gets out that she's a poacher.  There is no respect for people like this.


----------



## Braineack

> Motorsport is not something you just go out and do successfully. It takes time and patience in order to learn how a race car feels and handles. And playing videos such as Gran Turismo doesn’t count as experience. But Vadim Kogay, a rich Russian businessman, thought he was above it all and could race without a hitch. Instead of starting at a lower level, he went out and bought himself a Ferrari 458 GT3. Yes, GT3 racing. He then enters a race at Monza.


----------



## imagemaker46

I've mentioned on here before that I have changed how I do things when it comes to finding and working with new clients, going back to basics, offering more and charging what they we can both be happy with.  I have been shooting for a jr football team for three years now, it's only a matter of four home games, I put them on my web site and the parents and players can download directly from my there.  I don't make a lot of money, I enjoy working with the team.  I went in knowing that I probably wouldn't make make more than a couple of hundred during the season, but it's relaxing for me to go out and shoot without the usual pressure or stress that goes with shooting the pro games.   A few weeks ago I find out that two other people decided to travel to the away games and shoot, he then started posting his pictures on their face book page and that if they wanted a copy to just ask.   I had that shut down pretty quick.

They can't shoot as well as I can, not in this lifetime, and especially not football, the president of the club wasn't impressed that they were posting, there is a loyalty that I appreciate from this team, and he had them blocked.  I didn't ask him to, he said it wasn't right what they were doing, giving  pictures away for free. In fact with them travelling to the away games it was costing them money every time, I don't understand the thinking of some people.


----------



## imagemaker46

Braineack said:


> Motorsport is not something you just go out and do successfully. It takes time and patience in order to learn how a race car feels and handles. And playing videos such as Gran Turismo doesn’t count as experience. But Vadim Kogay, a rich Russian businessman, thought he was above it all and could race without a hitch. Instead of starting at a lower level, he went out and bought himself a Ferrari 458 GT3. Yes, GT3 racing. He then enters a race at Monza.
Click to expand...


This guy was a hazard on the track, I'm surprised he was allowed to continue racing.


----------



## slackercruster

imagemaker46 said:


> I had to throw this out there. I was talking to a friend of mine the other night, he's been working as full time photographer for 6-7 years. As a photojournalist he shadowed a Reuters photographer for seven months and does a good job.  He told me the other day that he lost a client recently, one he has had for a few years, it made him around 15k a year, shooting sports for one of the local universities.  He had no idea what happened, so he went to them and asked, another photographer, and to be honest she does a pretty good job, went to them and said she would do it for free, she retired from a six figure job last year and just wants to shoot things.
> 
> So he gets screwed out of trying to make a living by someone that has decided to poach clients at a price photographers can't compete with, free, and she doesn't see anything wrong with it.  This is what pisses me and so many other photographers off.
> 
> If anyone thinks that amateurs with full time jobs, that can afford to buy the best gear and then shoot for free because they can afford to, doesn't affect other people that are just trying to stay in the business.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  This is just one example.


 

No law against it. Zillions of people with cams out there. This is how it is. He was very lucky to have made $15k all those years when it could have been had for free. I feel it in other ways with my own work, so I am in a similar boat.


----------



## slackercruster

Trever1t said:


> There are hobbyists who are worlds better than so many pros. The problem as I see it is that most of these hobbyists do not value their own work and give it away....


 

Very hard to value it when it is almost worthless. Too many photos for free out there. Photogs have an unrealistic value of their photos.


----------



## slackercruster

Gary A. said:


> This is a two edged sword. I do not blame the client at all. I'm a former pro, a photojournalist back in the film-only days. I got out in the '80's. The dSLR re-ignited my passion, but now I'm just a hobbyist. I've been so tempted to hit the theaters around here and volunteer just for the fun of it and to get some exceptional images. (Theatre is like shooting fish in a bucket. You have the lighting, the actors, the staging all there in front of you.) But, I've held back because I wonder who I might be taking paid work from ... for me it just isn't right.
> 
> Gary


 



I did it a few times but they kicked me out for disturbing the play and for copyright violations. I offered them free hi res discs and some 13 x 19 prints but they said they have 2 or 3 photogs that give them free pix from the dress rehearsals already. And I'm in a little dinky town of 30,000 people!


----------



## sfaust

gsgary said:


> The problem is with digital anyone can use a digital camera I bet the problem was not so bad when you shot film



Back in the 80's, I heard a lot of the same arguments. While it wasn't shooting for free, it was shooting for the cost of film and developing. But basically the same as they are working for free. Mostly this was focused in areas such as model portfolios, portraits, weddings, sports, editorial, travel, etc. Areas that amateurs saw as fun or sexy to shoot, lost cost of entry, and a client base that was easy to market to.

Photography still is a viable career if one stays ahead of the free or low cost amateurs giving away their work. If they move up a rung on the ladder, you move up two. Stay out of the easily accessible areas that people like to shoot, and move into more skilled, demanding, complicated areas, and where clients are harder to find and market to and there is still a barrier to entry for them to overcome. There competition in those areas are mostly between professionals, the industry is still paying good rates, and the cost of entry keeps the freebie amateurs out. While the rates in those areas have stayed somewhat stagnate, you can still make a decent wage by controlling overhead and production costs.

Vadim Kogay in the motorsports example posted is a good example. He was an amateur trying to work at the professionals level, and he failed. There was a cost and skill barrier to entry, and while he could afford the equipment, he didn't have the investment in skills. But this also fits if you flip it around. A professional driver will also be hampered and frustrated if they join races loaded with amateur drivers and try to make it a profession.

If one wants to make a career in photography, the only viable areas left are those with a high cost and skill barrier, as there is a lack of amateurs trying to break in.  Sure, its very competitive, but at least you are competing with professionals for professional wages.


----------



## The_Traveler

In medievil times, there were craft guilds that restricted the performance of certain tasks to members of the guilds.  The purpose of the guilds was to maintain a monopoly of a particular craft especially against outsiders. They would persist because of two things, they were supported by other guilds or those in power and, by protecting the actual practice of their particular specialty, they would prevent the interested outsider from gaining long experience in the practice and secrets of their profession. The prices were set in common and the public had to pay the prices or go without.  Guilds create a sort of "social capital of shared norms, common information, mutual sanctions." This social capital benefited guild members just as it hurt outsiders and hindered any real development of the trade.

The wheel of industrialization rolled over these guilds when the 'secrets' they held fell to modernization of the trade. Eventually many former handicraft workers were forced to seek employment in the emerging manufacturing industries, using not their own specific closely guarded trade secrets but standardized methods controlled by corporations.

Some guilds still persist; one can't practice medicine or law without a state-approved level of competency. At one point professional photography was a sort of craft guild, kept intact by the difficulty of producing good images out of the relatively crude equipment that was extant. One had to be very practiced to focus on fast-moving objects or to judge exposure that couldn't be verified until some time later. And, within certain limits, the public had to pay whatever price was asked,

Industrialization, auto-focus, auto-exposure, digital sensors and the personal computer,  changed all that.


----------



## Gary A.

imagemaker46 said:


> It wasn't a matter of him sitting back and waiting to see what happened, it just happens. I don't know the exact details, but he is always hustling around, making calls and trying to stay ahead or at the very least even with all the other young freelancers in the city.  What does happen in our business is that you could do a shoot on a Saturday and Monday they hire someone else, it usually comes as a huge surprise, especially if you're doing a good job for the client.  It's tougher on the photojournalist side with newspapers dropping staff, sending out the writers with cameras or accepting cell phone shots.
> 
> One of the biggest challenges of most photographers is  being able to buy new gear, losing 15k is the difference with being able to buy another camera body, or trying to get another year out of the one you're using.  Someone that has a stable bank account, because of a steady pay cheque can afford to just go out and buy what they want.  This person that is working for free, is also restoring a family owned villa in France, money isn't an issue for her.  She will start to find that it won't be a very friendly place among the other photographers when word gets out that she's a poacher.  There is no respect for people like this.



What happened to your friend, I think, is an anomaly or 70% anomaly. How many professional photogs are going to work for free? But it is representative of how tough it is to make a living with photography. What if the ex-photojournalist set up shop ... a website and undercut your friend by 10% or 25% ... then whose fault is it? Or the studio owner across the street can in at 20% less. At least then I guess you have a shot at negotiations. Hard to beat free. (Hence the anomaly.) 

In the film only days it was the darkroom which separated the photogs from the wannabes. Now everybody with a digital camera is pretty much on equal footing as a starting point. And ... many people feel that just because he has a camera equal to what the wedding photog has that now they ARE shooting at that level. You see this on every photo forum ... what lens should I use for my first wedding or what's the best settings for football. Photography lasts a lifetime ... why do people toss money on flowers and skimp on memories? (as an example) It is a combo of ignorant customers and ignorant people-with-cameras. (Sure there are those wedding when the money is tight and a non-professional steps up, but those are not what I'm talking about.)

While the digital camera and the internet has been a boom for photography it has been a bust for the professional. 

Gary


----------



## Gary A.

slackercruster said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a two edged sword. I do not blame the client at all. I'm a former pro, a photojournalist back in the film-only days. I got out in the '80's. The dSLR re-ignited my passion, but now I'm just a hobbyist. I've been so tempted to hit the theaters around here and volunteer just for the fun of it and to get some exceptional images. (Theatre is like shooting fish in a bucket. You have the lighting, the actors, the staging all there in front of you.) But, I've held back because I wonder who I might be taking paid work from ... for me it just isn't right.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did it a few times but they kicked me out for disturbing the play and for copyright violations. I offered them free hi res discs and some 13 x 19 prints but they said they have 2 or 3 photogs that give them free pix from the dress rehearsals already. And I'm in a little dinky town of 30,000 people!
Click to expand...

I shoot the dress rehearsals for a local high school I'm associated with.


----------



## runnah

Photography is just becoming a less and less viable sole source income career. Sucks for those who have dedicated their lives to it but time changes everything.

I've pretty much killed my web site business as No one wants to pay for it anymore. Everyone has a friend or relative who can do it along with all the free services out there. It's shitty but it's just been killed off by the progression of technology always getting cheaper and easier.


----------



## Derrel

In the sports photography segment, a lot of long time shooters have counted upon ownership of a 300/3.8 and a 400/2.8 and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and a couple of pro bodies as the things that keep "amateurs" out of their business. What that leads to is a sameness in the images coming out of the professionals; guys show up to the same events, shoot close to one another, with basically identical gear, and the shots all tend to look the same. Leaf through Sports Illustrated and see if you can tell who shot what: every single SEC football game, every single Pac-12 football game, the images look basically interchangeable. At the smaller market level, there are "pros" who show up to events, shoot for 20 minutes, then move on after they have made an image or two that is good enough for the publication they are stringing for or freelancing for, often NOT capturing the really most-interesting sports action, like say, the GAME-WINNING field goal with 00:07 remaining, or whatever, but being perfectly happy with the check they receive for the 1st quarter action they captured in the short time they were there. Meanwhile, the "football dad" type amateur, free to shoot the entire contest, winds up with complete coverage.

As a life-long University of Oregon football fan, I can also see the value in having longer coverage in sports, from the first second to the LAST second on contests, as well as the value of having three-person teams shooting big events. As the Ducks have grown from Pac 8 laughing stock, to Pac 10 celler-dwellers, to Pac 12 and national powers and top-5 rankings, I've seen a real increase in three- and four-man photo coverage in which having not better shooters but simply MORE GUYS shooting the same game action at the same time is producing the exquisite still photos that The Register Guard and The Oregonian and Sports Illustrated want to run on those games. The old-time idea of sending a single photographer to the games to get something "good enough to run" doesn't cut it any longer. And neither does average work. The bar has been raised.

What I've seen is "the bar" was once just ownership of a couple big teles, two bodies, and two standard pro lenses, and the ability to shoot the same old chit, over and over, at every event. Generic images. Same old stuff. Long tele, blown out background, feet cut off, ultra-tight, boring chit. I'm tired of that being considered "professional" sports photography. And I think a lot of Sports Information Directors are also tired of being ransomed for the same grade of "pro" shoots, week after week, when they can get basically the same, or almost the same stuff, from people who can provide equally usable, or maybe better, images for less, or for free. If a guy cannot compete with a FREE shooter, then his work is obviously NOT that valuable in the economic sense of valuable. If there's a lower-cost or free substitute, then the natural laws of economics will replace the over-priced product with a lower-cost one that fills the need.It's called "economics". Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.



I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.


----------



## robbins.photo

Well we don't really have the whole story here, so I think it may be a bit premature to be dusting off all these rocks for a good old fashioned stoning.  This lady might very well be doing this because she's an alumni or huge fan of the university.

She may have been asked to do this rather than going in and volunteering of her own accord.  Truth is we really don't know her motivations nor do we have any idea how this all came about. 

Regardless I don't see the whole "you are not in our clique" approach to be productive or professional.  It is what it is - obviously this lady can produce high enough quality images to satisfy the University and is willing to donate her time to accomplish that task. 

I do feel bad that your friend lost business in all of this, but blaming her seems useless and frankly you'll forgive me but a little silly.  To me it just seems a lot like getting mad at the tornado that just destroyed your house.  You can shake your fist all you want, but it accomplishes nothing.  I think you are better served spending that time rebuilding your house instead.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV


----------



## Gary A.

Derrel said:


> In the sports photography segment, a lot of long time shooters have counted upon ownership of a 300/3.8 and a 400/2.8 and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and a couple of pro bodies as the things that keep "amateurs" out of their business. What that leads to is a sameness in the images coming out of the professionals; guys show up to the same events, shoot close to one another, with basically identical gear, and the shots all tend to look the same. Leaf through Sports Illustrated and see if you can tell who shot what: every single SEC football game, every single Pac-12 football game, the images look basically interchangeable. At the smaller market level, there are "pros" who show up to events, shoot for 20 minutes, then move on after they have made an image or two that is good enough for the publication they are stringing for or freelancing for, often NOT capturing the really most-interesting sports action, like say, the GAME-WINNING field goal with 00:07 remaining, or whatever, but being perfectly happy with the check they receive for the 1st quarter action they captured in the short time they were there. Meanwhile, the "football dad" type amateur, free to shoot the entire contest, winds up with complete coverage.
> 
> As a life-long University of Oregon football fan, I can also see the value in having longer coverage in sports, from the first second to the LAST second on contests, as well as the value of having three-person teams shooting big events. As the Ducks have grown from Pac 8 laughing stock, to Pac 10 celler-dwellers, to Pac 12 and national powers and top-5 rankings, I've seen a real increase in three- and four-man photo coverage in which having not better shooters but simply MORE GUYS shooting the same game action at the same time is producing the exquisite still photos that The Register Guard and The Oregonian and Sports Illustrated want to run on those games. The old-time idea of sending a single photographer to the games to get something "good enough to run" doesn't cut it any longer. And neither does average work. The bar has been raised.
> 
> What I've seen is "the bar" was once just ownership of a couple big teles, two bodies, and two standard pro lenses, and the ability to shoot the same old chit, over and over, at every event. Generic images. Same old stuff. Long tele, blown out background, feet cut off, ultra-tight, boring chit. I'm tired of that being considered "professional" sports photography. And I think a lot of Sports Information Directors are also tired of being ransomed for the same grade of "pro" shoots, week after week, when they can get basically the same, or almost the same stuff, from people who can provide equally usable, or maybe better, images for less, or for free. If a guy cannot compete with a FREE shooter, then his work is obviously NOT that valuable in the economic sense of valuable. If there's a lower-cost or free substitute, then the natural laws of economics will replace the over-priced product with a lower-cost one that fills the need.It's called "economics". Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.




When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.

Gary


----------



## Derrel

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.
Click to expand...


You've seized upon the unstated part of my point, which is that TODAY, there are TONS of wealthy or well-to-do, or just "serious" amateurs who own expensive, wide-aperture lenses of all types! It is not longer enough to count on the idea that an "amateur" photographer cannot afford a 300 f/2.8 and or a 400 f/2.8 lens. 

The idea that a $10,000 lens investment will ensure a guy a lifetime career and will insulate him from "amateurs" no longer stands. There are PLENTY of people who can afford camera gear today, and they can learn how to use it pretty quickly. And apparently, some guy has found his services no longer worth $15,000 a year, replaced by a woman who is wealthy and who has a family with a European villa ! I love the way this story has been presented to us! The interloper is first, female. Gasp! And wealthy! And retired early! The horror! I mean, the horror! The one-sided nature of this post is almost comical in the totally slanted, sexist, anti-elitist, prejudicial way it has been put out here : The hard-working* photographer-man*, displaced by a retired, wealthy, woman, and even worse, a woman with family money and zero photography skills whatsoever. What's next?_ Allegations that she's blowing somebody_ to get the gig???)

And let's be honest, photos have become devalued, and the quality standards are not all that high these days. Hell, people look at cell phone images much of the time, and we now see *cell phone videos*, not pro-grade video, on local news on breaking stories, and you know what? The three-alarm fires look JUST as hot. The accident scenes look just as grisly. The police shootings and bombings and riots look just as bad as if they were made on a $100,000 Ikegami ENG (electronic news gathering) shoulder mount camera that weighed 30 pounds. It is NO LONGER 1982!!!


----------



## sm4him

I hate this for your friend, and for professional photographers in general, but as many others have said, this is not really unexpected and it is certainly not unique to photographers.
I just saw a FB post from a good friend who is a small business owner in our community, encouraging people to QUIT shopping at Walmart and patronize small business instead. But the truth is, for most people, if they can buy the same thing--or "close enough" to it--at Walmart for $1 that the small business is charging $3 for, well…Walmart is going to win that battle. Same for Best Buy, Home Depot, all those big chains.  So the only way for small business to compete is by offering something Walmart can't--exceptional customer service for example. Or free coffee while I shop--that would win ME over. 
Derrel mentioned desktop publishing. I used to do a lot of that as well, producing brochures and other promotional material for local businesses that just didn't have the editorial or computer expertise to do it themselves. But then came cheap-*ss printers, software programs with pre-made brochure templates, the INTERNET…and suddenly, EVERYONE could do their own brochure. Sure, they look like amateur, cheesy *crap* but nobody cared. The same way most people don't really appreciate the difference between excellent photography and all the rest of it.
I also used to do calligraphy and made quite a decent bit selling handwritten calligraphy; baby name plaques, poems, wedding invitations, you name it. And because it took a special skill to do it, I could charge quite a bit. But then, with the advent of the home computer, along came six billion FREE calligraphy fonts so you could just type it and print it yourself--and BOOM! just like that, real, hand-done calligraphy pretty much died a horrible death.




Derrel said:


> In the sports photography segment, a lot of long time shooters have counted upon ownership of a 300/3.8 and a 400/2.8 and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and a couple of pro bodies as the things that keep "amateurs" out of their business. What that leads to is a sameness in the images coming out of the professionals; guys show up to the same events, shoot close to one another, with basically identical gear, and the shots all tend to look the same. Leaf through Sports Illustrated and see if you can tell who shot what: every single SEC football game, every single Pac-12 football game, the images look basically interchangeable. At the smaller market level, there are "pros" who show up to events, shoot for 20 minutes, then move on after they have made an image or two that is good enough for the publication they are stringing for or freelancing for, often NOT capturing the really most-interesting sports action, like say, the GAME-WINNING field goal with 00:07 remaining, or whatever, but being perfectly happy with the check they receive for the 1st quarter action they captured in the short time they were there. Meanwhile, the "football dad" type amateur, free to shoot the entire contest, winds up with complete coverage.
> 
> As a life-long University of Oregon football fan, I can also see the value in having longer coverage in sports, from the first second to the LAST second on contests, as well as the value of having three-person teams shooting big events. As the Ducks have grown from Pac 8 laughing stock, to Pac 10 celler-dwellers, to Pac 12 and national powers and top-5 rankings, I've seen a real increase in three- and four-man photo coverage in which having not better shooters but simply MORE GUYS shooting the same game action at the same time is producing the exquisite still photos that The Register Guard and The Oregonian and Sports Illustrated want to run on those games. The old-time idea of sending a single photographer to the games to get something "good enough to run" doesn't cut it any longer. And neither does average work. The bar has been raised.
> 
> What I've seen is "the bar" was once just ownership of a couple big teles, two bodies, and two standard pro lenses, and the ability to shoot the same old chit, over and over, at every event. Generic images. Same old stuff. Long tele, blown out background, feet cut off, ultra-tight, boring chit. I'm tired of that being considered "professional" sports photography. And I think a lot of Sports Information Directors are also tired of being ransomed for the same grade of "pro" shoots, week after week, when they can get basically the same, or almost the same stuff, from people who can provide equally usable, or maybe better, images for less, or for free. If a guy cannot compete with a FREE shooter, then his work is obviously NOT that valuable in the economic sense of valuable. If there's a lower-cost or free substitute, then the natural laws of economics will replace the over-priced product with a lower-cost one that fills the need.It's called "economics". Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.



I'm not gonna lie--as a photographer, a sports fanatic and a lifelong University of Tennesse fan (and alumnus), if offering to shoot for free would get me on that field taking photos of their football games for the ENTIRE game, I'd be all over it!


----------



## The_Traveler

Gary A. said:


> When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amature or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amature sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.



If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.


----------



## ronlane

sm4him said:


> I'm not gonna lie--as a photographer, a sports fanatic and a lifelong University of Tennesse fan (and alumnus), if offering to shoot for free would get me on that field taking photos of their football games for the ENTIRE game, I'd be all over it!



I fully agree with this. Free photos for access to the sideline at an SEC, Big12, PAC 12 or ACC game is something that I wouldn't even have to think about. Done deal all the way.


----------



## Braineack

runnah said:


> I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.



When I was at the zoo last weekend I was shooting next to a guy with a D3x on his Manfrotto monopod stand with a 300mm 2.8.  That's ~$14,000 worth of equipment to shoot a sleeping lion while your (2) kids are running around.  I was only lugging around ~$4,000 worth of equipment myself.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've seized upon the unstated part of my point, which is that TODAY, there are TONS of wealthy or well-to-do, or just "serious" amateurs who own expensive, wide-aperture lenses of all types! It is not longer enough to count on the idea that an "amateur" photographer cannot afford a 300 f/2.8 and or a 400 f/2.8 lens.
> 
> The idea that a $10,000 lens investment will ensure a guy a lifetime career and will insulate him from "amateurs" no longer stands. There are PLENTY of people who can afford camera gear today, and they can learn how to use it pretty quickly. And apparently, some guy has found his services no longer worth $15,000 a year, replaced by a woman who is wealthy and who has a family with a European villa ! I love the way this story has been presented to us! The interloper is first, female. Gasp! And wealthy! And retired early! The horror! I mean, the horror! The one-sided nature of this post is almost comical in the totally slanted, sexist, anti-elitist, prejudicial way it has been put out here : The hard-working* photographer-man*, displaced by a retired, wealthy, woman, and even worse, a woman with family money and zero photography skills whatsoever. What's next?_ Allegations that she's blowing somebody_ to get the gig???)
> 
> And let's be honest, photos have become devalued, and the quality standards are not all that high these days. Hell, people look at cell phone images much of the time, and we now see *cell phone videos*, not pro-grade video, on local news on breaking stories, and you know what? The three-alarm fires look JUST as hot. The accident scenes look just as grisly. The police shootings and bombings and riots look just as bad as if they were made on a $100,000 Ikegami ENG (electronic news gathering) shoulder mount camera that weighed 30 pounds. It is NO LONGER 1982!!!
Click to expand...


Lol, the "rich bored housewife" segment has decimated the graphic design and photography market. "Oh my husband pulls in six figures so I will open up a quaint business and undercut everyone because I have no need to turn a profit." That type of stuff is rampant these days, no offense to them but they kill the market for sole income people.

I can see "professional photographer" going the way of other professions that have been made irrelavent by technology.


----------



## robbins.photo

sm4him said:


> I'm not gonna lie--as a photographer, a sports fanatic and a lifelong University of Tennesse fan (and alumnus), if offering to shoot for free would get me on that field taking photos of their football games for the ENTIRE game, I'd be all over it!



You'd better believe if UNL called hell yes I'd be down there tomorrow.


----------



## bribrius

I basically agree with most everything on this thread. I just wanted to say a couple cents about this though. The ones that don't NEED the work also may not have the same ambition FOR  that work.
so it seems that someone who is attempting to do this for a living and stay doing it for a living would have a much higher level of ambition to "go get that shot". Because they want and NEED that shot.
Now, if years of easy photography sales and lack of moving their business in directions of certain specialization or bigger endeavors has made them kind of lazy, well then yeah. They will probably go out of business. But if they are willing to jump on a plane to travel to some third world hell or go wherever that shot may be and have that level of dedication and ambition I cant see how there still cant be a buyer for that.
The hobbiest are basically taking the easy stuff, if I had to guess. And since they don't rely on the income much they really have the option of not working that hard or not even going out to try to get difficult business.
There are things I WOULD NOT DO just for a shot. I don't need it that bad. The bar for doing this for a living went a lot HIGHER if I were to guess. It is the best of the best that are prolly still cashing checks. The really driven ones and a lens don't change that mentality you either have it or you don't. .
any thoughts?


----------



## Derrel

Losing business to amateurs might also be re-stated as losing business to people who have the same tools as you have and who can also provide the same product, or a viable substitute or alternative product, to a market that is flooded with other people doing pretty much the same,exact thing as what you are doing. In economics, this is BASIC, Economics 101 stuff: *marginal utility analysis*. 1)Do we pay $15,000 a year for this service? 2) Do we pay nothing for the same service, or perhaps slightly lower-quality service?

This is the way decisions about spending money are actually made, using marginal utility analysis. It's like the old adage: water runs downhill. That is the way things ARE.


----------



## bribrius

agree with that and your other message too derrel. Almost seems like there is two choices. You either go big or go home. You either live it, breathe it, and go get it or you just end up another one of the cattle hoping for someone to throw you some feed.
Not that I know, I am not even one of the cattle. lol  
I wonder if the decades past were just "easy money" in a sense and people are missing that. Everyone seemed to go into photography thinking it was easy money. so now the bar is so high the money isn't so easy maybe only the top shooters who live this stuff are really safe..
And that may not have so much to do with the lens...
This just occurred to me talking to someone that has photos from the war (and the ptsd to go with it). I may be out in left field but it seems a far cry having them from doing weddings or sports shooting. So maybe there is still a huge separation in the business?


----------



## lambertpix

imagemaker46 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Motorsport is not something you just go out and do successfully. It takes time and patience in order to learn how a race car feels and handles. And playing videos such as Gran Turismo doesn’t count as experience. But Vadim Kogay, a rich Russian businessman, thought he was above it all and could race without a hitch. Instead of starting at a lower level, he went out and bought himself a Ferrari 458 GT3. Yes, GT3 racing. He then enters a race at Monza.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This guy was a hazard on the track, I'm surprised he was allowed to continue racing.
Click to expand...


That guy seemed to be in over his head, but on the other hand, Monza was probably a decent track for him -- even though it's incredibly fast, there are lots of big run-off areas to help keep the competitors safe.  For what it's worth, he didn't take anyone out, and I've seen plenty of pros wad up cars far worse than he did.  Sports car endurance racing is well-acquainted with the concept of the "gentleman driver" - in fact, most classes of endurance racing mandate that at least part of your driving team is comprised of "amateurs".  This guy (on the left -- sorry, the pic was so my son could show off to all his friends), for instance, has run the 24 Hours of Le Mans the last two years as a "bronze" driver:




IMG_1993.jpg by lambertpix, on Flickr

Whether you like it or not, money is a factor in all forms of racing today.  Formula 1 has well-known cases of drivers getting rides in large part because they bring money to teams that are struggling for sponsorship, and if the money dries up, so does the ride.  There's no question this irks purists, because it's not always the best driver who gets a chance to race, but it's absolutely the current state of racing.

Oh, and Gran Turismo?  There's an actual path into "real" motorsport that starts with Gran Turismo.  You're not going to hop straight into a top car and a top racing series, but some of the racers who've come through this program are doing really well today:

Discover the GT Drivers | Nissan GT Academy

Racing is, in fact, another example of a profession you can buy your way into, provided you've got a modicum of talent to begin with.


----------



## unpopular

And they say we're the "entitled generation"....


----------



## Stradawhovious

Well... I guess Adam Smith was right.


----------



## Usul

My opinion is that you get what you pay for. If the team pay $15k to the professional photographer they can demand results for $15k. If they pay nothing they have no right to demand anything. So if one time she qive up shoot for any reason bad mood, wet weather or something else insignificant, they will be forced to hire a professional again.


----------



## waday

The_Traveler said:


> ...Some guilds still persist; one can't practice medicine or law without a state-approved level of competency. At one point professional photography was a sort of craft guild, kept intact by the difficulty of producing good images out of the relatively crude equipment that was extant. One had to be very practiced to focus on fast-moving objects or to judge exposure that couldn't be verified until some time later. And, within certain limits, the public had to pay whatever price was asked...



The same can be said for many "guilds" these days. 

For example, law. Free legal advice is everywhere online, and most laws/statutes/etc are published. You can search the web for free sample contracts, leases, and wills. Or, you can pay some website to give you a generic form printed with your name on it for $50. Who is going to pay a lawyer $,$$$ when you can get this online for a pittance?

If anyone knows anyone that's planning on going to law school, don't. It's a joke. Well, unless you can afford Harvard or Yale. Or, don't mind paying it off while working as a barista for the rest of your life.


----------



## astroNikon

The one thing we have a hard time controlling is potential customer "perception" of an industry.

Photography has that problem.  With everyone buying a BestBuy $400 camera kit what else is to it?
What is to adding a few lights on poles with an umbrella?  A larger lens?
It all looks cheap and easy to do.

So why pay a high price for it?

This reminds me from a few years ago when the computer industry did a gigantic outsourcing.
There was this one website elance.com where people would bid for jobs - as in people would bid LOWER to win a job.  There were alot of asian competitors there.  A local business, roughly 1/2 mile from me that I did work with had a job out there.  They wanted roughly pennies per work hour for development - I calculated that it was paying roughly 1 to 4 dollars per hour on a software system that I knew about.  That was similar to nearly everything out there, a job that used to cost $10k and more going for $800 or less.  I talked to a Toronto company about their SQL server project.  I reviewed with them the issues, conversion steps etc. NONE of the other competitors knew anything about what I told them - that according to the client.  But the client then added other criteria without wanting to go away from the low bid win scenario.  I pulled out. as I'd rather not work for nothing, than work a ton for close to nothing.  I never bothered visiting that website again.

But many industries have this perception problem.  Perception from outside of what it takes to get the job done.
and price per quality.  The gap $$ from "good enough" quality vs "top quality" cost that Derrel mentions.

And many times, the customer doesn't know that difference.


----------



## runnah

waday said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Some guilds still persist; one can't practice medicine or law without a state-approved level of competency. At one point professional photography was a sort of craft guild, kept intact by the difficulty of producing good images out of the relatively crude equipment that was extant. One had to be very practiced to focus on fast-moving objects or to judge exposure that couldn't be verified until some time later. And, within certain limits, the public had to pay whatever price was asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said for many "guilds" these days.
> 
> For example, law. Free legal advice is everywhere online, and most laws/statutes/etc are published. You can search the web for free sample contracts, leases, and wills. Or, you can pay some website to give you a generic form printed with your name on it for $50. Who is going to pay a lawyer $,$$$ when you can get this online for a pittance?
> 
> If anyone knows anyone that's planning on going to law school, don't. It's a joke. Well, unless you can afford Harvard or Yale. Or, don't mind paying it off while working as a barista for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...


One might argue this is the reason the legal system is filled with BS lawsuits.


----------



## bribrius

waday said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Some guilds still persist; one can't practice medicine or law without a state-approved level of competency. At one point professional photography was a sort of craft guild, kept intact by the difficulty of producing good images out of the relatively crude equipment that was extant. One had to be very practiced to focus on fast-moving objects or to judge exposure that couldn't be verified until some time later. And, within certain limits, the public had to pay whatever price was asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said for many "guilds" these days.
> 
> For example, law. Free legal advice is everywhere online, and most laws/statutes/etc are published. You can search the web for free sample contracts, leases, and wills. Or, you can pay some website to give you a generic form printed with your name on it for $50. Who is going to pay a lawyer $,$$$ when you can get this online for a pittance?
> 
> If anyone knows anyone that's planning on going to law school, don't. It's a joke. Well, unless you can afford Harvard or Yale. Or, don't mind paying it off while working as a barista for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

me. I like using a lawyer, everything I have had drafted from my prenup to apartment lease to construction contract I go to a lawyer amongst other things.
you can get what you want online, true. But when the lawyer drafts it, and they are your lawyer, they draft it with the inclination that THEY will be going to court to support that position in your best interests. That is a entire different thing than just printing it off your printer. Also if you keep a lawyer on retainer (not now but I have before for things) the more work you give them the lower the cost seems to go as they get to know you. So you get to the point of walking and with your coffee and going over some chit (shooting the chit for a hour) and they bill you for a half hour. My latest attorney is a friend of mines cousin (had him for a few years now) and I will probably me using him for some legal issue my wife is in. But whatever I hand this guy he can figure it out. He was a cop before he turned lawyer and now moved into doing insurance settlements and stuff too so is basically a general everything attorney at this point. I mean no one likes most lawyers, but if sit down and talk with the guy and say "how much to fix this" it basically takes a lot of stress off me and he deals with it whether making it go away or like in one case getting money recovered back when I sued someone (I think I am about to sue someone again I have something going on).  I was in some trouble a few years back too, guy put it through to superior court and got the entire thing tossed before trial. Problem now with a insurance company, I think I am just going to call him and tell him to sue them.
I love lawyers (at least the ones I have had). I had one years back he died from a heart attack, I was seriously in remorse as the guy jumped through hoops dealing with things for me and saved me a lot of headache and money in the end. He was a good guy. When I separated from the wife before he went through this checklist preparing for potential divorce and a future custody battle. Didn't end up divorced, but the guy was all over it protecting my azz and getting ready just as he did up the prenup and we had a earlier custodial agreement from years back.  They got their purposes, all I am saying.. And the biggest thing is it keeps YOU from having to deal with it. Pass it to them and forget about it. Lawyer can be your best friend.


----------



## waday

runnah said:


> One might argue this is the reason the legal system is filled with BS lawsuits.



Absolutely. Someone gets upset because they think their rights have been infringed, so they search the web, someone on a forum tells them to sue, and they sue. Or, they read the laws incorrectly and have to learn the hard/funny way in front of a judge (if it makes it that far).



bribrius said:


> me....



I understood your point, but I believe you're in a very unique place where (1) you know the lawyer you're dealing with and (2) you can apparently afford to have a lawyer on retainer for everything/anything you want. Many people can't just call up their lawyer on retainer.

I agree: lawyers are great. They are ridiculously expensive, but they are generally pretty good at what they do. Assuming you get a knowledgeable one. (Hey, just like photographers!)

And, I love at least one lawyer: my wife.


----------



## sm4him

The more I think about this specific situation--someone said early on that it didn't really "add up," that it sounded like there was more to the story.
When I think about the universities *I* know something about--spending money on athletic-related matters isn't a biggie to them, and $15K is just chump change. Even for the smaller universities, that amount isn't necessarily a HUGE deal, not enough to necessarily change from a known individual who is providing quality work to this unknown, but free, person. 

So I started thinking--I bet she ISN'T working "for free."  What does a university athletic department really CARE about?
1. Winning programs.
2. Donors.

I'd bet she is actually PAYING to do their photography, in the form of a sizable donation to their athletic department. After all, she's rich evidently--retired from a six-figure income, and restoring a family villa in France? That says not only RICH, but well-connected. My guess is she's given a sizable donation to the Univ. and called in a "favor" from the university president or athletic director, or someone fairly high up to make this happen.

It still sucks for your friend, but such is life.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

imagemaker46 said:


> I had to throw this out there. I was talking to a friend of mine the other night, he's been working as full time photographer for 6-7 years. As a photojournalist he shadowed a Reuters photographer for seven months and does a good job.  He told me the other day that he lost a client recently, one he has had for a few years, it made him around 15k a year, shooting sports for one of the local universities.  He had no idea what happened, so he went to them and asked, another photographer, and to be honest she does a pretty good job, went to them and said she would do it for free, she retired from a six figure job last year and just wants to shoot things.
> 
> So he gets screwed out of trying to make a living by someone that has decided to poach clients at a price photographers can't compete with, free, and she doesn't see anything wrong with it.  This is what pisses me and so many other photographers off.
> 
> If anyone thinks that amateurs with full time jobs, that can afford to buy the best gear and then shoot for free because they can afford to, doesn't affect other people that are just trying to stay in the business.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  This is just one example.



Yes, it _is _just one example.

I've been doing this a while, and I've gotten pretty good at keeping an eye on my competition. I pay attention to the differences between them and me. I know I'm a better photographer but, as your example proves, proficiency often runs a distant second place to price. After all, the almighty dollar is what speaks the loudest.

Did this woman simply offer her services because, if so, she poached no one. Was her intent to put this guy out of work? It certainly wasn't to undercut his rates for her own financial gain. Where does the "poaching" come into play?

To me, this is an example of someone who's fallen victim to not being on top of things. I've lowered rates before to stay competitive, but I've also raised rates, too. Instead of this guy blaming this woman for "poaching" a client, perhaps he should take a look at why it so easily happened. If you want to stay working as a photographer, you have to be a salesman, and what you're selling is yourself; your expertise, your talent and what you can provide.

It's pretty obvious that your friend didn't do that.


----------



## imagemaker46

sfaust said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is with digital anyone can use a digital camera I bet the problem was not so bad when you shot film
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 80's, I heard a lot of the same arguments. While it wasn't shooting for free, it was shooting for the cost of film and developing. But basically the same as they are working for free. Mostly this was focused in areas such as model portfolios, portraits, weddings, sports, editorial, travel, etc. Areas that amateurs saw as fun or sexy to shoot, lost cost of entry, and a client base that was easy to market to.
> 
> Photography still is a viable career if one stays ahead of the free or low cost amateurs giving away their work. If they move up a rung on the ladder, you move up two. Stay out of the easily accessible areas that people like to shoot, and move into more skilled, demanding, complicated areas, and where clients are harder to find and market to and there is still a barrier to entry for them to overcome. There competition in those areas are mostly between professionals, the industry is still paying good rates, and the cost of entry keeps the freebie amateurs out. While the rates in those areas have stayed somewhat stagnate, you can still make a decent wage by controlling overhead and production costs.
> 
> Vadim Kogay in the motorsports example posted is a good example. He was an amateur trying to work at the professionals level, and he failed. There was a cost and skill barrier to entry, and while he could afford the equipment, he didn't have the investment in skills. But this also fits if you flip it around. A professional driver will also be hampered and frustrated if they join races loaded with amateur drivers and try to make it a profession.
> 
> If one wants to make a career in photography, the only viable areas left are those with a high cost and skill barrier, as there is a lack of amateurs trying to break in.  Sure, its very competitive, but at least you are competing with professionals for professional wages.
Click to expand...



What areas of photography would you suggest aren't accessible to the weekend amateurs?


----------



## The_Traveler

waday said:


> For example, law. Free legal advice is everywhere online, and most laws/statutes/etc are published. You can search the web for free sample contracts, leases, and wills. Or, you can pay some website to give you a generic form printed with your name on it for $50. Who is going to pay a lawyer $,$$$ when you can get this online for a pittance?
> 
> If anyone knows anyone that's planning on going to law school, don't. It's a joke. Well, unless you can afford Harvard or Yale. Or, don't mind paying it off while working as a barista for the rest of your life.



Law is a good example of another pyramidal craft structures.
Yes, all this 'free' information has hurt the low end lawyers and the cost of getting in the 'guild' has swamped those who hope to be a 'little' business lawyer.
It hasn't affected those lawyers further up the pyramid.
One of my children went to Georgetown Law Center and is an attorney on Wall Street and, if not rolling in the dough, clearly has more than she needs to spend.


----------



## gsgary

I have a friend that has given up digital and gone back to film shooting weddings and his annual income has doubled he also produces prints in his darkroom which bring in even more money, this last year I have been approached by about 6 couples that wanted their wedding shot on film


----------



## The_Traveler

Like most professional sports where anyone can afford the equipment, the business of photography has becoming more a of real competition among individuals. Except at the very fringes where the equipment is way too expensive for most individuals (electron microscopy for example), an interested amateur can be as well equipped as any pro and thus the competition is among equals.
Meritocracy


----------



## waday

The_Traveler said:


> Law is a good example of another pyramidal craft structures.
> Yes, all this 'free' information has hurt the low end lawyers and the cost of getting in the 'guild' has swamped those who hope to be a 'little' business lawyer.
> It hasn't affected those lawyers further up the pyramid.
> One of my children went to Georgetown Law Center and is an attorney on Wall Street and, if not rolling in the dough, clearly has more than she needs to spend.



That's good to hear! I'm glad your daughter has a good, well-paying job! 

Unfortunately, my wife was not as lucky out of school. She's pretty much stuck as a temporary, project attorney. After 2 years of trying to find a job, she bit the bullet and became a project attorney (if you don't know what that is, think sitting in a room with 100 other attorneys clicking a mouse for 8 hours a day). After a few years of this, she still has essentially no experience and is open to pretty much any job in law that would offer any experience at any compensation... If your daughter knows of any openings...


----------



## imagemaker46

Unfortunately there is no professional loyalty anymore, that thinking has been changing as the younger generation is replacing the "handshake is my word" generation.  The clients I have been working with for many years know that they don't need a lawyer assisted contract when they deal with me. New clients working with much younger people, the contracts are tossed out there right away, they draw them up but I rarely sign them.

I worked for one client several years ago, put in 17 years shooting for them, and what they got from me was consistent  high quality images, as I switched to digital I produced more images for them, I gave them more than they asked for, and worked my butt off looking for new and different images.  The people that originally hired me all retired or moved on to new jobs, the staff that moved into their places were much younger and within a couple of months, they hired someone in the same age group that worked for half the money, produced half the images and wasn't anywhere near the same skill level as me.  I was bothered by it for a while, and then just moved on. They ended up with garbage and have driven what was once a well respected sports group into a third world organization.  
They did come back to to cover one of the their big events, and I charged them a much higher fee than before I stopped shooting for them. I gave them great images, which they continued to use 3 years after, all the while using the other person to produce crap. That was the last time I worked for them.  

It's just the way it works.


----------



## limr

Lew, does your daughter need a paralegal?


----------



## bribrius

waday said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> One might argue this is the reason the legal system is filled with BS lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Someone gets upset because they think their rights have been infringed, so they search the web, someone on a forum tells them to sue, and they sue. Or, they read the laws incorrectly and have to learn the hard/funny way in front of a judge (if it makes it that far).
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understood your point, but I believe you're in a very unique place where (1) you know the lawyer you're dealing with and (2) you can apparently afford to have a lawyer on retainer for everything/anything you want. Many people can't just call up their lawyer on retainer.
> 
> I agree: lawyers are great. They are ridiculously expensive, but they are generally pretty good at what they do. Assuming you get a knowledgeable one. (Hey, just like photographers!)
> 
> And, I love at least one lawyer: my wife.
Click to expand...



I don't have money. That is why I have had lawyers. To get me out of paying money or to collect from people owing me money. Too limit my own liability as well.
If twenty k is on the table and the lawyer wants four k it is kind of a no brainer which is cheaper.
They don't make much on wills, family docs. But if you round out the service they can supply to including for example insurance suits or a percentage on recovering losses it gives them more income (not at your expense as you are on the losing side to start with) which helps them. Really depends on your exposure to risk and liability and what you have to throw at them they can make money on. Seems if they are able to make money on one side and you throw them something that isn't really paying much they are more apt to do it as they can still show a profit. Lawyers have to eat too.  If you just ask them to draw up your will, where they aren't making much money it makes it more difficult.  The other thing is the way the world is now, everything is about money and a legal mess. People will apt to not pay you UNTIL you get a lawyer involved. OR try to make you pay something you really shouldn't have to UNTIL you get a lawyer involved. Everyone is out for themselves, so I guess I figure in many cases one kind of needs a lawyer involved so at least they have someone looking out for them. But I rob peter to pay paul I am not rich.

 I had a property in foreclosure a few years back I had to pay a lawyer five k to get the damn thing back the bank wouldn't stop the process I went by the recovery date and didn't even know it was being scheduled for auction. Because I owed less than it was worth the bank really didn't seem want to stop it from going to auction.  I got it back though (a lot cheaper than what It would have cost me losing it) paid the five k and it all stopped right there. Suddenly they are calling me in to sign paperwork and everything is canceled far as their proceedings. All in how you see it I suppose. Another one of those things though. "okay, how do I stop this and how much $ to make it go away".  For the average person to navigate through the legalities that life can bring and be taken seriously at all just usually don't happen. I for instance have little knowledge of how to navigate the legal system.  I sure wouldn't hire a amateur but if my lawyer can save me money (i really am like freakn poor) and all the while it helps him take care of his family I cant see how that is a bad thing. I try to throw things his way he can make money on.
way off topic but...
Maybe lawyers and photo professionals do have something in common. Know your customers needs and try to supply them...


----------



## photoguy99

There are at least two threads of thought going on here.

One is that amateurs are bad, and if only people would hire pros they'd get better photos. This is sometimes true. Sometimes the customers don't care.

The second is much more interesting. There are plenty of excellent amateurs out there working cheap or free.

The amount of money on the table to pay for excellent pictures is not unbounded. The number of superb photographers who'd like to get a piece of that money is unbounded, or nearly so.

That's just how it is. There's a wild oversupply of talent. If you believe in free markets or any semblance of them, you cannot escape the conclusion that the correct price for even an excellent photo is close to $0.

If you do not believe in free markets, then you need to solve the problem of who gets paid and who does not. Good luck on that.


----------



## waday

bribrius said:


> I don't have money. That is why I have had lawyers. To get me out of paying money or to collect from people owing me money. Too limit my own liability as well.
> If twenty k is on the table and the lawyer wants four k it is kind of a no brainer which is cheaper.
> They don't make much on wills, family docs. But if you round out the service they can supply to including for example insurance suits or a percentage on recovering losses it gives them more income (not at your expense as you are on the losing side to start with) which helps them. Really depends on your exposure to risk and liability and what you have to throw at them they can make money on. Seems if they are able to make money on one side and you throw them something that isn't really paying much they are more apt to do it as they can still show a profit. Lawyers have to eat too.  If you just ask them to draw up your will, where they aren't making much money it makes it more difficult.  The other thing is the way the world is now, everything is about money and a legal mess. People will apt to not pay you UNTIL you get a lawyer involved. OR try to make you pay something you really shouldn't have to UNTIL you get a lawyer involved. Everyone is out for themselves, so I guess I figure in many cases one kind of needs a lawyer involved so at least they have someone looking out for them. But I rob peter to pay paul I am not rich.
> 
> I had a property in foreclosure a few years back I had to pay a lawyer five k to get the damn thing back the bank wouldn't stop the process I went by the recovery date and didn't even know it was being scheduled for auction. Because I owed less than it was worth the bank really didn't seem want to stop it from going to auction.  I got it back though (a lot cheaper than what It would have cost me losing it) paid the five k and it all stopped right there. Suddenly they are calling me in to sign paperwork and everything is canceled far as their proceedings. All in how you see it I suppose. Another one of those things though. "okay, how do I stop this and how much $ to make it go away".  For the average person to navigate through the legalities that life can bring and be taken seriously at all just usually don't happen. I for instance have little knowledge of how to navigate the legal system.  I sure wouldn't hire a amateur but if my lawyer can save me money (i really am like freakn poor) and all the while it helps him take care of his family I cant see how that is a bad thing. I try to throw things his way he can make money on.
> way off topic but...
> Maybe lawyers and photo professionals do have something in common. Know your customers needs and try to supply them...



I definitely understand where you're coming from, and with some of those issues, yeah, you really do need a lawyer (and an internet lawyer won't help you there). I'm glad your situation has gotten better.  Depending on the situation, yes, the couple of thousand is absolutely worth it if they can get you out of owing much more.


----------



## bribrius

photoguy99 said:


> There are at least two threads of thought going on here.
> 
> One is that amateurs are bad, and if only people would hire pros they'd get better photos. This is sometimes true. Sometimes the customers don't care.
> 
> The second is much more interesting. There are plenty of excellent amateurs out there working cheap or free.
> 
> The amount of money on the table to pay for excellent pictures is not unbounded. The number of superb photographers who'd like to get a piece of that money is unbounded, or nearly so.
> 
> That's just how it is. There's a wild oversupply of talent. If you believe in free markets or any semblance of them, you cannot escape the conclusion that the correct price for even an excellent photo is close to $0.
> 
> If you do not believe in free markets, then you need to solve the problem of who gets paid and who does not. Good luck on that.


communism 101 for everyone.


----------



## photoguy99

Huh?


----------



## Derrel

Newspapers used to make a KILLING selling overpriced, *only-game-in-town-so-ya-gotta-pay-our-rates! classified advertising*. Newspapers used to charge exorbitant rates for one-week and two-week or 30-day classified advertising runs because there was literally NO other way to reliably contact the general public with items for sale or properties for rent and so on.

What killed newspapers? Craigslist, and FREE advertising. What has killed photography as an easy,dependable,consistent, reliable income generator? Digital imaging and easy, free reproduction via computer screen.

Time to step up to the 2010's. TIMES CHANGE FAST, but attitudes change slowly it seems.

Photographs no longer hold the same value they used to! There are more photos made now than ever before, and they are seen for LESS time, and quickly there's a need for NEW images, to be put on the web, not prepped for three days then "printed". Good photos used to be kept around for weeks, months, years, in printed form. Now? A photo has a half life of about one,single day.


----------



## imagemaker46

Derrel, you're quite right that photographs aren't worth what they used to be, that is something that I came to realize years ago.  So people tell me that I should be charging more for the digital files I sell, it wasn't just a quick decision to come up with the "magic" number, it took some time figuring out what the best number was to sell the most images, it came down to a simple 50 cent difference. I could do like lots of other photographers I know that are still trying to get a $100 for similar images I sell for $35, I am out selling them 20-1, but they still believe that they have an image worth $100.  I agree with them, but the rest of the buying public doesn't.

It's the same with trading cards, I used to get paid $100 per hockey card I shot for one of the big card companies, they offer $10 now, it's not worth the time and effort, unless they are buying 200 images from me, which they aren't.  The only place I can still get the money I ask for is TV news, sports or documentaries, and that's because my archive has images that no one else has.

I'm lucky to have clients that are still willing to spend the money to hire me, they know I will come back with what they want.  I go out of way to produce different material on each shoot, even though it may all be swimming, there still has to be something new from each meet. Anyone that is willing to pay me to go to Miami, Los Angeles, Australia and Hawaii in the same year to shoot swimming is going to get more than what they could ever ask for. That's how I work to keep my clients, there is professional respect, and I earned that, a lot of the time, that's worth more than the cheque at the end, but I'm happy with the cheque.


----------



## Gary A.

The_Traveler said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.
Click to expand...


What the news photogs think has absolutely nothing to do with what the accounting department thinks or what the CEO/CFO thinks as a viable  profit margin (say 30%) or what the shareholders demand in a ROI.

Your statement hasn't any currency in the viability of photojournalism as a profession. I believe that even today photojournalists do not feel threatened by amateurs with big cameras. The downfall of photojournalism and news periodicals in general is the internet. Due to the fragmentation of the advertising dollar, the news industry is having to change it's business model to cope with the internet for content, with the internet for advertising (see Craig's List, websites, et al).  And todays corporate structure/ownership demanding higher profits over a quality product.

Gary


----------



## Gary A.

Derrel said:


> Newspapers used to make a KILLING selling overpriced, *only-game-in-town-so-ya-gotta-pay-our-rates! classified advertising*. Newspapers used to charge exorbitant rates for one-week and two-week or 30-day classified advertising runs because there was literally NO other way to reliably contact the general public with items for sale or properties for rent and so on.
> 
> What killed newspapers? Craigslist, and FREE advertising. What has killed photography as an easy,dependable,consistent, reliable income generator? Digital imaging and easy, free reproduction via computer screen.
> 
> Time to step up to the 2010's. TIMES CHANGE FAST, but attitudes change slowly it seems.
> 
> Photographs no longer hold the same value they used to! There are more photos made now than ever before, and they are seen for LESS time, and quickly there's a need for NEW images, to be put on the web, not prepped for three days then "printed". Good photos used to be kept around for weeks, months, years, in printed form. Now? A photo has a half life of about one,single day.



I didn't see your post prior to writong mine ... we're on the same page. lol


----------



## Gary A.

imagemaker46 said:


> Derrel, you're quite right that photographs aren't worth what they used to be, that is something that I came to realize years ago.  So people tell me that I should be charging more for the digital files I sell, it wasn't just a quick decision to come up with the "magic" number, it took some time figuring out what the best number was to sell the most images, it came down to a simple 50 cent difference. I could do like lots of other photographers I know that are still trying to get a $100 for similar images I sell for $35, I am out selling them 20-1, but they still believe that they have an image worth $100.  I agree with them, but the rest of the buying public doesn't.
> 
> It's the same with trading cards, I used to get paid $100 per hockey card I shot for one of the big card companies, they offer $10 now, it's not worth the time and effort, unless they are buying 200 images from me, which they aren't.  The only place I can still get the money I ask for is TV news, sports or documentaries, and that's because my archive has images that no one else has.
> 
> I'm lucky to have clients that are still willing to spend the money to hire me, they know I will come back with what they want.  I go out of way to produce different material on each shoot, even though it may all be swimming, there still has to be something new from each meet. Anyone that is willing to pay me to go to Miami, Los Angeles, Australia and Hawaii in the same year to shoot swimming is going to get more than what they could ever ask for. That's how I work to keep my clients, there is professional respect, and I earned that, a lot of the time, that's worth more than the cheque at the end, but I'm happy with the cheque.



As in any industry, (except maybe US government procurement - lol), it isn't all about what you think it's worth, it is about what someone else will pay.

Gary


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

I've been making a living at this for several years. 

If you're being pushed out of business by amateurs, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## tirediron

limr said:


> Lew, does your daughter need a paralegal?


How about a husband?


----------



## slackercruster

Gary A. said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the news photogs think has absolutely nothing to do with what the accounting department thinks or what the CEO/CFO thinks as a viable  profit margin (say 30%) or what the shareholders demand in a ROI.
> 
> Your statement hasn't any currency in the viability of photojournalism as a profession. I believe that even today photojournalists do not feel threatened by amateurs with big cameras. The downfall of photojournalism and news periodicals in general is the internet. Due to the fragmentation of the advertising dollar, the news industry is having to change it's business model to cope with the internet for content, with the internet for advertising (see Craig's List, websites, et al).  And todays corporate structure/ownership demanding higher profits over a quality product.
> 
> Gary
Click to expand...

 A lot of what I see on the news is cell phone pix and vids. But they still have some hi grade stuff for certain events.


----------



## slackercruster

imagemaker46 said:


> Derrel, you're quite right that photographs aren't worth what they used to be, that is something that I came to realize years ago.  So people tell me that I should be charging more for the digital files I sell, it wasn't just a quick decision to come up with the "magic" number, it took some time figuring out what the best number was to sell the most images, it came down to a simple 50 cent difference. I could do like lots of other photographers I know that are still trying to get a $100 for similar images I sell for $35, I am out selling them 20-1, but they still believe that they have an image worth $100.  I agree with them, but the rest of the buying public doesn't.
> 
> It's the same with trading cards, I used to get paid $100 per hockey card I shot for one of the big card companies, they offer $10 now, it's not worth the time and effort, unless they are buying 200 images from me, which they aren't.  The only place I can still get the money I ask for is TV news, sports or documentaries, and that's because my archive has images that no one else has.
> 
> I'm lucky to have clients that are still willing to spend the money to hire me, they know I will come back with what they want.  I go out of way to produce different material on each shoot, even though it may all be swimming, there still has to be something new from each meet. Anyone that is willing to pay me to go to Miami, Los Angeles, Australia and Hawaii in the same year to shoot swimming is going to get more than what they could ever ask for. That's how I work to keep my clients, there is professional respect, and I earned that, a lot of the time, that's worth more than the cheque at the end, but I'm happy with the cheque.


 

You still making it pay? Good for you!!


----------



## Gary A.

slackercruster said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the news photogs think has absolutely nothing to do with what the accounting department thinks or what the CEO/CFO thinks as a viable  profit margin (say 30%) or what the shareholders demand in a ROI.
> 
> Your statement hasn't any currency in the viability of photojournalism as a profession. I believe that even today photojournalists do not feel threatened by amateurs with big cameras. The downfall of photojournalism and news periodicals in general is the internet. Due to the fragmentation of the advertising dollar, the news industry is having to change it's business model to cope with the internet for content, with the internet for advertising (see Craig's List, websites, et al).  And todays corporate structure/ownership demanding higher profits over a quality product.
> 
> Gary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of what I see on the news is cell phone pix and vids. But they still have some hi grade stuff for certain events.
Click to expand...


The industry is redefining itself. With all the bloggers and talk radio the line between op-ed and news is blurry at best. Now news decisions is being made by accounting. Sorta like health care where the accounting department is calling the shots on the treatment instead of the physician. Now the accounting department is dictating how news will be covered and presented. Having five full-time photogs and a zillion "free lancers with cell phones" is cheaper than 20 staffers and five stringers. There was a time when working for a major paper or wire service required a degree in journalism (or equal). The photojournalist needed to understand the tenants of journalism first and be a photographer second. Now it is all about scooping the competition ... keeping costs low and profits high. It is very difficult to both report and shoot, one or the other will suffer. So you have to keep a few photogs around for important stuff and stuff where you need a media pass to cross police lines or get into a sporting event. (Hard to shoot a ball game with a iPhone. But I did shoot a football game with a wide angle ... it was a bet. lol)

Gary


----------



## West -

"Losing business to amateurs"
I guess when that happens the pro becomes the amateur and vise versa.


----------



## chainsawal

I thought about this thread last night... and although I agree with almost everything everyone has said, I tried to put it in as simple of a perspective as I could.

The OP was upset at the amateur who was undercutting him...

But here is where the real emotion should be directed (because the industry is changing rapidly).

1. Be mad at cell phone manufacturers because many people are getting "good enough" pictures of their family so they don't need any / or as many pro photo sessions.
2. Be mad at DSLR manufacturers for making pretty great gear at prices the everyday Joe can afford.
3. Be mad at technology, because digital broke down the barriers that traditional film had (in fact, how many people knew the old school photographers who shunned digital in the beginning?)
4. Be mad at the Internet for allowing people to educated and learn about the art easily - no need to apprentice under a pro any longer.
5. Be mad at the Internet for allowing consumers to find options (the old days you knew 1 or 2 local photographers who had studios and that was it... now even housewives have websites where they shoot on the side so the options are limitless).

I am obviously being a little sarcastic with the "be mad" ... the reality is nobody should be mad.  Businesses change.. and sometimes you need to adapt, and sometimes there business is no longer viable depending on the area of expertise.

Photography is a tough business right now... and like someone above said, if I could shoot my college's sports (U of Florida) for free to get a field pass... I wouldn't hesitate to do it.   All I lack is the 400mm f/2.8.  but otherwise am good to go!


----------



## West -

Exactly, crying over loosing your job has been around since the dawn of time.
Horse carriage builders must have been really pi**ed when they started building cars.


----------



## limr

What I've learned here in this thread is that...

a) if you have money, you can do whatever the f*** you want, no matter who it hurts;
b) unscrupulous behavior is good business; and
c) if someone gets upset at the lack of integrity and/or compassion, then they will be told that it's just simply "the way it is" and we all just need to suck it up. 

None of this gives me even one iota of hope in humanity.


----------



## limr

chainsawal said:


> The OP was upset at the amateur who was undercutting him...



Actually, no. The OP was upset about an amateur who took a job away from his friend.

I'm also apparently not particularly impressed with today's reading comprehension skills.


----------



## West -

limr said:


> What I've learned here in this thread is that...
> 
> a) if you have money, you can do whatever the f*** you want, no matter who it hurts;
> b) unscrupulous behavior is good business; and
> c) if someone gets upset at the lack of integrity and/or compassion, then they will be told that it's just simply "the way it is" and we all just need to suck it up.
> 
> None of this gives me even one iota of hope in humanity.



I guess we could have a group cry everytime someone looses their job ... I'm in


----------



## limr

WestCoast said:


> I guess we could have a group cry everytime someone looses their job ... I'm in



Yes, because that's exactly what I implied


----------



## Gary A.

limr said:


> WestCoast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could have a group cry everytime someone looses their job ... I'm in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because that's exactly what I implied
Click to expand...

LOL ... yes it is.


----------



## tirediron

Gary A. said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WestCoast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could have a group cry everytime someone looses their job ... I'm in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because that's exactly what I implied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL ... yes it is.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...  didn't really seem like that to me.


----------



## tecboy

Well, this amateur probably doesn't have insurance and a second body.  If her primarily dslr fails, her only solution is to take pictures with her cell phone.  It is not her fault if the pictures are blurry and dark.


----------



## unpopular

All I see in this thread is a bunch of protogs from the "old mens club" whining because they can't keep up.

Seriously. If you can't compete, retire already. If you can't afford to retire, well tough titties.

I have ZERO patience for this garbage, especially when coming from a generation that stereotypically complains so much about entitlement and sings the praises of free market.

You're not entitled to clients just because your fist camera was a Kodak Pony.


----------



## bratkinson

"You get what you pay for" used to be the rule...now it's more of an exception in my mind.

Never mind that somebody can spend $500 or less on a kit and think they are ready to do weddings.  Some of the members of this forum appear to have done just that!  Zero to wedding photographer seemingly overnight!

What's happened is that most people are now satisfied with "OK" or "good enough".  Whether it's pictures from a cell phone or a iPhone that has problems.  It's good enough to get the job done.  With extremely rare exception, the high end, high quality manufacturers are all long gone.  Everyone shops on price and price alone.  I once bid a Federal Government contract that was presumably based 75% quality and 25% price based on RFP information.  I came in 2nd.  I later got a private letter from one of the government employees in the decision committee and they said my experience, expertise, and quality far exceeded the #1 bidder.  But his price was $2,000 less than my $155,000 price.  So much for quality.

In short, "good enough" is OK these days.  And if someone is willing to accept less than good quality work or workmanship, so be it.  And it's hard to be FREE as a competitors price.


----------



## imagemaker46

Gary A. said:


> slackercruster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was shooting news ... I could care less about the amateur or what they were packing ... I knew my abilities and it I didn't feel a challenge from the amateur sector. It wasn't a fair fight. All the hobbyists did were to get in the way. I know my colleagues felt similarly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the profession of photojournalism has a funeral, this quote might be engraved on the tombstone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the news photogs think has absolutely nothing to do with what the accounting department thinks or what the CEO/CFO thinks as a viable  profit margin (say 30%) or what the shareholders demand in a ROI.
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement hasn't any currency in the viability of photojournalism as a profession. I believe that even today photojournalists do not feel threatened by amateurs with big cameras. The downfall of photojournalism and news periodicals in general is the internet. Due to the fragmentation of the advertising dollar, the news industry is having to change it's business model to cope with the internet for content, with the internet for advertising (see Craig's List, websites, et al).  And todays corporate structure/ownership demanding higher profits over a quality product.
> 
> Gary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of what I see on the news is cell phone pix and vids. But they still have some hi grade stuff for certain events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The industry is redefining itself. With all the bloggers and talk radio the line between op-ed and news is blurry at best. Now news decisions is being made by accounting. Sorta like health care where the accounting department is calling the shots on the treatment instead of the physician. Now the accounting department is dictating how news will be covered and presented. Having five full-time photogs and a zillion "free lancers with cell phones" is cheaper than 20 staffers and five stringers. There was a time when working for a major paper or wire service required a degree in journalism (or equal). The photojournalist needed to understand the tenants of journalism first and be a photographer second. Now it is all about scooping the competition ... keeping costs low and profits high. It is very difficult to both report and shoot, one or the other will suffer. So you have to keep a few photogs around for important stuff and stuff where you need a media pass to cross police lines or get into a sporting event. (Hard to shoot a ball game with a iPhone. But I did shoot a football game with a wide angle ... it was a bet. lol)
> 
> Gary
Click to expand...


I don't ever remember a time when a photographer needed a degree in anything to work for a newspaper or wire service, I don't have a degree in anything, most of guys I know that have been in the business for more than 30 years don't either.  Back then, it was more of a matter of having a camera, and learning on the go, the good ones got the jobs, the not so good ones worked when the workload was higher.


----------



## imagemaker46

tecboy said:


> Well, this amateur probably doesn't have insurance and a second body.  If her primarily dslr fails, her only solution is to take pictures with her cell phone.  It is not her fault if the pictures are blurry and dark.



This photographer does in fact have 2 Nikon D3 bodies, a 300 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and probably more gear than I do. She is not under equipped to do the job, that wasn't what I was saying in the original post.


----------



## imagemaker46

unpopular said:


> All I see in this thread is a bunch of protogs from the "old mens club" whining because they can't keep up.
> 
> Seriously. If you can't compete, retire already. If you can't afford to retire, well tough titties.
> 
> I have ZERO patience for this garbage, especially when coming from a generation that stereotypically complains so much about entitlement and sings the praises of free market.
> 
> You're not entitled to clients just because your fist camera was a Kodak Pony.



The photographer I mentioned in the original post is in his mid twenties, he lost the job to woman in her 40's who had the money to retire. I was just adding a post to start a conversation on how things are for a friend of mine and another example of how photography is changing.

This would fall into the reverse of what you are saying. The old mens club laid the ground work for everyone else, just the same way the generation before me laid the ground work for my "old" generation.  I'd rather help out a young guy now, which I do, than poach his client.

You have your opinion on what ever is stated here and I respect that, and once again it is a pointless post. As usual you decided to take another shot at my profession and anything I say.


----------



## The_Traveler

bratkinson said:


> .  I came in 2nd.  I later got a private letter from one of the government employees in the decision committee and they said my experience, expertise, and quality far exceeded the #1 bidder.  But his price was $2,000 less than my $155,000 price.  So much for quality.



I've spent a good amount of time on purchasing decisions and have found that, if the second or third lowest bidder is better for clear discernable reasons, then the bid can be awarded and all it takes is some amount of justification on the part of the purchaser (typically this is the COTR or Contracting Officer's Technical Representative). The contracting officer and his minions are malleable and if the purchaser fights and gives defensible justification, the bid will go to where the purchaser thinks.


----------



## MSnowy

When I first joined TPF four years ago I knew very little about photography or the photography world. One of the first things I noticed/learned on here was that most of the long time members stressed that you never give away any pictures for free. Their reasoning was that it only hurts photographers as a whole.


----------



## 407370

I have a passion for photography but it is my hobby. When I retire I have a plan to try and sell some of my work. I will not do weddings or commercial product work but create unique images and try and flog them for ridiculous prices and if no one buys them at least I will have fun making the images.

After reading this thread I am so happy that I never took up photography as a profession in my earlier life.


----------



## joannaofwaverly

I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.

As a hobbyist, what are my options, then? My husband, daughter, and I are a single income family, so while I have every textbook motivation to be a momtog and charge $100 for a session and hand over 30+ full resolution files on a disc, I don't. I have zero interest in running a business. I really just want to shoot and play around with photos in post. I can't get subjects to shoot unless I offer them something in exchange for their time (usually a handful of edited photos and a print release), so what other options to I have if I want to exhibit "compassion" and avoid incurring the wrath of professionals? Do I just forgo the fun of photography because literally any subject I shoot has potentially been "poached" from a professional? Does this logic extend to the realm of landscape photographers, too (i.e. someone wants to buy a photo I took of Mountain X with my little T3i and 50mm for $50 instead of the local landscape pro's version for $400 because they happen to actually like it _and_ it suits their wallet better)...? What about other pros? Should a pro interview each potential client to ensure they weren't considering hiring a different professional and turn them away if they were because that would also be poaching?

It seems that the logical conclusive extreme of this whole thread is that only those who charge for any time spent behind the camera ought to have a total monopoly on all genres of photography because any photograph not taken by a professional is one that _might_ otherwise have been taken by a professional and is therefore undercutting.


----------



## West -

Photography or any other "independent contractor" type of  job is very competitive.  There will always be haves and have nots, I believe that statistically 10% of the people make 90% of the money.
So, if your not in the 10% it may be time for a career change.


----------



## rexbobcat

joannaofwaverly said:


> I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.
> 
> As a hobbyist, what are my options, then? My husband, daughter, and I are a single income family, so while I have every textbook motivation to be a momtog and charge $100 for a session and hand over 30+ full resolution files on a disc, I don't. I have zero interest in running a business. I really just want to shoot and play around with photos in post. I can't get subjects to shoot unless I offer them something in exchange for their time (usually a handful of edited photos and a print release), so what other options to I have if I want to exhibit "compassion" and avoid incurring the wrath of professionals? Do I just forgo the fun of photography because literally any subject I shoot has potentially been "poached" from a professional? Does this logic extend to the realm of landscape photographers, too (i.e. someone wants to buy a photo I took of Mountain X with my little T3i and 50mm for $50 instead of the local landscape pro's version for $400 because they happen to actually like it _and_ it suits their wallet better)...? What about other pros? Should a pro interview each potential client to ensure they weren't considering hiring a different professional and turn them away if they were because that would also be poaching?
> 
> It seems that the logical conclusive extreme of this whole thread is that only those who charge for any time spent behind the camera ought to have a total monopoly on all genres of photography because any photograph not taken by a professional is one that _might_ otherwise have been taken by a professional and is therefore undercutting.




Or just use discretion? IE: Don't shoot that wedding for free?

There's a difference between just playing around with photos and taking free "gigs."

But I don't really care. In the end, I've realized it's who you know more than what you know, hence all this personality-driven photography that has consumed the market in the past 10 years

I mean, when someone like Jasmine Starr is a photography leader, it makes me question so much about what good photography even is. I just don't understand why anyone would want to deal with a a mediocre photographer who's obviously just a good marketer. Her business is literally 70% brand, 20% photography, and 10% her cheesy dumb smile. That's as disingenuous as you can get.

Fro Knows Photo is another one. He has bobbleheads for Christ's sake, but people just eat that chit up.


----------



## joannaofwaverly

rexbobcat said:


> joannaofwaverly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.
> 
> As a hobbyist, what are my options, then? My husband, daughter, and I are a single income family, so while I have every textbook motivation to be a momtog and charge $100 for a session and hand over 30+ full resolution files on a disc, I don't. I have zero interest in running a business. I really just want to shoot and play around with photos in post. I can't get subjects to shoot unless I offer them something in exchange for their time (usually a handful of edited photos and a print release), so what other options to I have if I want to exhibit "compassion" and avoid incurring the wrath of professionals? Do I just forgo the fun of photography because literally any subject I shoot has potentially been "poached" from a professional? Does this logic extend to the realm of landscape photographers, too (i.e. someone wants to buy a photo I took of Mountain X with my little T3i and 50mm for $50 instead of the local landscape pro's version for $400 because they happen to actually like it _and_ it suits their wallet better)...? What about other pros? Should a pro interview each potential client to ensure they weren't considering hiring a different professional and turn them away if they were because that would also be poaching?
> 
> It seems that the logical conclusive extreme of this whole thread is that only those who charge for any time spent behind the camera ought to have a total monopoly on all genres of photography because any photograph not taken by a professional is one that _might_ otherwise have been taken by a professional and is therefore undercutting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just use discretion? IE: Don't shoot that wedding for free?
> 
> There's a difference between just playing around with photos and taking free "gigs."
> 
> But I don't really care. In the end, I've realized it's who you know more than what you know, hence all this personality-driven photography that has consumed the market in the past 10 years
> 
> I mean, when someone like Jasmine Starr is a photography leader, it makes me question so much about what good photography even is. I just don't understand why anyone would want to deal with a a mediocre photographer who's obviously just a good marketer. Her business is literally 70% brand, 20% photography, and 10% her cheesy dumb smile. That's as disingenuous as you can get
Click to expand...



Ohhhhh, J*. You'll find no quarrel with me there. She's clearly a marketing genius, but I would not hire her to photograph my own wedding if I had all the money in the world. 

I suppose that's the beauty and the beast of a free market: it cannot be simultaneously kind and efficient. Ultimately, the consumer steers the supply and demand ship.


----------



## lambertpix

joannaofwaverly said:


> I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.
> 
> As a hobbyist, what are my options, then?....



Any conversation about pros & amateurs these days has to account for the fact that there are new people entering the photography world all the time, and the falling costs of equipment is making this easier every single day.  There's no way to hold these newcomers back, and it's pretty shaky ground to just expect them to bide their time until they reach some arbitrary apprenticeship threshold before they can start charging for their work.  If they've got skills to sell, and they can find customers, that sort of puts a neat little bow on things, IMO.

It's always interesting to me whenever these conversations come up that we touch on the idea that customers don't want to pay for quality, but yet we try to blame the photographers who are serving that market by providing "good enough" photos at a reasonable price.  If customers aren't paying a premium for a pro, it seems like it must either be because they can't tell the difference, or because they don't care.  I don't see how that's any different from us looking at a third-party lens, flash, trigger, etc. as an alternative to Canon or Nikon and trying to decide whether it's worth more money to get the "name brand" equivalent, or whether we might be *almost* as happy with the third-party stuff at half the price.  I've got three speedlights and triggers that cost me less than a brand-new Canon flash, for instance, and they do a pretty good job for me.  For some of these customers, maybe choosing the cheaper, "good enough" photographer is the difference between them having photos or not.

I certainly hope that through word of mouth, review sites, etc., the really awful faux-tographers will fall by the wayside and the talented newcomers will bubble up to a more premium tier in the market, but I think an awful lot of that burden falls on consumers, too.  Given the number of customers that are obviously enticed by free-or-cheap options, are there ways to convince some of those customers to pay more for a better product, and maybe more importantly, how do you make sure you're killing the market that *does* value great work?

Remember, some of these customers still think selective color is a pretty cool idea.....


----------



## AlanKlein

bratkinson said:


> "You get what you pay for" used to be the rule...now it's more of an exception in my mind.
> 
> Never mind that somebody can spend $500 or less on a kit and think they are ready to do weddings.  Some of the members of this forum appear to have done just that!  Zero to wedding photographer seemingly overnight!
> 
> What's happened is that most people are now satisfied with "OK" or "good enough".  Whether it's pictures from a cell phone or a iPhone that has problems.  It's good enough to get the job done.  With extremely rare exception, the high end, high quality manufacturers are all long gone.  Everyone shops on price and price alone.  I once bid a Federal Government contract that was presumably based 75% quality and 25% price based on RFP information.  I came in 2nd.  I later got a private letter from one of the government employees in the decision committee and they said my experience, expertise, and quality far exceeded the #1 bidder.  But his price was $2,000 less than my $155,000 price.  So much for quality.
> 
> In short, "good enough" is OK these days.  And if someone is willing to accept less than good quality work or workmanship, so be it.  And it's hard to be FREE as a competitors price.



Presumably?  Usually, it's based on low bid, by law.  As long as the bidders meet the technical requirements, then the law requires lowest price.  That's to avoid collusion and kickbacks.  The fact you're better than the requirements won't help you.  The only way around that is to write the specifications and include something in there that would limit the number of bidders and force the bid prices up accordingly.

Low bid bids in business can be superseded for various reasons.  There's no law against that.


----------



## AlanKlein

gsgary said:


> I have a friend that has given up digital and gone back to film shooting weddings and his annual income has doubled he also produces prints in his darkroom which bring in even more money, this last year I have been approached by about 6 couples that wanted their wedding shot on film



It's always good to develop a niche to keep the number of competitors down and prices up.  Regardless of the industry.


----------



## astroNikon

Every Business no matter how old or young has to compete against other companies/individuals that are newer and provide better or worse quality for similar or lower prices .. and the competition business/profit/charging models are scattered all over the place.

Competition is competition whether from an amateur or a pro for nearly every "profession"  that does not require passing boards, etc.  Even then, some new "pros" that do have those requirements may not charge top price.

Besting your competition usually requires not only your capabilities but also marketing those differentials of capabilities.  Even then so, sometimes the job is just based on price, or politics or even a variety of other reasons.


----------



## MichaelHenson

Wow. This is a polarizing topic and (IMHO) will only become more and more of a "pressure point." Were I in this situation due to an amateur coming in and undercutting me on price (cheaper or free, whatever), willingness to offer more/"bend over backwards" to please clients, etc., it would SUCK. But, at the same time, *photography is no different than any other competitive market...as technology increases and barriers to entry decrease, existing business (read: photographers) have to adapt.*

I read a quote by Zack Arias talking about this discussion with a professor at the arts school he attended and the professor's stance was that, if the client wanted the highest quality product, they would pick the professor over the student every time. Not due to his tenure in the field, not due to a long-term relationship with him, etc. but due to the quality and consistency of the photographs he offered.

I understand the pain, the frustration, and the animosity that can stem from this happening...however, I don't believe the answer is to berate and shout a message to "cease and desist" to every potential photographer that shoots for free (for fun, portfolio, or because they don't care about money). The answer is the same as it is in every other market (technology is an easy example), adapt, change, offer more, offer unique, offer the best and let the clients that can't tell the difference go...

Just my humble opinion...I appreciate the work that the previous generations of photographers have done in order to bring this industry to this point...and the pros here on TPF. Thanks all!


----------



## JacaRanda

[QUOTE}*photography is no different than any other competitive market...as technology increases and barriers to entry decrease, existing business (read: photographers) have to adapt.[/QUOTE]
*
Exactly.  It's not like we don't care, but hey......welcome to the real world.  At least it's the world I know and live in.

It's hard for me to get past the history of things not being fair in this country.  Sometimes laws are enacted to make things fairer, and even that becomes unfair depending on where you stand.

Maybe a tad off topic, but it's where the thread topic leads me.


----------



## KenC

I have to agree with the group that said this is inevitable.  Every profession works this way - if people don't believe that what you produce is worth what you're paid, then you're out.  Their belief may be unjustified, but that never matters.  Having any profession that is also a hobby for many people carries this risk with it.


----------



## MSnowy

I wish I could get people to come work for me for free. Needs- lawyer, accountant, architect, plumber, electrician, house painter, interior designer, site manager and website developer.


----------



## lambertpix

MSnowy said:


> I wish I could get people to come work for me for free. Needs- lawyer, accountant, architect, plumber, electrician, house painter, interior designer, site manager and website developer.



Interestingly, quite a few of those positions are frequently associated with certifications or licenses that establish a minimum skill set for practitioners, but a couple of them might actually be decent analogs -- I bet you could find a house painter or website developer on Craigslist that would work for a fraction of what you'd pay a "real" company -- especially if you pay in cash.  I bet you could even find a handyman do do plumbing & electrical work as long as you're not too concerned about whether you're up to code.

Oh, and an awful lot of this "internet" thing runs on free web development.  The amount of technical skill needed to put together a website with Wordpress today is a tiny fraction of what was needed just a few years ago -- not completely unlike the way cheaper equipment has allowed more people to work in photography.


----------



## MSnowy

lambertpix said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could get people to come work for me for free. Needs- lawyer, accountant, architect, plumber, electrician, house painter, interior designer, site manager and website developer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, quite a few of those positions are frequently associated with certifications or licenses that establish a minimum skill set for practitioners, but a couple of them might actually be decent analogs -- I bet you could find a house painter or website developer on Craigslist that would work for a fraction of what you'd pay a "real" company -- especially if you pay in cash.  I bet you could even find a handyman do do plumbing & electrical work as long as you're not too concerned about whether you're up to code.
> 
> Oh, and an awful lot of this "internet" thing runs on free web development.  The amount of technical skill needed to put together a website with Wordpress today is a tiny fraction of what was needed just a few years ago -- not completely unlike the way cheaper equipment has allowed more people to work in photography.
Click to expand...


What I'd like to find are people who do these jobs full and are charging top dollar to come work for me in their spare time for free. All  they need to have are their own tools and supplies.


----------



## Vince.1551

There are pro bono services that you might want to explore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelHenson

If you really want to feel good about the state of the photography business check this FB page out..

Ahem!  Let's keep clean and above the belt shall we?


----------



## MSnowy

Vince.1551 said:


> There are pro bono services that you might want to explore
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh this is to work for a home improvement business that I've owned for 30 years.


----------



## Vince.1551

Ahhh ok got it 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack

I rewired a few rooms in my house. A bunch of electricians cried to sleep.  

The lawn service guys throw bricks at me when I mow the lawn.


----------



## BillM

All of this from the same group of compassionate and caring individuals who banded together to send a camera to India. They did that for no reason other than to further another human beings love of photography. Interesting.


----------



## tirediron

Braineack said:


> ...The lawn service guys throw bricks at me when I mow the lawn.


Yeah, but let's be honest, that has NOTHING to do with the fact that you're mowing your own lawn.


----------



## lambertpix

BillM said:


> All of this from the same group of compassionate and caring individuals who banded together to send a camera to India. They did that for no reason other than to further another human beings love of photography. Interesting.



Isn't it obvious?  The real reason was to sew socioeconomic instability by introducing disruptive technology.  Wait.... do they have Craigslist in India?


----------



## imagemaker46

Yes but it's Rajeshlist


----------



## chainsawal

joannaofwaverly said:


> I'm frankly a little baffled by some of the responses I've read.
> 
> It seems that the logical conclusive extreme of this whole thread is that only those who charge for any time spent behind the camera ought to have a total monopoly on all genres of photography because any photograph not taken by a professional is one that _might_ otherwise have been taken by a professional and is therefore undercutting.



Well said...

And the person who implied that because we are hobbyist or amateurs that our photos aren't the same quality is living in "la-la" land.  Sure, there is a lot of crap out there, but that doesn't mean it all is.

I use to spend tens of thousands of dollars per image for commercial photographer in NY names TAKA in NY City back in the 90's (yes, that was a lot of money even back then for a single product shot).  Now that I have been shooting my own for years, I look back at some of his work and realize that at a  minimum I can achieve the same quality level.

And I have multiple bodies and tons of hi-end glass... to imply a amateur or hobbyist won't have a 2nd DSLR when the 1st break is another absurd statement.  I current have a D4S I just bought, a D800, a D7000, and a D80 (that my 9 year old shoots with).

I wonder if some of the old school photographers realize that their elitist attitude and failure to acknowledge the way a free market works doesn't help their cause?  I almost feel pity for many of them until you read through threads like this.


----------



## chainsawal

limr said:


> chainsawal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP was upset at the amateur who was undercutting him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. The OP was upset about an amateur who took a job away from his friend.
> 
> I'm also apparently not particularly impressed with today's reading comprehension skills.
Click to expand...


Wow... that changed the entire dynamic of this conversation.  It wasn't the OP.. it was his friend.  

Well I guess you are right, that changed the entire conversation so nobody's points until now have been valid, right?

Unreal... using foul language on a photography forum, trolling people, etc.  I have had a very positive experience on this site until coming across this poster of questionable class.


----------



## kc4sox

EVERY working photographer was at one time an "Amateur" aspiring to be a "Professional"  And, I'd bet ALL of them worked cheap to get their foot in the door. .Just sayin...............


----------



## vintagesnaps

That's disheartening. Notice she didn't go to a restaurant and offer to bus tables for free (which might make sense if it was to pitch in and help a relative with a family run business).

Maybe there will be some sort of cosmic justice and she'll flake out on them mid season because she'll find out shooting sports and doing it well is actual work, so they'll be calling the friend back since they'll see what they got for free instead of hiring a professional. (Probably won't happen but one can hope. LOL)


----------



## slackercruster

limr said:


> What I've learned here in this thread is that...
> 
> a) if you have money, you can do whatever the f*** you want, no matter who it hurts;
> b) unscrupulous behavior is good business; and
> c) if someone gets upset at the lack of integrity and/or compassion, then they will be told that it's just simply "the way it is" and we all just need to suck it up.
> 
> None of this gives me even one iota of hope in humanity.


 
You have an unrealistic view of humanity darling. I'm not going into too much details, nor will I send in pix that will illustrate my case. But humans are not that nice of a creature to start with.

If there were not laws against it you would be raped every day as you step out of your door. The Mexican narco gangs likes to flay the skin off the heads of their victims. We can all see what the muslims do if left unchecked. The Chinese used to execute people by cutting. (Cutting little pieces of their body off in public.) Well, they got more civilized and now shoot the victim in the head and send the family a bill for the bullet. Lots more ugly things going on in our world than our little worries here.

The bottom line with this photo discussion goes back to the legal / illegal question. There is nothing illegal about people taking photos and giving all of them away for free.

Here are 23 million pix for free...

Wikimedia Commons

Photographers need an outlet for their efforts. People give charity of all sorts, so why not photos as well?

The way photography turned out is; there is an overabundance of photogs and photos, so this is our world. As they strain the oil out of the sand and have to crack the rocks to find gas, maybe our world will be changing in the future and analog will be king again. But until that time, as long as the electric stays on, digital will be our world.


----------



## pgriz

I've read Scott's original post and had several thoughts.  

His friend, who is a working, full-time photographer, had done sports photography for a university and earned about $15,000, until he discovered that his services were no longer needed.  From a client-management perspective, the fact that he had to go to them to discover that he was replaced by someone else, tells me that he is not particularly careful about maintaining his client relationships, and gauging the continuing interest of his client in his services.

The person replacing him at doing this sport photography is a recently-retired person who has no need for income (from photography)  and can do it for free, and is willing to do so to get access the the opportunity.  She was probably aware that she would be displacing a paid professional, and it didn't really appear to affect her own calculation of whether it was worth doing (for her).  Of course, she has no obligation towards the full-time photographer she displaced.  If she is doing it as a "hobby", then one has to ask what arrangements she has made with the university regarding copyright issues, licensing of images, etc.  Is this person also taking care of the model releases which will be necessary IF the images are used for publicity purposes?

The person or group within the university who chose to use the "free" photography instead of paying for it, should have at the least had the courtesy of informing Scott's friend that his services were no longer required.  However, they were under no obligation to do so, since it seems that the arrangement was continued almost by inertia.  As well, perhaps they did not place enough value in having a photographer available when they needed one.  If a scheduling conflict arises between the "new" photographer's personal activities and the need to photograph a university sport, it can well happen that the "new" photographer will decide that she's no longer interested in being available full-time to the university.  Would the university people care that their sports are not being recorded photographically?  I don't know enough about the university and the prominence of the sports program to make a guess.  If they use the sports to maintain both student and alumni interest, then lack of consistent coverage "may" hurt them in the medium term.

If the university is or may be planning to use "her" photos" in a publicity campaign, then the issue of copyright becomes important, as will the issue of model releases.

My feeling is that this switch may have been convenient for the university, but hasn't been thought through.


----------



## Braineack

slackercruster said:


> If there were not laws against it you would be raped every day as you step out of your door.



Begining your argument with: laws prevent crime, was a failure from the start.


----------



## Stradawhovious

Braineack said:


> Begining your argument with: laws prevent crime, was a failure from the start.


 

Laws don't prevent crime... they simply help the masses differentiate the criminals from the law abiding in a specific societal norm.

As far as this thread, it's kind of an exercise in futility.  This thread won't get the OPs friend their job back, nor will it likely deter any of the aspiring pros on this site from persuing every lead they can get.

Fact is, if someone came to my boss and showed a reasonably similar skill set asking for only half my current rate, I would likely be pushed out pretty quickly.  It sucks, but advances in technology coupled with a free market society sometimes phase out jobs, or at least change the status quo.

Bidness iz bidness, yo.


----------



## lambertpix

Interesting *this* never came up, BTW:

See the Difference Campaign| PPA

It would appear they've got a little more evangelizing to do.


----------



## bribrius

sigh.
A lot of it is because a lot of people want to be "liked", they want to feel important "hey I volunteer my services" and they gauge their worth (or at least their worth far as being a photographer) by the general accolades they receive from those around them and who they engage with.
so they work for free, give away images for free, get a pat on the back and a self esteem boost and get to tell everyone they are doing these good deeds.

so, they flip the bill for ten k or more in equipment, they spend the hours post processing, they drive to sites and put time and energy in.
And in return they get a "hey, that is great! you are good at this!" so they get their cookie and more cookies giving away whatever else images they give away. And yeah, they make people "happy". Course who isn't happy getting free chit and not having to spend money on a photographer or flip the bill for the gear.

someone was asking for family photos the other day, I was right there and wasn't referred. Because I am a dick and they know I wont do it for free or cheap I don't care if I get a cookie and don't really need the self esteem boost..

Not to say helping people out is a bad thing, it isn't. But that line is long crossed on photography. I wouldn't buy a boat for instance, spend half my time keeping it nice and waxed, pay the bill for it and the slip and invest hours in the thing, just to let everyone else use it even if they will tell me how great they think I am.

I wouldn't buy a car and park it out in front of my house and maintain it just to put a sign on it saying "help yourself free to use at my expense".

But for some reason people just love to do this with their photography.


----------



## pgriz

Stradawhovious said:


> <snip>
> 
> Fact is, if someone came to my boss and showed a reasonably similar skill set asking for only half my current rate, I would likely be pushed out pretty quickly.  It sucks, but advances in technology coupled with a free market society sometimes phase out jobs, or at least change the status quo.
> 
> Bidness iz bidness, yo.



And yet, we all have a choice.  Every financial transaction is between humans, and in deciding to spend our money, we also, whether we acknowledge it or not, are making value decisions.  If I buy cheap shoes from Walmart, I'm deciding that I really don't care enough about the local shoe store to give them my business.  When I'm buying stuff in elaborate packaging, I'm making a choice that the environment is less important than my convenience.  If I choose to feed my family fast food meals, then I'm making the choice that my convenience is more important than their nutrition.  Of course, we can plead blissful ignorance and say that we don't really know about all that, and all we're trying to do is stretch our money.  The so-called "free market" is distorted by hidden subsidies, corporate corruption, poor costing of the environmental costs, and all kinds of inequalities that render the "cost" we pay for something to be a poor indicator of its true cost to society.  Add to that the fact that we humans are quite irrational about our choices, and the idea that the "free market" represents any kind of consensus of value starts to show itself for what it is.


----------



## Stradawhovious

pgriz said:


> And yet, we all have a choice...


 
Of course we have a choice.  You can agree with the choice, or disagree with the choice.  Doesn't make either of us wrong.


----------



## joannaofwaverly

lambertpix said:


> Interesting *this* never came up, BTW:
> 
> See the Difference Campaign| PPA
> 
> It would appear they've got a little more evangelizing to do.



What's sort of tragically ironic about that video is that I would not be interested in hiring most of the photographers responsible for the example shots they showed because the style of the photos looks so dated to my eye. 

Anyway, regarding the "we all make a choice" point: seems a little obvious and tautological, but yes, if X and Y are mutually exclusive and I have to choose between them, then I'm going to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each and decide. Meddling government subsidies and subsequent corporate "corruption" (as made possible only by the government, I might add) aside, where I decide to spend my dollars is the final reflection of what I value. Government currently tells me/the market that fuel efficient vehicles ought to be valued via regulations and subsidies...inefficient trucks and SUVs are still made and sold because the market's value on them circumvents what Uncle Sam has dictated.


----------



## tecboy

1.  Is this photographer really an amateur?
2.  Why would an university taking a chance on hire an amateur for free?
3.  She has pro-gear.  Why would she work for free?  
4.  Does she need the money to pay for her gear if her gear fails?
5.  Did she get her gear from her birthday gift?  
6.  Christmas is coming soon!  Will she get an upgrade of her gear from Christmas     gift?


----------



## MSnowy

tecboy said:


> 1.  Is this photographer really an amateur?
> 2.  Why would an university taking a chance on hire an amateur for free?
> 3.  She has pro-gear.  Why would she work for free?
> 4.  Does she need the money to pay for her gear if her gear fails?
> 5.  Did she get her gear from her birthday gift?
> 6.  Christmas is coming soon!  Will she get an upgrade of her gear from Christmas     gift?


 
Think these were mostly answered in the ordinal post. I believe that would be Page 1 Post #1


----------



## tecboy

MSnowy said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Is this photographer really an amateur?
> 2.  Why would an university taking a chance on hire an amateur for free?
> 3.  She has pro-gear.  Why would she work for free?
> 4.  Does she need the money to pay for her gear if her gear fails?
> 5.  Did she get her gear from her birthday gift?
> 6.  Christmas is coming soon!  Will she get an upgrade of her gear from Christmas     gift?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think these were mostly answered in the ordinal post. I believe that would be Page 1 Post #1
Click to expand...


That sounds like this photographer is really, really good and far better than other pros.  That maybe the reason the university picked her.


----------



## photoguy99

Nobody's offering to make shoes for free. Nobody's offering to paint houses for free. Nobody's offering to do plumbing for free.

There's some reasons. Which are mostly pretty obvious.

Talking about shoes is spurious and irrelevant. Talk about sailing lessons, golf lessons. There's plenty of people who'll give you some pointers for nothing. What about all those poor camping instructors who used to pull down six figures?

What else is fun?

Don't give away your extra zucchini! You're putting California farmers put off business!


----------



## tecboy

Usually all universities are well funded, unless this university is in the edge of bankruptcy.


----------



## Gary A.

I think the title is misleading. Generally any business to lose significant income/clients/market share to an amateur is doing something wrong. Either marketing, business practices, end product, pricing or a combo of these factors. But this isn't the case. A business ... any business cannot compete against free. That is where it is unfair. Some business models will 'buy' the job/client, quote a price near or below cost, just to get a toehold on the market or to weed out competition, or some other long term strategy. Maybe that is what the competition is doing ... after a season she'll go back and say ... "You like my stuff ... but this year you gotta pay $10,000 just to cover my equipment and expenses." ... or "... you can use the images but I get to sell them ..." Now this is true competition and the original photog has an arena to compete and negotiate.  Or, just maybe the photog is a die-hard alumni and thinks the sports dept/school is better off with the $15,000 back in their pocket as opposed to spending it on something which she can deliver for free and will have a great time doing so and at the end of the day everybody feels good about it except the original photog.


----------



## sscarmack

I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...

If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.

Simple as that.....



Maybe?


----------



## West -

$15K for a university is chump change, I'm pretty sure there is a story behind this story, as most if not all respected companies or businesses always deal with a pro regardless of the job involved.

Nobody with a responsibility to others will take a chance on a fly-by-night (anything) and put their personal reputation on the line and the possibility of getting fired themselves for incompetence if things don't work out.

Believe me, I don't know of any pro photographer that is worried about loosing their job to an amateur in the big leagues.  Think about the 10/90 rule.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I found it rather surprising too with a university because of my background and some knowledge of local sports and NCAA regs. (which may not apply if not in the states). If anything in my experience teams and arenas have gotten more strict and it's filtering down to high school level (but varies by sport, division, etc.).

I'd expect they'd hire/contact with a pro to better keep things under their control because it doesn't take much sometimes to compromise eligibility. (I'm thinking if an amateur/volunteer inadvertently did something not within guidelines the school might be limited in what  they could do about it.) This arrangement seems rather 'loose' but it may be different than it seems.

The university near me laid off a photographer who worked for them but he got hired back once the next year's budget went thru. Varies depending on where you live, schools are funded but on budgets. 

I wouldn't be surprised if going in this direction with it backfires on the school in some way but for the friend I guess it's a matter of this ending and finding another opportunity.


----------



## MSnowy

sscarmack said:


> I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...
> 
> If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.
> 
> Simple as that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe?



Look at all the newspapers that are letting pro-photographers go and are excepting pictures from anyone that is willing to give them pictures for free. Has nothing to do with talent has everything to do with bottom line.


----------



## sscarmack

MSnowy said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...
> 
> If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.
> 
> Simple as that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the newspapers that are letting pro-photographers go and are excepting pictures from anyone that is willing to give them pictures for free. Has nothing to do with talent has everything to do with bottom line.
Click to expand...

Thats not the amateurs fault, thats the newspapers fault for accepting 'shotty' work.


----------



## MSnowy

sscarmack said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...
> 
> If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.
> 
> Simple as that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the newspapers that are letting pro-photographers go and are excepting pictures from anyone that is willing to give them pictures for free. Has nothing to do with talent has everything to do with bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not the amateurs fault, thats the newspapers fault for accepting 'shotty' work.
Click to expand...


Of course it is the amateurs fault. amateurs should realize their getting used by the newspapers. How many of these amateurs would deliver these papers for free


----------



## sscarmack

MSnowy said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...
> 
> If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.
> 
> Simple as that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the newspapers that are letting pro-photographers go and are excepting pictures from anyone that is willing to give them pictures for free. Has nothing to do with talent has everything to do with bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not the amateurs fault, thats the newspapers fault for accepting 'shotty' work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is the amateurs fault. amateurs should realize their getting used by the newspapers. How many of these amateurs would deliver these papers for free
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion. And probably the opinion of many so called "pros"...

But lets face the facts, when you start out doing photography, you do everything you can to get your foot in the door, and nowadays there are a lot more people who are so called 'photographers', so its a dime a dozen.

If the newspapers are accepting amateur work, then there must be no different in their opinion compared to pro work when they can get it for free.

Do I support pros being fired? Heck no, but its not the amateurs fault. We've all been in those shoes.


----------



## MSnowy

sscarmack said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...
> 
> If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.
> 
> Simple as that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the newspapers that are letting pro-photographers go and are excepting pictures from anyone that is willing to give them pictures for free. Has nothing to do with talent has everything to do with bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not the amateurs fault, thats the newspapers fault for accepting 'shotty' work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is the amateurs fault. amateurs should realize their getting used by the newspapers. How many of these amateurs would deliver these papers for free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats your opinion. And probably the opinion of many so called "pros"...
> 
> But lets face the facts, when you start out doing photography, you do everything you can to get your foot in the door, and nowadays there are a lot more people who are so called 'photographers', so its a dime a dozen.
> 
> If the newspapers are accepting amateur work, then there must be no different in their opinion compared to pro work when they can get it for free.
> 
> Do I support pros being fired? Heck no, but its not the amateurs fault. We've all been in those shoes.
Click to expand...


I agree that some amateurs work is much better then staff photographers. But pros and amateurs giving things away for free devalues their work and everyone else's


----------



## sscarmack

MSnowy said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel bad for 'pros' that lose business to 'amateurs'...
> 
> If your work isn't noticeably better than a so called amateur, then you deserve to lose the business.
> 
> Simple as that.....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the newspapers that are letting pro-photographers go and are excepting pictures from anyone that is willing to give them pictures for free. Has nothing to do with talent has everything to do with bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not the amateurs fault, thats the newspapers fault for accepting 'shotty' work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is the amateurs fault. amateurs should realize their getting used by the newspapers. How many of these amateurs would deliver these papers for free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats your opinion. And probably the opinion of many so called "pros"...
> 
> But lets face the facts, when you start out doing photography, you do everything you can to get your foot in the door, and nowadays there are a lot more people who are so called 'photographers', so its a dime a dozen.
> 
> If the newspapers are accepting amateur work, then there must be no different in their opinion compared to pro work when they can get it for free.
> 
> Do I support pros being fired? Heck no, but its not the amateurs fault. We've all been in those shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that some amateurs work is much better then staff photographers. But pros and amateurs giving things away for free devalues their work and everyone else's
Click to expand...


I completely agree with you on that. I don't think anyone should be doing anything for free.


----------



## West -

Newspapers still have pros on staff, and they do all the important work.  The "free" stuff is mostly internet filler to add color,  but occasionally it's relative braking news captures, which most people will sell to a paper or TV station if it's newsworthy.  
When was the last time you were at a sporting event or a political news conference and didn't see accredited photographers.


----------



## Vince.1551

It's a dog eat dog world. "Displace or be Replaced" [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AlanKlein

Two weeks ago, I gave the go ahead to a carpenter to proceed with some work in my house.  He's been dragging his feet getting started.  I just learned why.  He just got a full time job 9-5 so can only work at night or weekends.  So I have a choice.  Let this work drag on or hire someone who's available Monday thru Friday.  

Pro photographers should make commitments to potential clients.  Play up the fact that the cheapo guy may decide to go back to his regular job leaving you stranded after he took pictures of your wedding.    Regarding licenses,. there are also other things to contend with.  Liability insurance - amateur photographers don't carry that, maybe even pros.  But it's something to think about if one of their workers gets hurt shooting on the school's campus (or your house while they shoot the wedding party).  Will your insurance cover their fall?   Most places won't let workers on their property without this insurance.  Pros should have that insurance so you argue against the amateurs and cheaper pros when you're trying to get work. 

You have to show history of work, guarantees, etc.  Price isn't everything.  Many buyers care about a lot of things beside price.  Update your portfolio with your best pictures and list the companies you did work for.  Get referenes who will agree to accept calls from potential buyers.  Advertise the number of people who will be at the shoot while the other guy depends only on himself.  Ask your prospective customer what happens if he breaks a leg?  Differentiate yourself from others.    Go buy a book on selling the work of a small company regardless of the work it does. Start thinking and acting like a businessman rather than a photographer.   If you can't claim your photos are that much better then the competition, you have to give them other reasons to buy your product.

.


----------



## The_Traveler

I have a confession.
When I was interested in becoming a male escort, at the beginning, I started giving 'it' away for free.
I thought that, if the experience was good, then I could start charging.
The reality was that all my clients told their friends that I was available for free  and no one wanted to pay.
Oh, yeah. I got a few 'gifts' but people thought I should be grateful to do it for the experience and the exposure.

So after a while, I just opted out and left it to the pros.
But, I still get the occasional call; I just smile and tell them I sent me equipment in for cleaning and adjustment.


----------



## tirediron

vintagesnaps said:


> I found it rather surprising too with a university because of my background and some knowledge of local sports and NCAA regs. (which may not apply if not in the states). If anything in my experience teams and arenas have gotten more strict and it's filtering down to high school level (but varies by sport, division, etc.).
> 
> I'd expect they'd hire/contact with a pro to better keep things under their control because it doesn't take much sometimes to compromise eligibility. (I'm thinking if an amateur/volunteer inadvertently did something not within guidelines the school might be limited in what  they could do about it.) This arrangement seems rather 'loose' but it may be different than it seems.
> 
> The university near me laid off a photographer who worked for them but he got hired back once the next year's budget went thru. Varies depending on where you live, schools are funded but on budgets.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if going in this direction with it backfires on the school in some way but for the friend I guess it's a matter of this ending and finding another opportunity.


 The more I think about this, the more I start to think that it may have something to do with the new "photographer" having made a donation, or having some other hold over the university.  These days, $15K isn't chump-change to anyone.


----------



## BillM

Don't let me catch you poaching again 






The_Traveler said:


> I have a confession.
> When I was interested in becoming a male escort, at the beginning, I started giving 'it' away for free.
> I thought that, if the experience was good, then I could start charging.
> The reality was that all my clients told their friends that I was available for free  and no one wanted to pay.
> Oh, yeah. I got a few 'gifts' but people thought I should be grateful to do it for the experience and the exposure.
> 
> So after a while, I just opted out and left it to the pros.
> But, I still get the occasional call; I just smile and tell them I sent me equipment in for cleaning and adjustment.


----------



## West -

tirediron said:


> [  These days, $15K isn't chump-change to anyone.



Wrong.
Apparently your private university isn't doing so good, but most "real" universities are.
Here's one from your neighbourhood UVIC that has a $323 Million annual budget, which is small compared to many  of it's US counterparts.
Budget framework - University of Victoria

By comparison a US university ...
_"The University of California’s projected operating revenue for 2011-12 is *$22.5 billion* to support its teaching, research and public service missions"_


----------



## Gary A.

vintagesnaps said:


> I found it rather surprising too with a university because of my background and some knowledge of local sports and NCAA regs. (which may not apply if not in the states). If anything in my experience teams and arenas have gotten more strict and it's filtering down to high school level (but varies by sport, division, etc.).
> 
> I'd expect they'd hire/contact with a pro to better keep things under their control because it doesn't take much sometimes to compromise eligibility. (I'm thinking if an amateur/volunteer inadvertently did something not within guidelines the school might be limited in what  they could do about it.) This arrangement seems rather 'loose' but it may be different than it seems.
> 
> The university near me laid off a photographer who worked for them but he got hired back once the next year's budget went thru. Varies depending on where you live, schools are funded but on budgets.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if going in this direction with it backfires on the school in some way but for the friend I guess it's a matter of this ending and finding another opportunity.


Much of that tightening is an economic issue. Severely limiting field access could result in greater control of the images which in-turn allows the venue/institution/organization an opportunity to squeeze another revenue source from the event. Often, when the school farms out security to a private firm ... the private firm really tightens up on passes.


----------



## tirediron

WestCoast said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  These days, $15K isn't chump-change to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Apparently your private university isn't doing so good, but most "real" universities are.
> Here's one from your neighbourhood UVIC that has a $323 Million annual budget, which is small compared to many  of it's US counterparts.
> Budget framework - University of Victoria
> 
> By comparison a US university ...
> _"The University of California’s projected operating revenue for 2011-12 is *$22.5 billion* to support its teaching, research and public service missions"_
Click to expand...

Yes, but when you account for the size of the campus, all the programs, salaries, maintenance, etc that has to be divided up between, $15K to one sub-budget is a LOT!  DND's budget for the year is something in the order of 20 billion; expenditures of <$100 are being tracked and questioned.  I stand by my statement.


----------



## tecboy

I'm an art fanatic and alumni of the little nonprofit art school.  Now, I volunteer to photograph the events.  I'm doing this for fun, gain experiences, and supporting the school.  Pretty much all the staffs like my photographs.  I wonder there are pros in my area are angry at me because I'm photographing for free.


----------



## sfaust

imagemaker46 said:


> What areas of photography would you suggest aren't accessible to the weekend amateurs?



Corporate, catalog, products, advertising, technical, medical, research, legal, etc. The companies work business hours and expect their professional photographers are available during similar hours. They don't work nights and weekends, and that leaves many of the weekend amateurs out of that market, which leaves you competing with other full time professionals.

Area's that aren't glamorous, exciting, or fun, tend to keep amateurs at bay as well. Most amateurs that are in it for fun go after the easy, fun, glamorous projects. They will gladly spend a evening shooting a U2 concert and behind the scenes images for free, but ask them to spend 3 days shooting products and another 4 days retouching for free and the excitement fades quickly.

Another area are jobs that are heavy in pre-production and production work, with a crew, talent, props, etc. Producing these jobs require a higher skill level, a network of vendors and independent contractors, liability and errors and omissions insurance, and an upfront cash outlay of several thousand dollars (that can take as long as 90 days to get that back from the agencies), special permits, etc. All things most amateurs aren't going to tackle, don't have the cash flow to handle, and may fear the higher business risks.

Highly skilled areas, such as medical, high speed, technical photography, etc, aren't generally fun jobs for amateurs, require a higher skill level, industry background, or very specialized equipment. Those skills are used in manufacturing, technology, research labs, etc, which also means the clients are harder to find and market to, and again falls into the business hours while the 'weekend warrior' is at his day job. These are very good opportunities for independent photographers to become specialized and in demand with little competition from the masses.

People tend to prefer 'easy', which begot the phrase, "If it was easy, everyone would be doing it'.  It wasn't as easy in the 80's, and not everyone was doing it. Its much easier now, and it seems everyone is a photographer .

List all the fun interesting photography jobs people love to shoot, amateur or professional. List all the clients that are easy to find and market to. List all the photography jobs that are typically easily available nights and weekends. List jobs requiring skills easily learned quickly. Put a label at the top of the list saying "Jobs I Don't Want to Pursue'.

Then start a new list with some of the ideas above, and label it "Still Viable Areas For Professional Photographers"


----------



## Stradawhovious

sfaust said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What areas of photography would you suggest aren't accessible to the weekend amateurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate X,  catalog X, products X, advertising X, technical, medical, research, legal X, etc.[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

 
Not to sound like a phallus, but I know weekend warriors photographing for money in the above fields with a red "X" after them.

And I don't know that many photographers.

Just sayin'.

Even the company I work for which (in one form or another) employs over 10K people uses amateur photography for the majority of their photo needs.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Am I a weekend warrior or a pro?  I dont even know anymore.  Most weddings are in the weekend and I have a full time job.


----------



## tirediron

Professional weekender?


----------



## sfaust

Stradawhovious said:


> sfaust said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate X,  catalog X, products X, advertising X, technical, medical, research, legal X, etc.[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sound like a phallus, but I know weekend warriors photographing for money in the above fields with a red "X" after them.
Click to expand...


There will always be some in just about any field of photography. There are dozens of stories of some amateur somewhere that landed a very high paying advertising gig because they did something very unique and different that caught the attention of some creative somewhere. But at that level, its rare to have any competition from amateurs. And at the lower end, there are many small businesses and corporations that look to the amateurs to fill image needs. 

But in the middle, from my chair it's mostly professionals competing with professionals. I shoot mostly corporate marketing and advertising, and I rarely run into competition from amateurs when bidding. I know quite of few of my peers, and rarely do they complain about loosing work to amateurs. This is in stark contrast to those shooting wedding, sports, portrait, concerts, theater, etc, which many are voicing their concerns.

All I was pointing out is that the competition from amateurs is eased when shooting for projects higher up in the food chain, and in areas of photography where the barriers are higher.  I.e., requirements to put up 5K to produce a shoot and waiting for months to recover that in billing puts off many people (do a few of these a quarter, and you could be out $20-25K waiting for invoices to be paid). Submitting bids that are missing critical items signals to clients they might not have the experience needed to produce their project, and thus being passed over by client. The need to be available during business hours for creative meetings, etc. The need a producer, well trained crew, freelancers and adherence to employment laws. Liability and errors and omissions insurance required by contracts. Even having a good understanding of basic commercial contracts and bids eludes many amateurs. Things like these weed out many amateurs, not all, but enough to really ease the issue with competition from amateurs the higher up the ladder you go.

The more barriers that are in the way, the more amateurs and hobbyists that drop out. The higher up you go in those fields, the more barriers there are.  All of these can be used to an advantage for photographers that find and conquer these barriers, as it brings them higher up the ladder where fewer amateurs are competing. The amateur and professional may have the same photography skills, but the photographers that have conquered these barriers will be further up the ladder with less competition from amateurs that haven't.

Add creativity, providing excellent service, and finding your own niche in the industry, and it can be very viable. Jumping in the areas that are most crowded with competition, amateur or professional, or worse both, and things look much more bleak.

I have yet to land a $100K to $250K day rate job like those few we hear about every so often   I don't think they are too worried about the hobbyists and amateurs! And there is a lot of ground between the two extremes.


----------



## AlanKlein

This post and your other post are heavy with excellent advice.



sfaust said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfaust said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate X,  catalog X, products X, advertising X, technical, medical, research, legal X, etc.[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sound like a phallus, but I know weekend warriors photographing for money in the above fields with a red "X" after them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will always be some in just about any field of photography. There are dozens of stories of some amateur somewhere that landed a very high paying advertising gig because they did something very unique and different that caught the attention of some creative somewhere. But at that level, its rare to have any competition from amateurs. And at the lower end, there are many small businesses and corporations that look to the amateurs to fill image needs.
> 
> But in the middle, from my chair it's mostly professionals competing with professionals. I shoot mostly corporate marketing and advertising, and I rarely run into competition from amateurs when bidding. I know quite of few of my peers, and rarely do they complain about loosing work to amateurs. This is in stark contrast to those shooting wedding, sports, portrait, concerts, theater, etc, which many are voicing their concerns.
> 
> All I was pointing out is that the competition from amateurs is eased when shooting for projects higher up in the food chain, and in areas of photography where the barriers are higher.  I.e., requirements to put up 5K to produce a shoot and waiting for months to recover that in billing puts off many people (do a few of these a quarter, and you could be out $20-25K waiting for invoices to be paid). Submitting bids that are missing critical items signals to clients they might not have the experience needed to produce their project, and thus being passed over by client. The need to be available during business hours for creative meetings, etc. The need a producer, well trained crew, freelancers and adherence to employment laws. Liability and errors and omissions insurance required by contracts. Even having a good understanding of basic commercial contracts and bids eludes many amateurs. Things like these weed out many amateurs, not all, but enough to really ease the issue with competition from amateurs the higher up the ladder you go.
> 
> The more barriers that are in the way, the more amateurs and hobbyists that drop out. The higher up you go in those fields, the more barriers there are.  All of these can be used to an advantage for photographers that find and conquer these barriers, as it brings them higher up the ladder where fewer amateurs are competing. The amateur and professional may have the same photography skills, but the photographers that have conquered these barriers will be further up the ladder with less competition from amateurs that haven't.
> 
> Add creativity, providing excellent service, and finding your own niche in the industry, and it can be very viable. Jumping in the areas that are most crowded with competition, amateur or professional, or worse both, and things look much more bleak.
> 
> I have yet to land a $100K to $250K day rate job like those few we hear about every so often   I don't think they are too worried about the hobbyists and amateurs! And there is a lot of ground between the two extremes.
Click to expand...


----------



## acparsons

I usually shoot for free, mostly for non-profits. I enjoy shooting and processing. If I could do it as a career and get paid for it, much better.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

pgriz said:


> She was probably aware that she would be displacing a paid professional, and it didn't really appear to affect her own calculation of whether it was worth doing (for her).



I actually think it's a stretch to believe that she was aware she'd be displacing the pro.

It's probably far more likely that she went to the university, said "Let me shoot for free and I'll give you pictures", and that was the end of it. The school, on the other hand, would have to be quite aware that what the ramifications would be for the pro. They just didn't care.

The problem here isn't with the retired lady (and since when does "retired" equate to "wealthy"?), it's with the university...


----------



## limr

"Retired" doesn't equal "wealthy" automatically, but the OP explained that she is retired in her 40s because she's already made a buttload of money - enough to be able to provide photographic services for free while still restoring a villa in France. That kind of wealthy. So no, it wasn't assumed that she's wealthy - it was one of the known facts.


----------



## Vince.1551

The_Traveler said:


> I have a confession.
> When I was interested in becoming a male escort, at the beginning, I started giving 'it' away for free.
> I thought that, if the experience was good, then I could start charging.
> The reality was that all my clients told their friends that I was available for free  and no one wanted to pay.
> Oh, yeah. I got a few 'gifts' but people thought I should be grateful to do it for the experience and the exposure.
> 
> So after a while, I just opted out and left it to the pros.
> But, I still get the occasional call; I just smile and tell them I sent me equipment in for cleaning and adjustment.


Thing is there are lots of new male escorts joining the party everyday [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pgriz

So, on a side note, Leonore, as our etymological grande doyenne, where does "buttload of money" come from?  The visuals are.... disturbing.


----------



## JacaRanda

Wondering if she is feeling the heat from the other pros yet and if so, how that's being administered.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

limr said:


> "Retired" doesn't equal "wealthy" automatically, but the OP explained that she is retired in her 40s because she's already made a buttload of money - enough to be able to provide photographic services for free while still restoring a villa in France. That kind of wealthy. So no, it wasn't assumed that she's wealthy - it was one of the known facts.



I didn't see the part about the villa. What do we know about it? Is it hers? A family property?

I also haven't see where it said she'd retired in her 40's. Then again, my eyes started glazing over after the umpteenth post blaming the woman, so I had a difficult time culling through the whole thing.

The bottom line is pretty simple, I think: The photographer was lax in maintaining a successful relationship with the university, and may have gotten a bit complacent and took the relationship for granted.

If the school was paying him in the area of $15K a year, it was up to him to make sure they knew he and his work were worth it...


----------



## limr

imagemaker46 said:


> -Snip-  He had no idea what happened, so he went to them and asked, *another photographer*, and to be honest she does a pretty good job, *went to them and said she would do it for free, she retired from a six figure job last year and just wants to shoot things. *





imagemaker46 said:


> *It wasn't a matter of him sitting back and waiting to see what happened, it just happens. I don't know the exact details, but he is always hustling around, making calls and trying to stay ahead or at the very least even with all the other young freelancers in the city.* What does happen in our business is that you could do a shoot on a Saturday and Monday they hire someone else, it usually comes as a huge surprise, especially if you're doing a good job for the client.  It's tougher on the photojournalist side with newspapers dropping staff, sending out the writers with cameras or accepting cell phone shots.





> One of the biggest challenges of most photographers is  being able to buy new gear, losing 15k is the difference with being able to buy another camera body, or trying to get another year out of the one you're using.  Someone that has a stable bank account, because of a steady pay cheque can afford to just go out and buy what they want. *This person that is working for free, is also restoring a family owned villa in France, money isn't an issue for her.* She will start to find that it won't be a very friendly place among the other photographers when word gets out that she's a poacher.  There is no respect for people like this.





imagemaker46 said:


> *The photographer I mentioned in the original post is in his mid twenties, he lost the job to woman in her 40's who had the money to retire*. I was just adding a post to start a conversation on how things are for a friend of mine and another example of how photography is changing.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

Doesn't change my opinion.

The guy lost the job. Period. Now, I suppose if there's an inclination to not blame another "pro", then blaming the woman is appropriate. Aside from that, though, I don't see a reason to not place a rather large chunk of responsibility on the guy who allowed the job to slip through his fingers.

I make a pretty good living, but if I have a client who gives me $15K a year in exchange for my services, well, that's a client I'm speaking to very, very regularly...


----------



## vintagesnaps

I'm wondering the same thing as John, maybe there's something we don't know about why they gave what seemed to be contracted work to a - volunteer? not sure what to call it. Colleges have alumni groups, athletic booster clubs, etc. that use volunteers but those I think are nonprofit affiliated groups.

Someone (Alan K. I think) mentioned if the photographer was ever injured etc. which I'd think could be another concern. We don't know if she has insurance; not sure if/how the school would cover someone they gave a pass or access regardless of being a paid employee or not. Guess it's the school's responsibility and their problem if this doesn't work out.

And Leonore you meant '_boat _load' didn't you? lol


----------



## West -

I bet the guy was a lousy photog and should have been fired after submitting his original/first photos.  The university probably decided that they be better off having a 10 year old shooting with his rebel than wasting money on this chump.


----------



## limr

Mr. Innuendo said:


> Doesn't change my opinion.
> 
> The guy lost the job. Period. Now, I suppose if there's an inclination to not blame another "pro", then blaming the woman is appropriate. Aside from that, though, I don't see a reason to not place a rather large chunk of responsibility on the guy who allowed the job to slip through his fingers.
> 
> I make a pretty good living, but if I have a client who gives me $15K a year in exchange for my services, well, that's a client I'm speaking to very, very regularly...



Fair enough. Never suggested that you would change your opinion. Just thought the last comment about the assumption that "retired=wealthy" could be cleared up for you.


----------



## limr

vintagesnaps said:


> *And Leonore you meant 'boat load' didn't you? lol*



I probably did!   Actually, what I really meant to write was "sh*t ton" but I knew it would just be censored out.


----------



## tecboy

Is sport photography very challenging?  Last time I was shooting race cars, it was very hard.  I just don't understand why this lady would shoot for free.


----------



## limr

tecboy said:


> Is sport photography very challenging?  Last time I was shooting race cars, it was very hard.  I just don't understand why this lady would shoot for free.



Because she can and because she wants to. I imagine that the kind of person who can retire in her 40s is the kind of person who is used to getting what she wants.


----------



## pgriz

Hey, hey, hey now!  Leonore, you never answered my question! No, it wasn't important in the big-picture-kind-of-way, but still.  Post #179 FYI.


----------



## limr

pgriz said:


> Hey, hey, hey now!  Leonore, you never answered my question! No, it wasn't important in the big-picture-kind-of-way, but still.  Post #179 FYI.



D'oh! I didn't see the post. I'll work on that etymology for you. I can't say for sure at the moment, but I suspect it has something to do with the influence of too much Black Russian...


----------



## tecboy

If I'm a retired millionaire or earned a little over $900,000 on my saving account, I would still charge that university for about 10k and donate the money to the charity.


----------



## limr

Oooh, I might actually have a defense! The difference between a buttload, boatload and shitload. | Strung Together Morphemes

Mostly it appears that the original form of the idiom is "boatload" but enough people mistook it for "buttload" that now the latter terms has become an idiom in its own right.

Maybe it's a New York regionalism? I honestly didn't even notice that I'd typed it.


----------



## Josh66

imagemaker46 said:


> He had no idea what happened, so he went to them and asked, another photographer, and to be honest she does a pretty good job, went to them and said she would do it for free, she retired from a six figure job last year and just wants to shoot things.
> 
> So he gets screwed out of trying to make a living by someone that has decided to poach clients at a price photographers can't compete with, free, and she doesn't see anything wrong with it.  This is what pisses me and so many other photographers off.
> 
> If anyone thinks that amateurs with full time jobs, that can afford to buy the best gear and then shoot for free because they can afford to, doesn't affect other people that are just trying to stay in the business.  They have no idea what they are talking about.  This is just one example.


I'm late to the party and haven't read any of the other replies yet - but what exactly *IS* wrong with it?

Certainly, this can't be the norm...

A $15k/year hit is pretty big, but there isn't exactly anything that can be done about it.  What do you propose?  Licensing of some sort, having to prove that you're running a business?


----------



## robbins.photo

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I also haven't see where it said she'd retired in her 40's. Then again, my eyes started glazing over after the umpteenth post blaming the woman, so I had a difficult time culling through the whole thing.



Bourbon helps.  I would recommend going with somewhere between a shitload and a buttload.


----------



## bribrius

limr said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is sport photography very challenging?  Last time I was shooting race cars, it was very hard.  I just don't understand why this lady would shoot for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because she can and because she wants to. I imagine that the kind of person who can retire in her 40s is the kind of person who is used to getting what she wants.
Click to expand...

It is the mindset. some people are like that. My darling wife donates to charities, donates to the church, volunteers for pta, church functions, kids programs, public functions. She can pee away fifteen k by accident while being nice. Is she rich? Hell no she don't even work she just hands me the bills to figure out. Then I freak out while she is volunteering and giving to charities and I pull the "why don't you do something to MAKE money for a change" card. she would shoot for free just like she makes wedding cakes for free and throws together baby showers for people for free and volunteers for free for everything.


----------



## Gary A.

tecboy said:


> If I'm a retired millionaire or earned a little over $900,000 on my saving account, I would still charge that university for about 10k and donate the money to the charity.


I am a former new photog and I now perform a lot of pro bono work. Money doesn't have to be everything.


----------



## tecboy

My point is this young 40s years old socialite willing to work hard as a sport photographer without getting merit and credit.  This sounds like she is been taken advantage by the university.  She showing a bad example or bad role model among the photography community.  So, it is okay to work for free even she is very talented and highly skilled photographer.   She should a least get some respects for herself and the photography community.


----------



## photoguy99

Some posters in this thread seem to be taking it as a given that photographs and photography have value, and fairly high value at that.

Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining why? Where does this value come from?

When I buy a car I understand that steel costs money. I understand that the labor of assembling cars is not much fun, and that therefore I need to pay pretty well for that. I understand that auto design is actually very complex and difficult and I have to pay for that. Raw materials, completed subassemblies, and finished cars have to be transported around, which costs labor and fuel.

What are the components of photography and photographs that justify a high price? Or any price above $0 for that matter?


----------



## BillM

Are cameras free ????


----------



## robbins.photo

bribrius said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is sport photography very challenging?  Last time I was shooting race cars, it was very hard.  I just don't understand why this lady would shoot for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because she can and because she wants to. I imagine that the kind of person who can retire in her 40s is the kind of person who is used to getting what she wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the mindset. some people are like that. My darling wife donates to charities, donates to the church, volunteers for pta, church functions, kids programs, public functions. She can pee away fifteen k by accident while being nice. Is she rich? Hell no she don't even work she just hands me the bills to figure out. Then I freak out while she is volunteering and giving to charities and I pull the "why don't you do something to MAKE money for a change" card. she would shoot for free just like she makes wedding cakes for free and throws together baby showers for people for free and volunteers for free for everything.
Click to expand...


Ok, so she's taking jobs away from ministers, priests, day care workers, pastry chefs and event planners... and she doesn't even have a family villa?

Whacky


----------



## robbins.photo

BillM said:


> Are cameras free ????



Yes.

The bolt cutters you need to get them off that dang walmart display though cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## BillM

I'm not fast enough to get a "free" one anymore


----------



## slackercruster

photoguy99 said:


> Some posters in this thread seem to be taking it as a given if a photog doesa jpobthat photographs and photography have value, and fairly high value at that.
> 
> Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining why? Where does this value come from?
> 
> When I buy a car I understand that steel costs money. I understand that the labor of assembling cars is not much fun, and that therefore I need to pay pretty well for that. I understand that auto design is actually very complex and difficult and I have to pay for that. Raw materials, completed subassemblies, and finished cars have to be transported around, which costs labor and fuel.
> 
> What are the components of photography and photographs that justify a high price? Or any price above $0 for that matter?



When a photog does  a job, sure pay them for time and talent. But the 1/2 million $ tricycle is BS. An inkjet print cost a few bucks to run off. It is all in the sig line. Without it the print is worth very little.


----------



## BillM

Is she single ???


----------



## photoguy99

Cameras are not free.

Carry on, you've got the beginning of something. Let's see where it goes.


----------



## robbins.photo

BillM said:


> Is she single ???



And if so does she own a set of bolt cutters, and how fast is she in the 100 yard dash?


----------



## BillM

With her bank account we could be driving a Ferrari for a get away car !!!


----------



## photoguy99

Ugh. Please don't try to make a case for the value of a photograph as a series of one line platitudes. I haven't the strength to try to assemble them into an argument.

If someone really wants to take a stab at the question, actually think about it for a few minutes and try to write something complete. At least, if you want me to read it.

If you don't, of course, carry on.


----------



## snerd

robbins.photo said:


> BillM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is she single ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if so does she own a set of bolt cutters, and how fast is she in the 100 yard dash?
Click to expand...

Post pics of teef!


----------



## bribrius

BillM said:


> Is she single ???


the o.p 's stand in photog or my wife? If you mean my wife then no, but I wouldn't deny the idea of selling her hasn't crossed my mind...


photoguy99 said:


> Ugh. Please don't try to make a case for the value of a photograph as a series of one line platitudes. I haven't the strength to try to assemble them into an argument.
> 
> If someone really wants to take a stab at the question, actually think about it for a few minutes and try to write something complete. At least, if you want me to read it.
> 
> If you don't, of course, carry on.


what are you talking about?


----------



## BillM

You are free to read or not read any threads you like.


----------



## photoguy99

Post #199 brib.

BillM my bad. I thought you actually might want to try to answer my question but I see you're not interested.


----------



## BillM

But I did answer your question. As a matter of fact you gave your permission to carry on after reading it.


----------



## astroNikon

photoguy99 said:


> Some posters in this thread seem to be taking it as a given that photographs and photography have value, and fairly high value at that.
> 
> Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining why? Where does this value come from?
> 
> When I buy a car I understand that steel costs money. I understand that the labor of assembling cars is not much fun, and that therefore I need to pay pretty well for that. I understand that auto design is actually very complex and difficult and I have to pay for that. Raw materials, completed subassemblies, and finished cars have to be transported around, which costs labor and fuel.
> 
> What are the components of photography and photographs that justify a high price? Or any price above $0 for that matter?


Basic Supply & Demand.

If someone will pay $$ for a photograph then you can make money.
If someone else charges less for a similar photograph and their sells and your doesn't, then their price was correct.
If someone charges nothing, or next to nothing for their work and your stuff doesn't sell, then they are priced right for the buyer..

The value of anything is in the hands of the person(s) purchasing it.   Whether a car, photograph etc.  With cars ,though, people just can't go to BestBuy and buy a "Make your car at home" kit for under $400 that doesn't weigh half a ton and meet all the federal safety regulations.

Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.  
If no one pays for it, then the price is too high.
If someone sells something similar for less money, then they are being competitive.
Business is generally not a monopoly, you have to compete against everyone out there.  And sometimes, it's against someone that bought stuff from BestBuy (or of course anywhere else).


----------



## CameraClicker

So, if you want a photo, you have 3 choices?
Take it yourself.
Pay someone to take it.
Find someone that will take it, and give it to you for free.

If you take it yourself, you spend your time, and need a camera.
If you pay someone, it costs what you pay them.
If you find someone to give it to you for free, well that might be the cheapest method.


----------



## photoguy99

You did not answer my question, Bill. You made a couple of remarks which speak to cost, perhaps. Not value. I thought perhaps you would be willing to dig in a little further and explain something about value. But evidently not.

If I use $10,000 of woodworking equipment and 2000 hours of labor to make an all-wooden wristwatch that is 3 feet across and weighs 200 pounds, my cost is high. The value of the finished object is arguably not very high, though. Whether you are a capitalist, a Marxist, or something else, the value is just not there.

Business is half about making your costs lower than the value of the produced goods. The other half is selling the produced goods for their value or more.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, astroNikon. There's more to life than capitalism, but it's a reasonable world view that seems to work for a lot of people.

I'd like to see a similar post explaining why a photo DOES have value, though. We've got a fair bit on why they don't, already in hand.


----------



## BillM

A 4th choice for your list

See a photo that someone has already taken and you ask them for it. If they refuse then you could offer to pay for it. Or you could always "internet borrow" it.

But none of this really has much to do with the initial topic. Now we are into the worth of an object. In this case the object is a photograph. And the bottom line is that if someone wants an object then that person values this particular object to some degree. Now are they willing to put a monetary value to that object. It's late and I don't have a business degree so I'm going to bed. Feel free to carry on without me


----------



## 407370

I am having a hard time following some of the logic here.

According to some people the guy lost the gig through his own fault to someone offering to do the same job for free. Thats ridiculous. It like saying the millions who lost their jobs in the recession (I was one of them) did not try hard enough to keep the jobs.

Photography should always be paid for. Thats ridiculous. I take pics for people and never charge for the digital files. I am not doing a pro out of work as the people would never pay for a photographer anyway.

The hard truth is that photography is a dwindling market place. Some people will hang on in niche corners of the market and that will become less and less prevalent over time as the difference between hobbyists like me and professional level product is bridged by technology. 

Whether you like it or not the impact of a picture in a magazine is now more to do with post processing that getting it right in camera. 3D imaging has eaten up a huge chunk of high end advertising work and will continue to encroach on the volume of work available to photographers.

Photographers are creative people and professionals should be embracing the new technology. Dont get stuck in a single medium to express your creativity because it will lead to more conversations like _" Losing business to amateurs"_


----------



## snerd

407370 said:


> ...... I am not doing a pro out of work as the people would never pay for a photographer anyway........


I've heard that same argument from people that pirate software............. they were never going to pay for it anyway, so they're not really stealing. Not disagreeing with your overall point, though.


----------



## 407370

snerd said:


> I've heard that same argument from people that pirate software............. they were never going to pay for it anyway, so they're not really stealing. Not disagreeing with your overall point, though.


Software pirates are stealing but the industry did not lose money as they would not buy it anyway. The difference is that the people I give digital files to are mostly friends or people I have shared an experience with and my pictures had zero commercial value to begin with.


----------



## Gary A.

photoguy99 said:


> Some posters in this thread seem to be taking it as a given that photographs and photography have value, and fairly high value at that.
> 
> Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining why? Where does this value come from?
> 
> When I buy a car I understand that steel costs money. I understand that the labor of assembling cars is not much fun, and that therefore I need to pay pretty well for that. I understand that auto design is actually very complex and difficult and I have to pay for that. Raw materials, completed subassemblies, and finished cars have to be transported around, which costs labor and fuel.
> 
> What are the components of photography and photographs that justify a high price? Or any price above $0 for that matter?


Personal experience. I've been paid a decent weekly salary for my photographic services.


----------



## tecboy




----------



## CameraClicker

photoguy99 said:


> You did not answer my question, Bill. You made a couple of remarks which speak to cost, perhaps. Not value. I thought perhaps you would be willing to dig in a little further and explain something about value. But evidently not.
> 
> If I use $10,000 of woodworking equipment and 2000 hours of labor to make an all-wooden wristwatch that is 3 feet across and weighs 200 pounds, my cost is high. The value of the finished object is arguably not very high, though. Whether you are a capitalist, a Marxist, or something else, the value is just not there.
> 
> Business is half about making your costs lower than the value of the produced goods. The other half is selling the produced goods for their value or more.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply, astroNikon. There's more to life than capitalism, but it's a reasonable world view that seems to work for a lot of people.
> 
> I'd like to see a similar post explaining why a photo DOES have value, though. We've got a fair bit on why they don't, already in hand.


Does a photo have value?  How high is up?  Value to whom?

If you wanted a photo, and took it, it cost time and skill, so something like this 
 has some value.  Perhaps not to others, or at least not enough that others would pay for it, and not enough to even bother with paper and ink.

Then, there is a photo like this  which doesn't look like much.  It took a macro lens and about as much skill as the previous photo.  Along with another earlier photo, it convinced a doctor to refer to a specialist, who did surgery.  Cancer was interrupted just before the need for Chemotherapy.  So, a life was extended and some suffering was avoided.  This was definitely worth the paper and ink to print.

Then, there is a photo like this  Nick Ut: Photographer Talks Kim Phuc 'Napalm Girl' Photo 42 Years Later : People.com which changed the course of a war, and saved the life of the little girl -- because the photographer was there to take photos and took time to help and exercise influence.

So not all photos are created equal.  Some are worth amusement, some are worth memories, some save a life, some save many lives, some incriminate, some kill, some trigger memories or pass likenesses on to future generations.  In BC, they just raised a statue because of a photo of a little boy running to his father who was going off to war.

What is the value of a photo?  I have no idea!  What kind of value?  What photo?  Value to whom?


----------



## minicoop1985

I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.


----------



## snerd

minicoop1985 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.


Often imitated, never duplicated! Don't sweat it, they were going that way anyway.


----------



## 407370

minicoop1985 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.


So offer to teach them in a seminar at $20 a pop then offer one on one tuition at $50 an hour then offer to help them buy equipment and set it up in their home for your hourly rate then offer to get a "special price" for any prints they want then offer to turn the pics into a professional DVD then offer to show them how to use HDR etc etc etc


----------



## minicoop1985

Snerd, sadly, you're right. There's nothing I can do about it, either, at this point. I'm sure this is far from the last time it will happen, too.

407370, that sounds like the start of a fantastic pyramid scheme.


----------



## astroNikon

photoguy99 said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful reply, astroNikon. There's more to life than capitalism, but it's a reasonable world view that seems to work for a lot of people.



I forgot what I typed .. but essentially you have your view of the topic and that's it.
So you can detail out your view, and people can take any stance of your view of the topic that they want.

In essence no one's wrong.
There may be a majority etc .. may be bell curve like statistics in the end .. who knows.

Valuation can be monetary
Valuation can be emotional
Valuation can be anything anyone wants to define it as

But in the end, people have to *eat* so they need money (or trade, etc).


----------



## astroNikon

minicoop1985 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.



As long as there's Cowboy Studio junk and Canon the ability to spend close to nothing and get into the business is there.
Since they have something that "looks" like the lighting stuff that you have they figured they have the same thing as you, just they were smarter as they only spent $99 for everything where as you've spent thousands.

Well, I didn't mean Canon .. I meant low cost cameras and totally inexperienced people.


----------



## snowbear

And Facebook.  Don't forget Facebook and all the "oooh" and "aaaah" that emminate from Facebook friends.


----------



## tirediron

snowbear said:


> And Facebook.  Don't forget Facebook and all the "oooh" and "aaaah" that emminate from Facebook friends.


 'cause we all know you're not really a pro 'til have a squidillion likes on facebook!


----------



## astroNikon

photoguy99 said:


> If I use $10,000 of woodworking equipment and 2000 hours of labor to make an all-wooden wristwatch that is 3 feet across and weighs 200 pounds, my cost is high. *The value of the finished object is arguably not very high*, though. Whether you are a capitalist, a Marxist, or something else, the value is just not there.
> 
> Business is half about making your costs lower than the value of the produced goods. The other half is selling the produced goods for their value or more.


Why isn't the value of the finished object not very high?
If it was cheaply made then you are correct.
If someone of artisan level creates this as more of an art form (as who wears a 3 foot wide 200 lb wristwatch - or time clock) then they can value it appropriately.

Instead of using cheap wood, one uses mahogany and very accurate internals so the clock is very accurate.

The cost of the woodworking equipment and labor helps determine your breakeven price BUT based on if you plan on making ONE or a hundred watches, and what ever else you would use the equipment for.

Why does a Timex cost less than a Rolex ?
Why does Rolex spend so many labor hours making a watch when Timex can do it in 15 minutes ?
Why hasn't Rolex gone out of business decades ago ?


----------



## astroNikon

Gary A. said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some posters in this thread seem to be taking it as a given that photographs and photography have value, and fairly high value at that.
> 
> Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining why? Where does this value come from?
> 
> When I buy a car I understand that steel costs money. I understand that the labor of assembling cars is not much fun, and that therefore I need to pay pretty well for that. I understand that auto design is actually very complex and difficult and I have to pay for that. Raw materials, completed subassemblies, and finished cars have to be transported around, which costs labor and fuel.
> 
> What are the components of photography and photographs that justify a high price? Or any price above $0 for that matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Personal experience. I've been paid a decent weekly salary for my photographic services.
Click to expand...

we use paid photographers where I work too
Even the students are paid a fairly significant sum per hour .... 

something I'm kinda trying to wiggle into as a side job .. somehow as I still have a primary job  lol


----------



## snerd

astroNikon said:


> ............ Well, I didn't mean Canon .. I meant low cost cameras and totally inexperienced people.


Why, I oughta....................


----------



## DevC

I'm not sure where this thread is going, but i'm gonna reply to the OP.

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is, its a supply and demand game. IF your friends product is simply not as good as another's free product, then your friend is SOL. Your friend needs to improve his product better than what can be done for "Free". 


Now, needless to say, the person that beat her out should be charging so she could make some $$$ herself, but her decision not to charge is her decision solely.

Unfortunately in this day and age, photo services are becoming less and less necessary. There is nothing that could be done/said about that. Either its time to expand horizons or not to look at this field Professionally.


----------



## lambertpix

minicoop1985 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.



If that was their intent anyway, you're not going to stop them.  Better that you'd make a buck teaching them, I think, and do a good enough job that they come back for more lessons.  If you stay in contact with these people for any length of time, I'd be interested in learning whether they come back and recognize that this photography stuff is maybe just a little more difficult than they'd appreciated when they started.


----------



## astroNikon

snerd said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ............ Well, I didn't mean Canon .. I meant low cost cameras and totally inexperienced people.
> 
> 
> 
> Why, I oughta....................
Click to expand...


----------



## minicoop1985

astroNikon said:


> As long as there's Cowboy Studio junk and Canon the ability to spend close to nothing and get into the business is there.
> Since they have something that "looks" like the lighting stuff that you have they figured they have the same thing as you, just they were smarter as they only spent $99 for everything where as you've spent thousands.
> 
> Well, I didn't mean Canon .. I meant low cost cameras and totally inexperienced people.



This is true. Hey, wait a minute.....



lambertpix said:


> If that was their intent anyway, you're not going to stop them.  Better that you'd make a buck teaching them, I think, and do a good enough job that they come back for more lessons.  If you stay in contact with these people for any length of time, I'd be interested in learning whether they come back and recognize that this photography stuff is maybe just a little more difficult than they'd appreciated when they started.



Exactly. I didn't burn any bridges for that reason. I mean I was rather incensed, but I didn't explode on them like I wanted to... I will, however, charge them more.


----------



## photoguy99

The point is that cost hasn't anything to do with value. If you want to make some labored argument that a gigantic wooden wristwatch had value, more power to ya.

The underlying point remains, though.

The fact that something is hard or expensive to do does not impart value to the final product.


----------



## Derrel

astroNikon said:
			
		

> *Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it. *
> 
> Business is generally not a monopoly, *you have to compete against everyone out there.*




Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.


----------



## Lucryster

It just seems like union mentality to me. If your not part of the club, you have no business doing it. I mean if you aint  a "professional" you can't possibly be as good as "me" and have no business intruding on my "clubs" business. Just utter hogwash to me. Just like with anything else, if your good you have nothing to worry about. Its the people that aren't that have to worry.


----------



## photoguy99

Lucryster said:


> ... if your good you have nothing to worry about. Its the people that aren't that have to worry.



This is simply false.


----------



## DevC

photoguy99 said:


> *The point is that cost hasn't anything to do with value.* If you want to make some labored argument that a gigantic wooden wristwatch had value, more power to ya.
> 
> The underlying point remains, though.
> 
> *The fact that something is hard or expensive to do does not impart value to the final product.*




Sure it does. Ever got a car repaired? Your final bill is based on  the parts (expensive) and the count of hours of labor (difficulty of repair) required.

Price is a function of cost.


----------



## Gary A.

I've never heard of a car repair person opening a free repair shop after they have retired.


----------



## photoguy99

Price, cost, value. These are all different words with, and this is important, different meanings.


----------



## DevC

Gary A. said:


> I've never heard of a car repair person opening a free repair shop after they have retired.



Sorry, my point may of been offtopic to the original post. Just making a point that cost (including labor, parts) are a function of final price.


----------



## Gary A.

DevC said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of a car repair person opening a free repair shop after they have retired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my point may of been offtopic to the original post. Just making a point that cost (including labor, parts) are a function of final price.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your basic premise, but unfortunately, in photography you lose a lot of that basic/simple/B&W auto repair objectivity.


----------



## grep4master

I'm with Alan, as artists we can never get complacent with our work. It really sucks for your friend, but I would recommend he thinks outside the box now to attract better clients. This might actually be an opportunity for him for self-growth.
I've never shot weddings for free, but I started pretty low (my first was at $700). I don't think I took away anybody's client because I don't see how you can make a living by shooting weddings for less. I feel real professional photographers were just playing in a completely different league. How do I reach more highly paying customers now? Educating them. As photographers (specially now in the digital era) we have to educate prospective clients and have them understand why they pay you the money they pay you and what you're offering that other photographers don't.
After a few weeks/months I wouldn't be surprised if your friend got a call from the company asking him to come back after realizing the quality is not the same.
Hope it goes well, nevertheless.


----------



## manaheim

Derrel said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it. *
> 
> Business is generally not a monopoly, *you have to compete against everyone out there.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.
Click to expand...


Very unsympathetic stance.

In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?

You have to at least understand the frustration.


----------



## DevC

Derrel said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it. *
> 
> Business is generally not a monopoly, *you have to compete against everyone out there.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.
Click to expand...



I agree here.The photo market is monopolistic competition. There are many players out their, and one must have something quite truly unique to make it.


----------



## Derrel

manaheim said:
			
		

> Very unsympathetic stance.
> 
> In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?
> 
> You have to at least understand the frustration.



The science of economics has utterly ZERO allowance for "sympathy"*. *My stance is not unsympathetic. I used to make a fine living in photography. I know exactly how the OP feels. Nobody said the world is fair. It's a dog-eat-dog world. *The only thing constant is change.*

I used to earn more than a month's rent in take-home pay as a portrait shooter, every four days, in the early 1990's. But things changed when flatbed scanners and home computers and a new thing called "digitial imaging technology" arrived on the scene. I left the retail photography field because I saw obvious evidence that the easy money and the high pay were beginning to erode, rapidly. I left a field I loved because I could literally SEE the transition to "instant, on-site digital proofing, viewing, and sales" was having. Believe me, I KNOW how badly the loss of easy money doing photography feels.

What the OP is lamenting is a lot like what buggy whip manufacturers and workers and leather suppliers must have felt when the automobile made their products basically obsolete, over a very short time frame. But again, to re-state it, this is an issue of economics. The science of economics tells us why the guy lost the client: simple, rudimentary marginal utility analysis can be applied here.

"Losing business to NEW competition in the real, ever-changing world," would have been a more accurate, fair, and objective way to title this thread. Instead, we were treated to a one-sided title that has an underlying premise : the outdated *assumption that a deliberately chosen career field is a lifetime guarantee to "print money"*.


----------



## JoeW

I completely get the argument that some hobbyists are better than some who are in business full-time.  And I completely understand the position that in a market, if people won't pay for what you offer, than you go out of business.

But let us be clear--we're moving to a market(s) when it comes to photography, where it's going to become incredibly difficult to make a living doing this business.    We've already seen this with photojournalism--where most papers have axed their photographers and they're relying on free lancers, citizens sending in photos (I'm all for public involvement but if you get 30-50% of your news photos from "the public--that scares me, especially with regard to journalism standards and integrity) and stock or photo agencies.  And I don't think that's a good thing.  The argument that if people won't pay for your product than you deserve to go out of business does ignore the reality that purchase decisions aren't based on well-informed objective data in the vast majority of cases.  Instead, people may think that good pictures come from having a good camera or that anyone can do this or that b/c someone once gave them some photos free, than there is no case for paying for any photos.

You can make the same argument about manufacturing moving overseas (or being consolidated), that this is what is being driven by the market (b/c Mexico or India or Vietnam can make it cheaper).  And there are consequences to having most of your manufacturing out of the country (fewer jobs available that a HS graduate can get and earn enough to buy a house, raise a family, and put 1-2 kids through college).

Lew makes very good points about guilds and access.  And I'm not one to argue that "photographer" should be some kind of black magic that only a selected few should be allowed entry in to.  Easy access has some advantages.  But ultimately where we're going with this, is probably a hobby that isn't sustainable as a profession/day job (except for a few rare exceptions).  I'm nowhere near smart enough to project what that would mean in terms of equipment and gear...maybe a lot more focus on Point-and-shoots, mirrorless cameras, and camera-phones, probably less regard for property rights (so "your" photo can be edited or adapted by someone else and that's fair game), a lot more diversity in terms of participants but the overall quality of the work will go down.  Not the end of the world.  But it is a world that has consequences for all of us (even if you don't pay your mortgage by shooting).


----------



## Gary A.

A point to remember is that the situation in the OP was what I would call fair competition. Is it fair for workers in [insert name of first world country here] to lose their jobs because of outsourcing to [insert name of third world country here] where the product they were making is now being made by prisoners thereby reducing the cost of labor to zero. Losing market share in head-to-head, above-board, 'fair' competition is one thing ... yeah go sharpen your pencil ... But losing market share because of unfair competition is quite another. How much sharpening must you do to beat free and still pay your bills.

Gary


----------



## slackercruster

manaheim said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it. *
> 
> Business is generally not a monopoly, *you have to compete against everyone out there.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unsympathetic stance.
> 
> In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?
> 
> You have to at least understand the frustration.
Click to expand...

 
My wife, who does not like photography nor has any special photo talent, wants to be a wedding photog. Her friend was quoted $3000 for a wedding shoot. My wife told me when she retires in a couple years she is going to shoot weddings for a couple hours on Saturday and take in $9,000 to $12,000 a month for part time work. That is how people think nowadays.


----------



## Derrel

Who remembers THIS gem from 2003? I sure do!!! it has popped up since then,  more than once!
Ten most overpaid jobs in the U.S.    - MarketWatch


*10) Wedding photographers*
Photographers earn a national average of $1,900 for a wedding, though many charge $2,500 to $5,000 for a one-day shoot, client meeting and processing time that runs up to 20 hours or more, and the cost of materials.

The overpaid ones are the many who admit they only do weddings for the income, while quietly complaining about the hassle of dealing with hysterical brides and drunken reception guests. They mope through the job with the attitude: "I'm just doing this for the money until Time or National Geographic calls."

Much of their work is mediocre as a result. How often have you really been wowed flipping the pages of a wedding album handed you by recent newlyweds? Photographers who long for the day they can say "I don't do weddings" should leave the work to the dedicated ones who do.

"


----------



## astroNikon

manaheim said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it. *
> 
> Business is generally not a monopoly, *you have to compete against everyone out there.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very unsympathetic stance.
> 
> In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?
> 
> You have to at least understand the frustration.
Click to expand...

I totally understand the frustration ... to an Nth degree.
I was unemployed for a year an a half .. that's *NO *job whatsoever
and after bankruptcy, I was worth a *total *of $5k and 4 kids living with me (yes, no house, no car, no camera, not much).

I had to work for free just to keep my resume from having a gigantic gap in it as no one was hiring even contractors for a while there in 2009-2010, except for pennies on the dollar.

so don't look for too much sympathy from this corner.  I'll offer business advice, and I've even help on a business plan for free to help people stay out of where I've been at.  That's one thing I've been doing for a few years.  I've turned around a couple companies in very dire straights who are all doing well right now ... for nothing.  Why? Because otherwise they were just about to close the doors and put a whole bunch of other people out of work including themselves .. all with families to feed.

The biggest problem most people have from righting the ship, is their own egos.


----------



## The_Traveler

minicoop1985 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread. I need to rant. I've been losing some business through some rather crappy means. I've had TWO clients now ask me to help them learn to take better family photos. Well, they study what I do, the angles I use, my lighting, etc, while I'm busy and not watching what they do. Well, I come in a few weeks later and BAM. There they are, DSLR, cheapo lights, doing the same things that they had hired me for. I think I've lost more than two to this. I mean I still have returning clients, so that's a good thing, but this.... ugh. This just pissed me off like no other. One? Well, whatever. TWO now? You have to be kidding me. I no longer trust people. it does make me feel better when I see the ads they put out and the photos look like crap, though.



No insult intended but if you didn't invent photography and the camera then you are doing essentially what they are doing - using knowledge gathered up by someone else as the jumping off place for your own work.


----------



## minicoop1985

The_Traveler said:


> No insult intended but if you didn't invent photography and the camera then you are doing essentially what they are doing - using knowledge gathered up by someone else as the jumping off place for your own work.



But I'm the reincarnation of George Eastman! I invented... not photography, but other stuff! 

That would be an ego trip if I actually meant that. I do get what you mean, though, Lew.

What Astro said-those who righted the ship often have inflated egos-is spot on. They forget where they've been and become jaded to the good life. I've met so many of these types.


----------



## CameraClicker

photoguy99 said:


> The point is that cost hasn't anything to do with value. If you want to make some labored argument that a gigantic wooden wristwatch had value, more power to ya.
> 
> The underlying point remains, though.
> 
> The fact that something is hard or expensive to do does not impart value to the final product.



I think that's only partly true.  Scarcity plays a part.  Marketing plays a part.  Look at diamonds, it's nice that they are really hard, and pretty to look at, but are they really worth what the jeweller is asking?  Industrial diamonds are worth something when you have to drill through hard materials.  Diamonds as jewels are just trinkets with a good publicist.  Gold makes electronics more reliable, but as jewellery, it's worth is entirely due to sales and marketing efforts over many years.  Oil is a bit like that too, you have to find it, drill for it, pump it, refine it, ship it, etc.  Every time there is a price hike, someone blames problems in the middle East.  North America has more oil, but it costs more to get it out of the ground and into a useful form, so it has value based on cost of production.  Of course, if electric cars really take off, oil may become a lot less valuable.  So, if cost affects scarcity, it may affect perceived value.


----------



## bribrius

oh man, I feel like such a azz now. Every since I started getting back in photography I stopped buying the most expensive selections on my kids school photo sheets and started opting for the cheaper packages. This latest time I order near the cheapest package, thought about just ordering the class photo.
Photos came and looking through them tonight I question if they were worth the 22 dollars...


----------



## manaheim

DevC said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it. *
> 
> Business is generally not a monopoly, *you have to compete against everyone out there.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the single most-important points in the entire issue posed in the OP are right there. I am soooooo tired of pro photographers whining and making excuses about losing business to "amateurs". It's a wide-open marketplace today. It's no longer 1999. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree here.The photo market is monopolistic competition. There are many players out their, and one must have something quite truly unique to make it.
Click to expand...


Photography is by no means monopolistic competition, btw.  Monopolistic competition is a small group of very large businesses that compete enough such that there is no actual monopoly, but their combined market power make it essentially impossible for new entrants into the market.

The auto industry is the prime example of MC.



Derrel said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very unsympathetic stance.
> 
> In spirit, I agree, but at the same time, wouldn't it be nice if people didn't ever have their livelihoods dismantled by a change in their market?
> 
> You have to at least understand the frustration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The science of economics has utterly ZERO allowance for "sympathy"*. *My stance is not unsympathetic. I used to make a fine living in photography. I know exactly how the OP feels. Nobody said the world is fair. It's a dog-eat-dog world. *The only thing constant is change.*
> 
> I used to earn more than a month's rent in take-home pay as a portrait shooter, every four days, in the early 1990's. But things changed when flatbed scanners and home computers and a new thing called "digitial imaging technology" arrived on the scene. I left the retail photography field because I saw obvious evidence that the easy money and the high pay were beginning to erode, rapidly. I left a field I loved because I could literally SEE the transition to "instant, on-site digital proofing, viewing, and sales" was having. Believe me, I KNOW how badly the loss of easy money doing photography feels.
> 
> What the OP is lamenting is a lot like what buggy whip manufacturers and workers and leather suppliers must have felt when the automobile made their products basically obsolete, over a very short time frame. But again, to re-state it, this is an issue of economics. The science of economics tells us why the guy lost the client: simple, rudimentary marginal utility analysis can be applied here.
> 
> "Losing business to NEW competition in the real, ever-changing world," would have been a more accurate, fair, and objective way to title this thread. Instead, we were treated to a one-sided title that has an underlying premise : the outdated *assumption that a deliberately chosen career field is a lifetime guarantee to "print money"*.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I can't disagree with anything you're saying, I just thought you were being a big meanie.


----------



## vintagesnaps

The idea someone mentioned about photographers obtaining some sort of certification is something I've read about (somewhere)... Not as a requirement to take photos for pay but as an option for photographers who want to have a way to show that they meet certain standards or requirements as professionals.

That could give prospective clients a way to choose a photographer that they know will be able to do the job well. I don't know if it will ever happen but I'd like to see it. I know PPA has their own system but something more universal that isn't just done by one organization might be more useful.

And yes Tecboy, shooting sports _is_ hard work! At least in my experience - and time getting in some practice, being on your feet, learning all the ins & outs of it, etc. That's partly why I find it hard to understand why a university would use someone inexperienced at it, but maybe we're out of the loop on the whole story here.



I'm glad at least now to know the evolution of the term buttload - it must be regional and hasn't gotten this far across the country yet, I'm still on boatload!


----------



## bribrius

vintagesnaps said:


> The idea someone mentioned about photographers obtaining some sort of certification is something I've read about (somewhere)... Not as a requirement to take photos for pay but as an option for photographers who want to have a way to show that they meet certain standards or requirements as professionals.
> 
> That could give prospective clients a way to choose a photographer that they know will be able to do the job well. I don't know if it will ever happen but I'd like to see it. I know PPA has their own system but something more universal that isn't just done by one organization might be more useful.
> 
> And yes Tecboy, shooting sports _is_ hard work! At least in my experience - and time getting in some practice, being on your feet, learning all the ins & outs of it, etc. That's partly why I find it hard to understand why a university would use someone inexperienced at it, but maybe we're out of the loop on the whole story here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad at least now to know the evolution of the term buttload - it must be regional and hasn't gotten this far across the country yet, I'm still on boatload!


certification far as my experience works as a barrier to entry in some aspects for certain markets as well as is used heavily as a sales gimmick.
I couldn't say those in industries with certifications are necessarily or actually more qualified to do the work. While I believe in SOME instances it may add a level of professionalism and encourage more knowledge in said trade or craft it seems in others not so much. The level of requirements for certifications in some fields is extremely low. What it does in those cases is primarily suffice as a sales gimmick giving a false sense of security to the buyer of services.


----------



## manaheim

And who would push that sort of legislation through? The majority population of professional photographers?


----------



## slackercruster

bribrius said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea someone mentioned about photographers obtaining some sort of certification is something I've read about (somewhere)... Not as a requirement to take photos for pay but as an option for photographers who want to have a way to show that they meet certain standards or requirements as professionals.
> 
> That could give prospective clients a way to choose a photographer that they know will be able to do the job well. I don't know if it will ever happen but I'd like to see it. I know PPA has their own system but something more universal that isn't just done by one organization might be more useful.
> 
> And yes Tecboy, shooting sports _is_ hard work! At least in my experience - and time getting in some practice, being on your feet, learning all the ins & outs of it, etc. That's partly why I find it hard to understand why a university would use someone inexperienced at it, but maybe we're out of the loop on the whole story here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad at least now to know the evolution of the term buttload - it must be regional and hasn't gotten this far across the country yet, I'm still on boatload!
> 
> 
> 
> certification far as my experience works as a barrier to entry in some aspects for certain markets as well as is used heavily as a sales gimmick.
> I couldn't say those in industries with certifications are necessarily or actually more qualified to do the work. While I believe in SOME instances it may add a level of professionalism and encourage more knowledge in said trade or craft it seems in others not so much. The level of requirements for certifications in some fields is extremely low. What it does in those cases is primarily suffice as a sales gimmick giving a false sense of security to the buyer of services.
Click to expand...

 

Common guys, certs are just wishful thinking. There are no photo police to enforce this dream.

I'd suggest you do photos for love and not for $. There is an old saying that they wont accept here..."Don't s*** where you eat." That is what you poor photogs are doing here. Your s***ing where you eat. Your ruining your love of photography just to make a few lousy bucks shooting junk so you can say 'Hey...look at me I'm a pro!" .

Would you really spend your time shooting this garbage if there wasn't a small payment made to you? Shoot what you love and make your living someplace else and all will be right. Don't s*** where you eat.


----------



## DevC

DevC said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photography is by no means monopolistic competition, btw.  Monopolistic competition is a small group of very large businesses that compete enough such that there is no actual monopoly, but their combined market power make it essentially impossible for new entrants into the market.
> 
> The auto industry is the prime example of MC.
Click to expand...

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe you are confusing what an oligopoly is with what is monopolistic competion.
Definition of Monopolistic Competition:A monopolistic competition pertains to an industry infrastructure that has characteristics of competition and monopoly. The industry comprises many firms, which offer substitute products, and many buyers. Although the products are substitutes, they are differentiated on the basis of physical attributes, image, advertisements and accompanying services. For example, Dominos and Pizza Hut offer pizza but they are differentiated on the basis of ingredients, recipes and taste. Companies within the industry can gain monopoly over their competitors by offering superior products or better service.

*The photography market falls prime to this since photographers create unique yet the same product.

*
Definition of Oligopoly: Oligopoly is an industry infrastructure that is dominated by a limited number of firms that function independently of each other. The two varieties of oligopoly are undifferentiated and differentiated. Undifferentiated oligopoly refers to companies that sell the same product or commodity, such as a barrel of oil or an ounce of gold. Differentiated oligopoly is when different companies sell the same products but with differentiated features. For example, automobile manufacturers sell the same product (cars) but offer different makes and models.


Source:The Four Types of Industry Infrastructures | Chron.com


----------



## astroNikon

Geez .. don't make me pull out my Econ & Law books

The entry into photography is you go to BestBuy and spend a couple hundred.
Paint a sign and plunk it down in the ground (or electronic) and you have a business.

How do other photographers prevent new entries??  

There's not much limiting entry into this in comparison to a new car company which needs boatloads, or buttloads, of cash to start, such as Tesla.   Of course there are exceptions to alot of money such as this company ==> Elio Motors: Ultra High Mileage Vehicle 
There was another local car company started last year ... with a small 3 wheeled car.  I think they bit the dust already.  Of course you can start a car company based on someone else's car too (alot of muscle cars are like this).

Quality is always in peoples mind.  but the term "quality" can vary greatly from person to person especially in photography.  If you have a car that breaks down alot but is low cost (think Yugo) then you get quick entry into the market until people stop buying it because it's not reliable.  In photography you can have the same thing, quick entry, steal away business but if quality is low people will stop using that photographer after word gets around.

you hope people base their photography charges based on their quality.
Sometimes people do it for free, which messes up that equation.
There are no federal, state or local guidelines on what a photographer should charge from what little I know about it.


----------



## Stradawhovious

astroNikon said:


> There are no federal, state or local guidelines on what a photographer should charge from what little I know about it.


 
The government dictating what people of all vocations charge for their services?  If that were the case, losing business to amateurs would be the least of our collective worries.

Dude lost out to an amateur.  Sucks.  Life goes on.  Seems to me the REAL issue here isn't that amateurs are taking work from the pros, it's that the consumer's expectation of quality has changed.  It has happened to almost every other consumer good in existance.  Cars, electronics, textiles, hell... even food.  There is an inexpensive option for EVERYTHING I can think of that will to the eyes of the majority seem very acceptable in quality at a fraction of the cost... in this case "free" (as far as we know).  Target's brand "Up", Costco's brand "Kirkland",  Walmart, Walgreens, etc etc etc etc etc.

Instead of complaining about the amateur, educate the consumer.  A consumer will generally take quality over savings every time when properly educated.  I worked in sales for 10 years, and was very effective at taking more money than people wanted to spend by educating them about my product.


----------



## snerd

Stradawhovious said:


> ....... Instead of complaining about the amateur, educate the consumer.  A consumer will generally take quality over savings every time when properly educated.  I worked in sales for 10 years, and was very effective at taking more money than people wanted to spend by educating them about my product.


Nothing happens in this world until somebody sells something.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

"Certification" is a silly idea.

Photography is, first and foremost, an art form. We don't ask that painters be certified, nor poets, nor sculptors. Likewise, it would be nonsensical to expect some sort of certification for photographers.

The logistics alone would make it a virtual impossibility and, again, because it's "art", any certification would be meaningless...


----------



## 12sndsgood

its changing like the cd is. I used to love buying a cd for that tangible thing, but now even I Just listen to Pandora or some other online music scource, the industry changed and so is the photography industry, some will rise to the top, some will sink, you have to find what works for you. there are people out there making big money in photography still while others are turning in there cameras left and right due to areas closing up, and so the real goal doesn't become making rules and laws to force others out but to learn what you need to do to take yourself to the top.


----------



## minicoop1985

There's a freaking union of photographers here in WI. I have no idea why there's a union of photographers, as membership means absolutely squat and I can't fathom what the union could really offer, as it's mainly for established photography businesses. I mean if there were mentorship programs, I'd be all over that, but...


----------



## bribrius

minicoop1985 said:


> There's a freaking union of photographers here in WI. I have no idea why there's a union of photographers, as membership means absolutely squat and I can't fathom what the union could really offer, as it's mainly for established photography businesses. I mean if there were mentorship programs, I'd be all over that, but...


got a link for the union photography ?

wondering if their work is a cut above most others since unions push that quality and pride thing.


----------



## snowbear

Some just push prices up.


----------



## manaheim

Is this still going? Yeesh.

Wow my memory of MC has drifted drastically from reality. Weird.

Ah well. Getting old.


----------



## photoguy99

It is worth noting that the bellyaching about business going away is not without merit.

Our society as a whole is moving in a bad direction. Technology and globalization allowed photography, and 100 other trades, to be eliminated as viable jobs. There's no law that says these need to be replaced with other equivalently viable jobs.

Henry Ford deliberately paid his guys enough so they could afford his cars. Henry could do math. Modern corporate leaders cannot. The goal is to produce products that can be afforded by people who work for someone else.

The march of technology is an inexorable component here, but so is the modern corporate attitude of placing profits first (and this is a very modern idea, make no mistake). Photography wasn't ruined by Apple paying people pennies a day in Bangladesh to build iPads, but there are similarities and relationships.

Guilds and unions put people first. Well, that's the idea, anyways.

The loss of each individual career, be it photographer, buggy whip maker, tailor, cobbler, or what have you, makes sense as a consequence of natural economic forces. Overall the pattern is driven as much by corporatism as economics, though.

When they come for your career, rest assured, there will probably be a few people left to explain how it was inevitable, you have to adapt, and perhaps you were just very bad at it. When we reach endgame, with 500 CEOs building products with near slave labor, products that there's nobody left on earth that is paid enough to buy, well, I guess we'll see some changes.


----------



## Gary A.

photoguy99 said:


> It is worth noting that the bellyaching about business going away is not without merit.
> 
> Our society as a whole is moving in a bad direction. Technology and globalization allowed photography, and 100 other trades, to be eliminated as viable jobs. There's no law that says these need to be replaced with other equivalently viable jobs.
> 
> Henry Ford deliberately paid his guys enough so they could afford his cars. Henry could do math. Modern corporate leaders cannot. The goal is to produce products that can be afforded by people who work for someone else.
> 
> The march of technology is an inexorable component here, but so is the modern corporate attitude of placing profits first (and this is a very modern idea, make no mistake). Photography wasn't ruined by Apple paying people pennies a day in Bangladesh to build iPads, but there are similarities and relationships.
> 
> Guilds and unions put people first. Well, that's the idea, anyways.
> 
> The loss of each individual career, be it photographer, buggy whip maker, tailor, cobbler, or what have you, makes sense as a consequence of natural economic forces. Overall the pattern is driven as much by corporatism as economics, though.
> 
> When they come for your career, rest assured, there will probably be a few people left to explain how it was inevitable, you have to adapt, and perhaps you were just very bad at it. When we reach endgame, with 500 CEOs building products with near slave labor, products that there's nobody left on earth that is paid enough to buy, well, I guess we'll see some changes.



A ton of valid and good points. Can't quite swallow the summary ... but that's okay, it was all speculation anyway.


----------



## photoguy99

I don't have any answers and I have no idea how it's going to play out. I do know a little about the various forces in play.


----------



## minicoop1985

The union appears to actually have started doing some mentorship things, but on a small scale. I learned about it 5 years ago from my wedding photographer.


----------



## Gary A.

While I haven't any data to support my speculative statement ... but it seems that corporate greed has replaced corporate responsibility.


----------



## minicoop1985

Gary A. said:


> While I haven't any data to support my speculative statement ... but it seems that corporate greed has replaced corporate responsibility.



I can't help but to agree.


----------



## KenC

Gary A. said:


> it seems that corporate greed has replaced corporate responsibility.



been a while now ...


----------



## imagemaker46

I had stopped reading most of the responses a few days ago. I did however find out that the poacher is now shooting Jr hockey for $50 per game. I did some figuring on this one. I believe there are 40 home games, each game is around 2-3 hours. There is the parking fee of $10 per game, and all the post process work.  While it does look like on the surface she is making $2000 for the season, take away the $400 for parking, the post time and she is making less than minimum wage.  I suppose as long as she's happy with that, and probably hasn't figured out she really isn't making any money at all, then good for her.  There has been some very negative chatter among the other photographers in town about her practices, and it is getting chilly for her.  You get what you get.  Some will want to call it an old boys club, but the majority of those affected are the young guys just trying to get by that need the work.  

I've decided to retire, buy a nice knife and become a plastic surgeon. Does Best Buy sell knives to amateurs for professional work?  I'm thinking of diceandslice.com or oopsplasticsurgery.com. The motto would be "For when you don't care how you look in the mirror" Just getting the business cards and web site done up. I'm thinking of starting on facebook, and then working up to the pro ranks on Craigslist.  Promo deal would be the first 3 cuts are free.  Anyone know where I can buy the dummies guide to plastic surgery, Chapters didn't have a copy.  I've always had a passion for plastic surgery and my family and friends said the breast reconstruction on the neighbours lawn gnome was nearly good enough that you couldn't even see where the glue was.

Photography the only business people go into when they retire.


----------



## limr

Well, actually no. Retired people also think they can teach English or ESL because, y'know, they speak it, so they can teach it, too, right?

Wrong.

One of these types once asked me about what the problem was with these foreign students. "Why can't they learn the grammar? It's the same as in their language, just with different vocabulary." He really thought that all languages share the same grammar rules but just plugged in different words.

Even the double facepalm wasn't enough for that.

But it's not just English. "If you can't do, teach." Right? It's just as misguided as, "Well, I just have to get a good camera, right?"

There are certain professions that people think they can just do without training, or by learning on the fly, and they'll be good at it. Photography is one of them, but it's not the only one.


----------



## tirediron

imagemaker46 said:


> ...Photography the only business people go into when they retire.


Mmmmmm... not so much.  House inspector is a common one, as is "handy-man".  If you know anyone in the construction trades, ask them about that!


----------



## JacaRanda

If she has a bootyload of money, then making less than minimum wage probably does not worry her.  
Making things chilly for her, should really help the young guys that need the work.


----------



## Gary A.

KenC said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> it seems that corporate greed has replaced corporate responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> been a while now ...
Click to expand...

Sadly yes.


----------



## DevC

imagemaker46 said:


> I had stopped reading most of the responses a few days ago. I did however find out that the poacher is now shooting Jr hockey for $50 per game. I did some figuring on this one. I believe there are 40 home games, each game is around 2-3 hours. There is the parking fee of $10 per game, and all the post process work.  While it does look like on the surface she is making $2000 for the season, take away the $400 for parking, the post time and she is making less than minimum wage.  I suppose as long as she's happy with that, and probably hasn't figured out she really isn't making any money at all, then good for her.  There has been some very negative chatter among the other photographers in town about her practices, and it is getting chilly for her.  You get what you get.  Some will want to call it an old boys club, but the majority of those affected are the young guys just trying to get by that need the work.
> 
> I've decided to retire, buy a nice knife and become a plastic surgeon. Does Best Buy sell knives to amateurs for professional work?  I'm thinking of diceandslice.com or oopsplasticsurgery.com. The motto would be "For when you don't care how you look in the mirror" Just getting the business cards and web site done up. I'm thinking of starting on facebook, and then working up to the pro ranks on Craigslist.  Promo deal would be the first 3 cuts are free.  Anyone know where I can buy the dummies guide to plastic surgery, Chapters didn't have a copy.  I've always had a passion for plastic surgery and my family and friends said the breast reconstruction on the neighbours lawn gnome was nearly good enough that you couldn't even see where the glue was.
> 
> Photography the only business people go into when they retire.



And this is why we have minimum wage laws set in place.


----------



## Gary A.

imagemaker46 said:


> I had stopped reading most of the responses a few days ago. I did however find out that the poacher is now shooting Jr hockey for $50 per game. I did some figuring on this one. I believe there are 40 home games, each game is around 2-3 hours. There is the parking fee of $10 per game, and all the post process work.  While it does look like on the surface she is making $2000 for the season, take away the $400 for parking, the post time and she is making less than minimum wage.  I suppose as long as she's happy with that, and probably hasn't figured out she really isn't making any money at all, then good for her.  There has been some very negative chatter among the other photographers in town about her practices, and it is getting chilly for her.  You get what you get.  Some will want to call it an old boys club, but the majority of those affected are the young guys just trying to get by that need the work.
> 
> I've decided to retire, buy a nice knife and become a plastic surgeon. Does Best Buy sell knives to amateurs for professional work?  I'm thinking of diceandslice.com or oopsplasticsurgery.com. The motto would be "For when you don't care how you look in the mirror" Just getting the business cards and web site done up. I'm thinking of starting on facebook, and then working up to the pro ranks on Craigslist.  Promo deal would be the first 3 cuts are free.  Anyone know where I can buy the dummies guide to plastic surgery, Chapters didn't have a copy.  I've always had a passion for plastic surgery and my family and friends said the breast reconstruction on the neighbours lawn gnome was nearly good enough that you couldn't even see where the glue was.
> 
> Photography the only business people go into when they retire.


Costco has a pretty good deal on some KitchenAid knives.


----------



## imagemaker46

When I said photography was the "only" one, it was a generalization. I realize there are other fields of work that people attempt to go into.


----------



## gsgary

photoguy99 said:


> It is worth noting that the bellyaching about business going away is not without merit.
> 
> Our society as a whole is moving in a bad direction. Technology and globalization allowed photography, and 100 other trades, to be eliminated as viable jobs. There's no law that says these need to be replaced with other equivalently viable jobs.
> 
> Henry Ford deliberately paid his guys enough so they could afford his cars. Henry could do math. Modern corporate leaders cannot. The goal is to produce products that can be afforded by people who work for someone else.
> 
> The march of technology is an inexorable component here, but so is the modern corporate attitude of placing profits first (and this is a very modern idea, make no mistake). Photography wasn't ruined by Apple paying people pennies a day in Bangladesh to build iPads, but there are similarities and relationships.
> 
> Guilds and unions put people first. Well, that's the idea, anyways.
> 
> The loss of each individual career, be it photographer, buggy whip maker, tailor, cobbler, or what have you, makes sense as a consequence of natural economic forces. Overall the pattern is driven as much by corporatism as economics, though.
> 
> When they come for your career, rest assured, there will probably be a few people left to explain how it was inevitable, you have to adapt, and perhaps you were just very bad at it. When we reach endgame, with 500 CEOs building products with near slave labor, products that there's nobody left on earth that is paid enough to buy, well, I guess we'll see some changes.


Henry Ford also gave lots of his profit to the Nazi party


----------



## vintagesnaps

I'd said some pages ago that I'd read about the idea/suggestion of some sort of certification - or whatever it might be called - for photographers - if they'd so choose to do. I didn't say anything about it being legislated. Or required. Or anything like that (apparently some people misread my post).  

As I said, I can't remember where I read about it, but the idea would be I think comparable to what PPA has available for its members who want a way to show they meet certain standards of professionalism. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have something similar not just specific to one organization. Then it would be a way for prospective clients to at least know they'll get something better than a CD full of crappy photos and after their wedding, the photographer is nowhere to be found (and the client's money is long gone).

Maybe the photographer in this case getting the big chill will think about if she was rather misguided in the way she's going about this. Or not. I think Scott's right. Sometimes you get what you give and for her karma might be a *****. Up to her if she learns something from this or not.


----------



## DGMPhotography

Yep.. it sucks. 

I probably do it myself without knowing. Compared to more experienced photographers, what I charge is probably pretty cheap, but I charge based on how much experience I have. And I've noticed that my work is sometimes better than the "pros," who charge way more. Some customers are dumb and will pay the higher amount for more lower quality work. Some customers are dumb and will accept low quality work for low cost. In essence, most customers are dumb. I think you have to inform them of the difference in quality and the reasoning for your price. 

But that's also just how the competitive landscape is. You have to offer something new to stay ahead. Perhaps I would also do the shoot for free on the contingency that if the client likes the photos that they have to pay, or else take the crap the guy shot for free. It's a risk. I agree in that it's probably safe to say that photography as a career is probably becoming a more difficult thing to do. But for those lucky few who get into the big leagues (photographing celebrities and what not), there's possibilities. And that's what I'm striving for. Here's to hoping to shoot with Taylor Swift one day <3

And my condolences for your friend!


----------



## photoguy99

gsgary said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is worth noting that the bellyaching about business going away is not without merit.
> 
> Our society as a whole is moving in a bad direction. Technology and globalization allowed photography, and 100 other trades, to be eliminated as viable jobs. There's no law that says these need to be replaced with other equivalently viable jobs.
> 
> Henry Ford deliberately paid his guys enough so they could afford his cars. Henry could do math. Modern corporate leaders cannot. The goal is to produce products that can be afforded by people who work for someone else.
> 
> The march of technology is an inexorable component here, but so is the modern corporate attitude of placing profits first (and this is a very modern idea, make no mistake). Photography wasn't ruined by Apple paying people pennies a day in Bangladesh to build iPads, but there are similarities and relationships.
> 
> Guilds and unions put people first. Well, that's the idea, anyways.
> 
> The loss of each individual career, be it photographer, buggy whip maker, tailor, cobbler, or what have you, makes sense as a consequence of natural economic forces. Overall the pattern is driven as much by corporatism as economics, though.
> 
> When they come for your career, rest assured, there will probably be a few people left to explain how it was inevitable, you have to adapt, and perhaps you were just very bad at it. When we reach endgame, with 500 CEOs building products with near slave labor, products that there's nobody left on earth that is paid enough to buy, well, I guess we'll see some changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford also gave lots of his profit to the Nazi party
Click to expand...


What conceivable relationship to anything anyone is talking about does this remark have?


----------



## Derrel

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> *I've decided to retire, buy a nice knife and become a plastic surgeon. Does Best Buy sell knives to amateurs for professional work? *



Seems like you are confusing an actual, real, genuine, bona fide *profession *with a mere trade or craft.

A profession requires extensive and rigorous formal education, a substantial internship period, a residency, and finally a series of rigorous certification examinations to join a very exclusive *profession*, with explicit rules for conduct, practices, and legally binding rules for violations of professional standards and practices.

The photography trade requires nothing more than a person proclaiming, "I am a photographer!" BOOM! Instant photographer. Buy a few tools,and one is...a photographer. No required education, no required internship, no apprenticeship, no examinations, no board examinations, no licensing, no nothing required.

It is more demanding,and more difficult, to become a hairdresser or a barber than it is to become a photographer.


----------



## imagemaker46

Derrel,  All I can say is try putting 15 hour days for three straight weeks of shooting in +90f and in the same day -45 after spending an hour climbing a mountain with 40 pounds of gear on your back and then tell me that it is easier than cutting hair.

Your lack of a sense of humour in regards to my plastic surgeon comments has obviously been lost on someone that sits behind a desk pushing a pen around for a living.

The difference is that my desk is 7,926.41 miles around, and not a 6x6 cube.


----------



## snowbear

When I was a police dispatcher (a million years ago) we used to get a lot of calls from convenience store clerks whom were also part time brain surgeons, so you might be onto something.


----------



## imagemaker46

I've met a few taxi drivers that were doctors in their country of origin.


----------



## BillM

She did the first gig for free, now she is charging $50 for a shoot, in a year she will be trying for $1000 an hour. That is when people will stop hiring her, UNLESS she is good enough to demand that wage. She either had a plan or she just figured out that it is in fact hard work. People do this in every line of work, look up Internship. I work for someone who started as an unpaid Intern. Didn't the young photographer who lost his client in the OP do an Internship with someone ? I believe he did. It is not uncommon. And in this case the woman in question had a connection and she used it to get her foot in the door. That happens in every line of work too. It happens every day in almost every line of work, people get screwed all the damn time. 

And Photography is an art form. So lets look at another art form, Music. The kid sitting in the subway playing his six string isn't going to put The Rolling Stones out of work BUT if he is really talented he just might find his way out of the subway. And then you know what will happen ? He will start playing for more than pocket change tossed at him by by commuters. And you know what that causes ? Another performer loses a gig because this kid would do it for less to get out of the subway. And then the next kid will displace him to get out of the subway. So he also has two choices, get better or get out of the way. Welcome to the real world !!!!!!


----------



## Vince.1551

Derrel said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've decided to retire, buy a nice knife and become a plastic surgeon. Does Best Buy sell knives to amateurs for professional work? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Seems like you are confusing an actual, real, genuine, bona fide profession with a mere trade or craft.*
> 
> *A profession requires extensive and rigorous formal education, a substantial internship period, a residency, and finally a series of rigorous certification examinations to join a very exclusive profession, with explicit rules for conduct, practices, and legally binding rules for violations of professional standards and practices.*
> 
> *The photography trade requires nothing more than a person proclaiming, "I am a photographer!" BOOM! Instant photographer. Buy a few tools,and one is...a photographer. No required education, no required internship, no apprenticeship, no examinations, no board examinations, no licensing, no nothing required.*
> 
> *It is more demanding,and more difficult, to become a hairdresser or a barber than it is to become a photographer.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely the issue here. Every so often I hear someone who makes a buck or two from photography calls themselves a professional. And some Pros who can't even deliver quality work. Don't be surprised if I tell you that many Pros failed their distinction exams in our society. Likewise, some people who can snap a picture calling all their shots works of art.
> 
> And that is why I advocate, especially for professionals, to obtain some form of certification AND photography distinctions like associateships or fellowships in their field of work. Unfortunately most do not drive their business in a specific area of work. I can understand that as business is tough but at least try to excel in one area. Bearing in mind these distinction exams drives you to understand what is meant by quality work and not just a 'feel good' piece of paper.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## photoguy99

Derrel said it was easier to become a photographer than a hairdresser.

Not that it was easier to do the job. Just easier to enter the profession. And he's right. You need a license, which generally means that you've graduated from an approved school, to cut hair.

This is why the internet sucks. People don't bother to read what you write. They skim, guess at what you probably meant, and respond to that.

There's no penalty for guessing wrong, and it's quick, and often gratifying. So why bother with all that pesky reading?


----------



## snowbear

In another year, SHE may be complaining about all the NEWER people shooting for free.


----------



## Josh66

limr said:


> Well, actually no. Retired people also think they can teach English or ESL because, y'know, they speak it, so they can teach it, too, right?


In my third year of Japanese, we had an English teacher who was Japanese.  They thought that since he knew Japanese, and knew how to teach English, teaching Japanese should be easy.  I can sort of see the logic behind it (he could teach *a* language, and he could speak the one they wanted him to teach), but it didn't work out as well as they hoped.  It turns out that Japanese and English don't really have much in common.


----------



## @JasonChildren

I have to say that if ypu lose a gig you lose a gig. Doesnt matter whether the other shutter dog is being paid or not. We live in a world where great content is all around us. Adapt or die.


----------



## Vince.1551

@JasonChildren said:


> I have to say that if ypu lose a gig you lose a gig. Doesnt matter whether the other shutter dog is being paid or not. We live in a world where great content is all around us. Adapt or die.


Well Said !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## imagemaker46

A year ago i was bitter at how the business was changing, I took it personally and that was my first mistake.  I struggled to find enough work, stressed over everything, had a heart attack, got repaired and felt sorry for myself that my career was failing apart.  Last year I didn't see anything getting better.  I was wrong. Things turned around and I found myself enjoying what I was doing the good shoots were coming fast, and I stopped being as stressed. 

This goes back to what @JasonChildren said, I stopped worrying about losing shoots, became a more positive person and changed my overall mental attitude, not just towards photography but life in general and it has now been the best year I've had in over a decade.  Once I accepted the change in photography(I don't like it, and I still get annoyed dealing with people offering advice that aren't in my business that just don't understand) but now I don't take anything personally.

The original comments I started with had nothing to do with me losing a job, but a friend, he was trying to deal with losing the gig to a person that didn't need the money, and shoots for free, or very little.  I have no problem if someone loses a shoot to an amateur that can do the job, and is charging a competitive rate. Then they are working on more even ground.  I have lost shoots to other professionals, and I have other professionals nipping at my heals all the time, but I also have professionals that treat me with enough respect that they won't go after my clients, and that I appreciate as I treat them with the same respect.


----------



## Warhorse

Some would say that these types of "pro's", are like sharks circling in for the kill.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

imagemaker46 said:


> I had stopped reading most of the responses a few days ago. I did however find out that the poacher is now shooting Jr hockey for $50 per game. I did some figuring on this one. I believe there are 40 home games, each game is around 2-3 hours. There is the parking fee of $10 per game, and all the post process work.  While it does look like on the surface she is making $2000 for the season, take away the $400 for parking, the post time and she is making less than minimum wage.



You're making some assumptions here. First, I've never shot any type of event, sports or otherwise, for which I was required to pay for parking. It's one of the first things I make sure the client knows I will not pay for. I've never had a problem negotiating that. She may well have done the same.

Second, you're assuming she's shooting the entire game. I know plenty of people who actually don't do that, and they're shooting at both the collegiate and professional levels. 

You're also making an assumption of how much post-production she does. I've shot events where I've had to do exactly zero PP work. Nothing. It's not unheard of.



> I suppose as long as she's happy with that, and probably hasn't figured out she really isn't making any money at all, then good for her.



Again, it probably isn't the primary concern for her.



> There has been some very negative chatter among the other photographers in town about her practices, and it is getting chilly for her.  You get what you get.



What the other photographers think doesn't matter. What do their _clients _think? How many of their clients would jump at the chance to pay someone a fraction of what they have been spending and getting acceptable photos in return?



> Some will want to call it an old boys club, but the majority of those affected are the young guys just trying to get by that need the work.



Well, then they can go look for work elsewhere, can't they?

I've never allowed myself to assume that I'm entitled to work for someone, but it certainly seems like you believe your buddy is entitled to work for this school. Schools are businesses, and businesses watch where they spend money. Your friend has been undercut by someone who has shown the school that she can provide acceptable images for a lower price. That represents "value" to the school. 

Your friend sounds like someone who's unable to keep a client. I have plenty of clients who've been approached by others, offering the same (or more) for less, and my clients have turned them down. It's called "loyalty", and it's something that a photographer needs to cultivate and maintain. 

It sounds like your friend wasn't much good at doing that.



> I've decided to retire, buy a nice knife and become a plastic surgeon.



This is, of course, a silly statement. The "poacher" as you refer to her is probably a much better photographer than you would ever be a plastic surgeon.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

imagemaker46 said:


> Derrel,  All I can say is try putting 15 hour days for three straight weeks of shooting in +90f and in the same day -45 after spending an hour climbing a mountain with 40 pounds of gear on your back and then tell me that it is easier than cutting hair.
> 
> ****snip****
> 
> The difference is that my desk is 7,926.41 miles around, and not a 6x6 cube.



My "desk" is wherever I choose to be, as well.

But I don't try to impress anyone with that. Why? Because it's really not all that impressive.


----------



## imagemaker46

Innuendo, you are the one making assumptions, I'm close enough to the situation in this small market that I do know the details that she is working under, who she is working for and how much she is getting paid.  I know the conditions that she is shooting under as well, and there is post involved, it is near impossible under the lights in the arena to get away without correction.  Basically you have made statements that you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding about.  Should I assume that you are not a full time working professional?

I do this for a living, as a full time photographer, so making the statement about where I work, I could have just said world wide.  I wasn't looking to impress anyone with what I have said. Derrel took some of his every now and then cheap shots at a working professional.  I just responded to that.

Again another person lost with a sarcastic statement about being a plastic surgeon.


----------



## Warhorse

I guess your dreams of being a plastic surgeon are okay enough.

Dream on!!


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

imagemaker46 said:


> Innuendo, you are the one making assumptions, I'm close enough to the situation in this small market that I do know the details that she is working under, who she is working for and how much she is getting paid.  I know the conditions that she is shooting under as well, and there is post involved, it is near impossible under the lights in the arena to get away without correction.  Basically you have made statements that you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding about.  Should I assume that you are not a full time working professional?



You can assume whatever you wish; I don't care.

I am, in fact, a full time professional, and I have a long list of long-time clients. I make sure those clients are happy, and uninterested in hiring someone else. Your friend failed in doing that. You can whine about whatever you wish but, at its core, that's the problem: Your friend allowed himself to lose a client. That's not even something that can be debated.



> I do this for a living, as a full time photographer, so making the statement about where I work, I could have just said world wide.  I wasn't looking to impress anyone with what I have said. Derrel took some of his every now and then cheap shots at a working professional.  I just responded to that.



I don't know Derrell from Adam, so I won't comment about what he's said. He's taken no cheap shots at me, so I'm unaffected. Then again, I'm not some entitled guy who calls himself a pro, only to complain when I lose a client. I'm proud to say I've never been fired by a client. I've fired some, but have never been shown the door by any of them. 



> Again another person lost with a sarcastic statement about being a plastic surgeon.



Well, your comment was pretty silly. 

You chose to use an example something which requires years of formal education and compared it to something which does not. One is a medical specialty, the other is an art form. 

Should I "assume" that you think you would be a better plastic surgeon than a photographer?

LOL!


----------



## vintagesnaps

Universities don't function like for profit businesses. The one near me is large enough to have photographers as employees and has student photographers but I don't know if they ever contract that type work out.

I just found using a volunteer for a previously contracted position rather surprising as strict as things are these days with usage and from what I know of NCAA regs related to photography (but of course it depends on where you live). We don't know if the school was happy with the photographer's work or why the change was made.

And why couldn't photography be a profession? Certainly there are people with cameras calling themselves what they want (and I guess time will tell how long they last at it) but there are photographers that would be considered professionals. Take a look at Sportsshooter. I took a sports photography workshop with a photographer who won the Pulitzer, I don't know if he has a degree but he's one that would be considered a professional photographer.


----------



## imagemaker46

I have no idea what kind of photography you are involved with Innuendo, perhaps you are less affected than other fields.  I work almost entirely shooting sports. I have a good client base and that's what really matters to me. I know how good I am with a camera, I produce consistently good images on every shoot, and that's all I care about, my clients appreciate the work I do.  Who knows maybe I would have made a good plastic surgeon, I guess we'l never know.  I've never said I'm entitled, many other on this forum say it, which means very little to me.  People online have no idea what I do or how I work with clients, or other photographers.  

Seems that you are capable of summing up a person in the few hundred words that you've read. Most of what people say on this forum is crap anyway, once you weed it all out there are many that have respect for others.  I've lost clients, not due to my work but to their economic concerns, photography is the first to go when they are trying to work a tight budget, and I understand that, especially in the area I work in.  When it comes to photographers overstating  how many clients they have, how much money they make and how busy they are, most pad the truth.  Anyone asks me, they get an honest and straight answer.

Good for you that you've never lost a client, like I said I have no idea what you shoot, if it's shooting pictures of houses, there is always a market for that, and it's pretty easy to do.  In my 40 years shooting, I've seen clients come and go, that's just the way it works, I move on.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

imagemaker46 said:


> I have no idea what kind of photography you are involved with Innuendo, perhaps you are less affected than other fields.  I work almost entirely shooting sports. I have a good client base and that's what really matters to me. I know how good I am with a camera, I produce consistently good images on every shoot, and that's all I care about, my clients appreciate the work I do.



I shoot a number of things, from sports and motorsports to concerts and portraits. I produce consistently good images on every shoot, and that's all I care about.



> People online have no idea what I do or how I work with clients, or other photographers.



Actually, this isn't about you. It's about your friend and his failure to maintain a positive client relationship.

Blaming the woman (aka "The Poacher") is to absolve your friend from his responsibility in ensuring his clients were satisfied with his work to the point where they would not consider another photographer.



> Anyone asks me, they get an honest and straight answer.



Not that it matters an iota to the discussion about your friend but, as you've made it clear that you believe few who make the same claim, why on earth would anyone believe you?


----------



## imagemaker46

Do you have a web site, I'd love to see some of your work. You know from one professional to another.  I think we have exhausted the topic.


----------



## photoguy99

An argument could be made that anyone in procurement who spent $15,000 a year with one vendor, over $0 a year with another equivalent one, based on having a good relationship with the first one is criminally negligent in their fiscal responsibilities.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

imagemaker46 said:


> Do you have a web site



I have some, yes.



> I'd love to see some of your work.



I'm sure you would.

Unfortunately, though, it's pretty clear that you want to see my work so you can attempt to pull it apart and criticize it. Photography being subjective, I'm sure there would be things you could find wrong with my work.

I just don't care.



> You know from one professional to another.



I'm not interested in other professionals reviewing my website. I'm interested in potential clients reviewing my website. I've been in business long enough to know that what I do, and have been doing, works very well.

End of story.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo

photoguy99 said:


> An argument could be made that anyone in procurement who spent $15,000 a year with one vendor, over $0 a year with another equivalent one, based on having a good relationship with the first one is criminally negligent in their fiscal responsibilities.



And that would be a very strong argument, too.


----------



## manaheim

This thread...






Only Over will get that joke.


----------



## snerd

manaheim said:


> This thread...
> 
> View attachment 86819


As opposed to the Leaderboard thread, where we keep it classy!!


----------



## tirediron

imagemaker46 said:


> ...Don't you think other people on this forum might be interested in what you shoot?


I'm always interested in seeing the work of others!


----------



## Warhorse

Great looking photography on your site Scott.


----------



## photoguy99

You guys are talking in circles.


----------



## imagemaker46

photoguy99 said:


> You guys are talking in circles.



Ya I know, really senseless for the most part.


----------



## DevC

Wow, this thread got ugly fast.


----------



## tirediron

Thread de-uglified.


----------



## manaheim

I think it got permanently uglified when it hit 5 pages.

I'm amazed it went this far without turning into a fistfight 10 pages ago.


----------

