# Possibly a new way to make money on your existing photo shoots.



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

What if someone, somewhere around the world is looking for a photo that's very similar to what you are about to shoot. Between your particular style and specialty, your subject matter, locations, gear, setup and the timing of your shoot, you might be in a unique position to take those photos for someone who desperately needs it for their creative project.  

If it was possible for that client to discover your photo shoot, they can work directly with you to get the photos they need. You can make minor adjustments to your existing shoot and deliver the exact photos that they are looking for.

The best part about it is that it’s not going to take too much of your time and effort because you already have the resources and were going to do the photo shoot regardless. But if their request does require extra time and resources, than you charge them accordingly.

Of course, this won’t work for all photo shoots, for instance, if another client is already paying you for it.

This is something I’ve been working on. If you’re interested I can tell you more about it. But I would love to get your thoughts on the concept.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 24, 2016)

NickArt said:


> This is something I’ve been working on. If you’re interested I can tell you more about it. But I would love to get your thoughts on the concept.



Umm... wow.. ok.  Well, do you want the brutally honest answer here that will contain nothing but the truth despite the fact that it is far from charitable?  Or would you rather I just wish you well on your project without any of that information?


----------



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> NickArt said:
> 
> 
> > This is something I’ve been working on. If you’re interested I can tell you more about it. But I would love to get your thoughts on the concept.
> ...



Please be brutally honest.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 24, 2016)

NickArt said:


> Please be brutally honest.



Ok, brutal honesty.  What your describing sounds like more or less a modified version of stock photography, which frankly is pretty much the photographic equivalent of a sweat shop.

I'm not a pro photographer mind you, and I get the fact that your thinking, well, if your out getting paid to shoot A and you get a couple of shots of B while your there maybe I can help you sell B and we can both make a bit of money.

But first of course the big question, who's going to buy B?  You are already competing with hundreds of stock photography sites that sell B or something similar enough to B at prices that frankly would make it almost impossible to compete with them because your photographer is going to expect to actually be paid in something other than peanuts.  Granted they won't be expecting top dollar, but they will be wanting more than a dollar, which honestly when you add in your overhead for server space, maintenance, web design, marketing, etc, etc.. is going to be more than you'll be able to pay and make a profit.

This of course is just the tip of the iceberg, but hopefully enough to illustrate just a few of the stumbling blocks you're bound to run into with a project like this one.


----------



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

Thank you so much for your feedback.  

Let me address the issue you're pointing out.  I've spent the last decade in advertising/marketing and the issue that art directors come across constantly is that stock is okay if what they're looking for is generic, but as soon as they look for something specific, it becomes extremely hard to find. The only other option for them is to do a photo shoot. But unless they are Coca Cola or Nike, they don't have the budget to do a photo shoot for every photo they need. 

Don't get me wrong, stock photos and photo shoots are extremely useful for some situations. But between generic stock photos and expensive photo shoots, there is a pain point for clients and a missed opportunity for photographers.

Talking to many clients what I heard often was that they're willing to pay 5 or 6 times what they would pay for a stock photo from a reputable stock agency (~$600) to get the custom photo they need originally taken for their project. 

Doe's this explain my thinking behind the concept or I'm missing something?


----------



## Overread (May 24, 2016)

If a client is going to pay that much for the shot they want then they won't want to be getting a modification of another shoot. They will want their own shoot doing exactly what they are paying for. At which point your model is basically just a middleman between freelance photographers and clients. 

That isn't anything bad; but it means that you're basically doing nothing that isn't out there already beyond possibly knowing one or two market areas that are not currently well tapped into (depending upon how many you've spoken to and how broad that influence is as well as how genuine those people are to actually paying).


----------



## robbins.photo (May 24, 2016)

NickArt said:


> Thank you so much for your feedback.
> 
> Let me address the issue you're pointing out.  I've spent the last decade in advertising/marketing and the issue that art directors come across constantly is that stock is okay if what they're looking for is generic, but as soon as they look for something specific, it becomes extremely hard to find. The only other option for them is to do a photo shoot. But unless they are Coca Cola or Nike, they don't have the budget to do a photo shoot for every photo they need.
> 
> ...



I guess what you'd be missing would be a way to get these art directors to your website in this massive, vast sea of imagery that bombards them daily.   The marketing on a thing like that would not be cheap, or easy. 

Then you'd of course need to get photographs that are "specific" enough that the art directors would want but not so specific that it ticks off the people actually paying the pro for the actual shoot.  This is a very real danger to the photographer in all this because frankly if I am an art director paying a guy for a shoot and I find out he's signed up with your service and selling shots he was taking on my dime to others for pennies on the dollar compared to what I paid?  I never work with that guy again.


----------



## Designer (May 24, 2016)

NickArt said:


> The best part about it is that it’s not going to take too much of your time and effort because you already have the resources and were going to do the photo shoot regardless.


It sounds to me as if you're going to advertise, and then sort of wait for happenstance to drop an extra couple hundred in your lap.  About how often does that need to happen in order to make wages?  

I'm all for optimistically expecting a serendipitous windfall, but I'm certainly not going to plan for it, nor am I willing to pay money to advertise for it.


----------



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

Thanks for your input.



Overread said:


> If a client is going to pay that much for the shot they want then they won't want to be getting a modification of another shoot. They will want their own shoot doing exactly what they are paying for.


Shoots cost a lot more than that because besides paying for the photographers full rate, they also have to get a location, model, props, gear, travel costs, and many other resources just to set up the shoot. As I said before, that's a viable option in some cases but not all. This way the clients pay less than what would a full photo shoot cost because they, they pay for the unused resources that the photographer has available at the time.




> At which point your model is basically just a middleman between freelance photographers and clients.


If by middleman, you mean I'm providing the platform where all this would be possible, than you're right. But all the communication, collaboration, licensing, transactions, etc. happens between the photographer and the client.



> you're basically doing nothing that isn't out there already



Can you please name few services like this that already exists?


----------



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

> I guess what you'd be missing would be a way to get these art directors to your website in this massive, vast sea of imagery that bombards them daily.   The marketing on a thing like that would not be cheap, or easy.



I would be naive if I thought it would be easy to get art directors on my site but it's not impossible. I've personally seen them go through every single stock site to find what they need literally spending days on it. I know that the pain point exists I just need to make them aware of my service and provide real value.



> Then you'd of course need to get photographs that are "specific" enough that the art directors would want but not so specific that it ticks off the people actually paying the pro for the actual shoot.



I think photographers will benefit from this because I know many shoot all types of photos either for stock, or have their gear while traveling, or shooting for their portfolio. If it's going to take them 2 minutes to post their photo shoot for the possibility of a client discovering and requesting, what do they have to lose?



> This is a very real danger to the photographer in all this because frankly if I am an art director paying a guy for a shoot and I find out he's signed up with your service and selling shots he was taking on my dime to others for pennies on the dollar compared to what I paid?  I never work with that guy again.



100% agree, but as I said before it's not for photo shoots that the photographer is getting paid by a client. There are so many ways that the photographer or the client can cheat or steal from each other. For example, I could take a photo for a client, then turn around and sell it on stock agencies, does that mean stock agencies are bad ideas? Unfortunately, there are going to be bad players no matter what service is out there, I just need to make sure I do everything to protect the good players.


----------



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

> It sounds to me as if you're going to advertise, and then sort of wait for happenstance to drop an extra couple hundred in your lap.  About how often does that need to happen in order to make wages?
> 
> I'm all for optimistically expecting a serendipitous windfall, but I'm certainly not going to plan for it, nor am I willing to pay money to advertise for it.



Let me clarify, In order for this to work, I have to make sure that it's easy for photographers to post every time they have a photo shoot coming up. That's why the process is effortless, only takes a minute to post and it's FREE.

My business plan is to take a small cut once the client pays for the request they made. So if the photographer doesn't get paid, I don't get paid.


----------



## jake337 (May 24, 2016)

So you're pretty much trying to develop a high end stock photo service. 

It seems cool bit I don't think clients dropping that kind of cash on a photoshoot will be calling back when you turn around and sell the images to someone else for a quarter, or third, of the price.

Maybe if there was something in the contract that stayed the images couldn't be resold for a certain period of time.

Also,  could a photographer even do this?   Wouldn't there be clauses in the contract or licensing to not allow this?


----------



## KmH (May 24, 2016)

NickArt said:


> What if someone, somewhere around the world is looking for a photo that's very similar to what you are about to shoot.


The trick is finding and connecting with that someone somewhere around the world in a timely manner, if at all.
Pipe dream - it's just not practical.


----------



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

> The trick is finding and connecting with that someone somewhere around the world in a timely manner, if at all.
> Pipe dream - it's just not practical.



Because of the internet, many other industries are successfully doing precisely this. In the case of photography, this should be even easier to accomplish because we're dealing with a digital product.


----------



## NickArt (May 24, 2016)

jake337 said:


> So you're pretty much trying to develop a high end stock photo service.
> 
> It seems cool bit I don't think clients dropping that kind of cash on a photoshoot will be calling back when you turn around and sell the images to someone else for a quarter, or third, of the price.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your feedback. 

I don't know what you mean by high-end stock photo service, but to me stock photos are photos that already exist, but that's not the case with what I'm doing.

Whether or not the photographer can resell the photos, that's up to the licensing that was agreed between the client and the photographer. If they decided that it should be exclusive than the photographer can't turn around and sell the image to someone. But if it's royalty free, then the photographer can do that. Of course, the type of licensing would also reflect the cost of the photo.


----------



## Dave442 (May 24, 2016)

This happened years ago. Basically what you describe is what was in some correspondence between the government and Ansel Adams. The government asked him to grab some shots for them while he was out-and-about on his other projects and he gave them a discount.

We also have this type of "discount" for heavy machinery. If some big rig is out in a location and near where you also might want to use it then the operator will give a discount for not having to move the rig to the location as the other customer already paid for that.

I think I saw a tweet from 500px that sounded similar, but I didn't look into it. I don't think it went as far as what you are looking to do, but I think it opens the link between the person looking for a particular type of image and a potential photographer. I guess the next step is to let the photographer be more proactive by being able to put up a work program for the next few months so potential clients could make requests to the photographer to grab a few extra shots for them at some location for a discounted price as they are going to be there anyway for another client on that date. 

We have wedding photographers that come to town and they put the word out that they are going to be available and are offering special package pricing on newborn shots or such for a couple days before or after the wedding. So the wedding party paid for their travel and now the photographer can drum up some extra business (this works with a big city photographer coming to a resort town, probably not so much the other way around).


----------



## Vtec44 (May 24, 2016)

For this to work efficiently, you have to somehow have a searchable database with detailed description of each project, and then match with the clients who are looking for something similar.  I'm just waiting for someone to spam such website LOL


----------



## Luke345678 (May 25, 2016)

I'm no expert in the field itself, but it sounds like what you're describing is very similar to stock photography. 

What would make your business, site, etc. stand out? What would you do that would draw photographers to you instead of big names like istockphoto and adobe? 

Not trying to offend or belittle your idea, just some things I would like to hear your response to!


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

A couple issues with this concept which you may not have thought of.

1 - what prevents a client and photog to collaborate outside of your system?
What prevents them, since they probably both can search for each other in the internet from using the service (ie, John Doe from ABC Company [ easily searchable contact on the internet ] and  Jane Doe Photography [also easily searchable] ) to connect to someone and then bypass it altogether.  ie, eBay does not allow you to email email addresses to anyone, or use many webpages.  This helps but does not stop it.  and with clients and Photog using their real names, etc they would be easily searchable

2 - what prevents a client / photog from using the service ONCE and then no more between them.
You could have to have a contract that would prevent them from contact outside of the service for xx term.  Of course, being able to confirm would be impossible, especially if they do not reside in the same, let's say state as you do.  And how would you enforce that ?

3 - how can you identify quality ?  What if the quality is not up to par for the client?  How do you handle refunds ?  Photogs would have to have a full resume to reference, which would give the client full access to communicate and create contracts OUTSIDE of your system without your knowledge.  And of course we've seen many photogs that steal photos from other places to give false praise to their own ability, thus leading to, to say the least, "disappointed clientele" or more acurately, "total disasters".

4 - how would you create a revenue stream?  As mentioned, the communications could easily be circumvented.  Thus you then look at a small fee monthly/annually for the clients and/or photogs.  Of maybe you relie upon ads.

5 - If a photog is doing a photo shoot for someone do not disregard that they would want a contract of how the photo is going to be used.  Which could be a, say, $600 or more fee for unlimited use.  You'll find out the better and higher quality photog used, the more likelihood that they would want a contract for photo use, whether limited or unlimited.

Your concept is like many other redundant concepts out there.  How to gain traction in the market place, how to create revenue, how to maintain and grow the clientele and REPEAT business with the clients/photogs.

You should really develop business concepts.  Run through those business concepts of existing service.  Draw out the positive & negative benefits.  Think like a client.  Think like a Photog.  Because neither of them want to lose any profit to pay a service.


I say business concepts becz a business plan is only good on paper.  It may work but usually is a continuous revision on strategies etc.   Just like advertizing/marketing.  Know your demographics and how to sell and RETAIN them.

Also, don't underestimate what "exactly" what a client is asking for and what the photog can deliver at a certain price point.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> I don't know what you mean by high-end stock photo service, but to me stock photos are photos that already exist, but that's not the case with what I'm doing.



Well in a traditional stock photo service a client wants a photo of something, he goes out to a website and purchases one.  The photo's are already taken by the photographers and uploaded.

In your model as I understand it clients will be able to say I'm looking for a photo of X and you'll connect them with a particular photographer who will take a photo of X assuming that someone hasn't already posted a photo of X on your website, right?

But of course if someone has already posted a photo of X and the client likes it they'd be able to order that one I assume.. so bascially what your looking at is still more or less the same as a stock photo service with the ability to special order to a certain extent.



> Whether or not the photographer can resell the photos, that's up to the licensing that was agreed between the client and the photographer. If they decided that it should be exclusive than the photographer can't turn around and sell the image to someone. But if it's royalty free, then the photographer can do that. Of course, the type of licensing would also reflect the cost of the photo.



Legally this would most likely be true, however I think most clients who are paying a photographer for a photoshoot already would be extremely upset to learn that said photographer used photo's he took at a shoot they paid for and sold them to someone else.  I know I would.  Just because the photographer has the legal right to do so doesn't mean I'd ever hire him again, for anything.  I think a lot of the photographers other clients would feel the same way.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

This actually kinda sounds like Model Mayhem except with a slight twist of client/photog and fees, charges, and contracts and other stipulations.


----------



## ClickAddict (May 25, 2016)

I think what many people are focussing on is the photographer selling the same photo.  What I think the op is looking for is something like the following:

Photographer is contracted by company ABC to take photo of ABC's miracle car wax product.
Photographer sets up shoot as per clients request with a male model dressed as greasy mechanic and another model in a bikini.  (one to show that the product is industry tough and another to show easy to use.  (Yes I'm being very stereotypical...  it's just an example)  The shot ABC is looking for has the models using the product on a car and motorcycle. (She's riding a Harley to appease the Pc crowd   ) 

Photographer posts to his website something along the lines of:  Shoot detail keywords:  Male model Mechanic, Female bikini, sports car, Harley motorcycle, garage, suburban driveway....

company XYZ is looking for a shot of a mechanic under a car (lower body), top hidden beneath car.

They search for Mechanic and find this photographer.

contact him stating what they want.

Photographer, when planning the shoot hires mechanic model for 3 hours rather than 2.  The garage was already paid for, the travel costs are the same.... so for perhaps a few extra dollars to the Mechanic model, and an extra hour shooting, he takes a few extra shots and gets what both companies want.  not the same photo, and no different than hiring the same model for two projects which neither company would argue about. 

I think it's a great idea. I think it would work incredibly well....ONCE you have the massive volume of photographers and companies using it.  That ramping up though is a killer and in my opinion will cause this to fail.  Company goes looking and until there is enough variety of photographers, they will be disappointed and not come back.  Without companies using it, photographers are posting all this info and not getting hits... they will stop using it.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

ClickAddict said:


> I think what many people are focussing on is the photographer selling the same photo.  What I think the op is looking for is something like the following:
> 
> Photographer is contracted by company ABC to take photo of ABC's miracle car wax product.
> Photographer sets up shoot as per clients request with a male model dressed as greasy mechanic and another model in a bikini.  (one to show that the product is industry tough and another to show easy to use.  (Yes I'm being very stereotypical...  it's just an example)  The shot ABC is looking for has the models using the product on a car and motorcycle. (She's riding a Harley to appease the Pc crowd   )
> ...



Ok, so lets assume I'm the art director of the project for which the original photo was taken, one that I paid for.

I find a photo from the same photoshoot I paid for - not the same photo I selected but one from the same shoot, being used by a competitor on their website and discover that the photographer I hired sold it to them through this service, and worse yet they paid far less for it than I did because the photographer used me to finance most of the costs of the shoot.

How likely am I to every hire that photographer again?  Well for me personally the answer to that would be never.  In fact I'd probably go out of my way to make it known that said photographer was doing something pretty underhanded and that he was not the sort of person you'd want to do business with under any circumstances.

Legally, yes, the photographer could do this.. ethically it's a completely different story, most people who are hiring this photographer probably wouldn't consider this ethical behavior at all.

Then of course there is the matter of the site itself - if you "put the photographer in contact" with the business that wants the photo, well you just shot yourself in the foot if your the guy running the website.  Nothing prevents the photographer from eliminating you as the middle man and selling it through your site.

So you'd have to set something up where the photographer would have to upload the pictures to your site and the buyer would have to purchase them from there.. but of course in doing so you as the site owner are now selling the photos to the buyer, not the photographer.

Which means you'd better cover your butt 16 ways from Sunday legally.  You'd better get signed modeling releases from the photographer, make sure all the permits are in order, etc, ad infinitum - because you've just become legally responsible.  It's not insurmountable of course, but it is expensive to get all of the legal stuff sorted out to make sure your covered.  It also makes it more complicated because you will have to require the photographer to do a lot more than just spend a few minutes uploading the photograph.  If you don't then odds are good you'll be leaving yourself open for serious legal hassles down the road.  You can't just go to court and say, well the photographer said they had a release.. because your the one selling the photograph.

If your not the one selling the photograph, well then you just killed your own revenue stream, unless of course you charge the clients or the photographer for the "introduction" - but nobody is going to want to pay you just for an introduction, they want a finished product before they hand over cash.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

Dave442 said:


> This happened years ago. Basically what you describe is what was in some correspondence between the government and Ansel Adams. The government asked him to grab some shots for them while he was out-and-about on his other projects and he gave them a discount.


This is very interesting. I didn't know this about Ansel.



> We have wedding photographers that come to town and they put the word out that they are going to be available and are offering special package pricing on newborn shots or such for a couple days before or after the wedding. So the wedding party paid for their travel and now the photographer can drum up some extra business (this works with a big city photographer coming to a resort town, probably not so much the other way around).


I think this is a great example of how someone can use their current resources or situation as an opportunity to make money.  That's why I think there are many opportunities for photographers to make money. 

Here are some instances where the photographer can use this. For example, if they are traveling with their gear, if they are shooting any type of stock, if they have their own setup like white/green backdrop, food shoot setup, macro setup, product shoot setup, if they are attending an event, in between projects they can collaborate with a talent who also has time, or if they have access to a location, etc. 

A photographer recently told me that he usually is free on the weekends and sometimes takes photos of his twin boys who are very photogenic. So he said he would definitely do a shoot if a client needs a photo of twin boys playing, reading, etc. 

Another photographer told me that sometimes clients say they don’t have enough budget, most of the times she doesn't take the job but sometimes she needs the money. She told me next time this happens, she’ll use this to make extra money and it would be a great bargaining chip with cheap clients.

My point is the capabilities and the opportunities are there, it’s just up to the photographer to see what resources they have available, that could be used to make extra money.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> For this to work efficiently, you have to somehow have a searchable database with detailed description of each project, and then match with the clients who are looking for something similar.  I'm just waiting for someone to spam such website LOL


I hope you don't think I'm spamming. Nice to see someone else from SoCal


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> This actually kinda sounds like Model Mayhem except with a slight twist of client/photog and fees, charges, and contracts and other stipulations.


Don't know how Model Mayhem works but there are so many other industries doing something similar.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > This actually kinda sounds like Model Mayhem except with a slight twist of client/photog and fees, charges, and contracts and other stipulations.
> ...


Where Professional Models Meet Model Photographers - ModelMayhem


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> My point is the capabilities and the opportunities are there, it’s just up to the photographer to see what resources they have available, that could be used to make extra money.



Ok, but see that really doesn't work that well when you stop and think about it.  If I'm out shooting a wedding and want to setup a bowl of fruit at the hotel and shoot that.. great.. but why would a guy pay me huge dinero for an image he can get from pretty much any stock website?  They wouldn't of course.  

The whole "selling point" of your concept is that the photo's aren't just your standard stock photography fare, right?   Sadly though this leads to an almost inherit conflict of interest situation that has been detailed before.  

Sorry but you did ask for brutal honesty.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

If in doubt,
Fund your concept and get the ball rolling
and see where it goes ?

Start small, start local. You'll find that you will be a middleman/broker with all the aforementioned problems above.  Not that they are unsurmountable, just have to revise your operational concepts as time goes on.  Who knows if your specific concept will fly until you actually try.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

Luke345678 said:


> I'm no expert in the field itself, but it sounds like what you're describing is very similar to stock photography.
> 
> What would make your business, site, etc. stand out? What would you do that would draw photographers to you instead of big names like istockphoto and adobe?
> 
> Not trying to offend or belittle your idea, just some things I would like to hear your response to!


I don't think you're belittling my idea. 

Let me explain. Stock photography is for photos that already exist. My concept, on the other hand, is for existing photo shoots. It allows the client to discover the photo shoot that's close to what they need and work with the photographer to get the exact photos they need.


----------



## ClickAddict (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> > I think what many people are focussing on is the photographer selling the same photo.  What I think the op is looking for is something like the following:
> ...




The photos would have to be fairly different of course.  It's not hard to move a few things around, have model change wardrobe, use different props... enough to make it different.  And if it's different enough, there no difference in this being 2 shoots you happen to book back to back to save on location / travel costs for instance.  It comes down to.. do you ever charge some clients more than others?  If having a slow week do you offer discounts?  Because then the same pricing discrepancy exists and can cause the same problem with clients paying more.  If not then you would not be interested in this anyway.   

But in all honesty, I agree with the issue of clients contacting the photographers directly.  That's a major problem that would exist even *if *you could build the user base up on this thing.  Unless the commission is extremely small, they will look to save the money.  And you cant offer your photography services without them being able to view your previous work / existing website... which means they then can find you easily enough.

I personally don't see this getting off the ground, I was just pointing out that I felt many seemed stuck on the selling the "same" photo problem when I didn't believe that's the service the op was proposing.

The reverse of this actually already exists.  A company can post a photo shoot they want a freelancer to shoot for them.  (There are a variety of online freelance job sites, some of which have photography categories)    From a client company point of view, that's much easier anyway.  They state the job, the price they are willing to pay and wait for the photographers to approach them.


----------



## Designer (May 25, 2016)

It seems you're getting mostly reasons why it won't work or create unforeseen problems.  Can you outline for us a typical payout structure?  Start with the secondary client.  How much does he pay?  How much does the photographer make?  Who pays the photographer?  How does the owner of the website get paid?  How much would he typically make on a deal?  How does the breakdown go for licensing?  And anything else that I haven't listed.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

ClickAddict said:


> The photos would have to be fairly different of course.  It's not hard to move a few things around, have model change wardrobe, use different props... enough to make it different.  And if it's different enough, there no difference in this being 2 shoots you happen to book back to back to save on location / travel costs for instance.  It comes down to.. do you ever charge some clients more than others?  If having a slow week do you offer discounts?  Because then the same pricing discrepancy exists and can cause the same problem with clients paying more.  If not then you would not be interested in this anyway.
> 
> But in all honesty, I agree with the issue of clients contacting the photographers directly.  That's a major problem that would exist even *if *you could build the user base up on this thing.  Unless the commission is extremely small, they will look to save the money.  And you cant offer your photography services without them being able to view your previous work / existing website... which means they then can find you easily enough.
> 
> ...



I get where your coming from, I just see this as fraught with problems from the photographers perspective.  If you don't tell the client that your doing the photoshoot for about the fact that you might be selling photos to others, well if the client finds out after the fact they are likely to be extremely ticked off.  Especially when you consider the fact that the people who are most likely going to be interested in shots from that photoshoot are most likely business competitors of some sort.

If you do tell the client your doing the original shoot for, I guess the first question they would want answered is why am I paying full price for photos that someone else is getting for a lot less? Why am I paying you as the photographer for your time on this photoshoot when the other guy is only having to pay for the final product? 

Either way your looking at damaging your reputation with the client, and frankly almost every professional photographer I know has told me at one time or the other that their business relies heavily on two things, repeat customers and referrals.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> If you do tell the client your doing the original shoot for, I guess the first question they would want answered is why am I paying full price for photos that someone else is getting for a lot less? Why am I paying you as the photographer for your time on this photoshoot when the other guy is only having to pay for the final product?



This. 

Someone has to fund it, but someone else is getting a knock off of it for much cheaper.  Unless the photographer him/herself is doing the funding, I don't think it would go over well with the client(s) who paid full price for it.  I also see possible legal issues unless it's fully disclosed.

So many holes...


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 25, 2016)

If a photographer's being paid to do a photo shoot he/she can't take pictures for another client at the same time on the client's dime. The concept seems unprofessional and unethical. And if a photographer doesn't have a client, why would they be doing a shoot?

I don't think a photographer can expect clients to sign releases for other commercial use elsewhere. There have already been situations where someone's image was used in an ad and the person didn't realize that's how their image was going to be used. (I don't offhand remember the outcomes.)



NickArt said:


> There are so many ways
> that the photographer or the client can cheat or steal from each other.


 Are you promoting this?? I hope that's not what you meant...

The art directors are all being paid for their time and work and expertise, aren't they? So are photographers. Providing quality photos takes more than 'a minute' or two emailing them out. Get on American Society of Media Photographers for info. on what's involved in licensing professional photography; look at 'paperwork' share where photographers list actual jobs and contracts (only a couple of examples are available to nonmembers). If art directors need specific photos then they're probably going to need to contract with a professional photographer.

Part of the reason art directors probably can't find good stock photos might be that it seems to have become overrun with wannabees with cameras and isn't the most viable option for pro photographers anymore. However, there are listings thru the Photo District News PDN Online | Photo Magazine | Pro Photography News & Gear for photo agencies that handle stock. Using agencies might be a step above the do-it-yourself stock sites out there where anybody with a camera can license photos for pennies.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> If a photographer's being paid to do a photo shoot he/she can't take pictures for another client at the same time on the client's dime. The concept seems unprofessional and unethical. And if a photographer doesn't have a client, why would they be doing a shoot?
> 
> I don't think a photographer can expect clients to sign releases for other commercial use elsewhere. There have already been situations where someone's image was used in an ad and the person didn't realize that's how their image was going to be used. (I don't offhand remember the outcomes.)
> 
> ...



You are taking my quote out of context. This is my full quote:


> There are so many ways that the photographer or the client can cheat or steal from each other. For example, I could take a photo for a client, then turn around and sell it on stock agencies, does that mean stock agencies are bad ideas? Unfortunately, there are going to be bad players no matter what service is out there, I just need to make sure I do everything to protect the good players.



Of course I'm not promoting or condoning any unethical or illegal activities. 

As I mentioned in my original post:


> Of course, this won’t work for all photo shoots, for instance, if another client is already paying you for it.



And repeated it few other times in this thread that if you're on an assignment paid by a client, you wouldn't be able to use this service on that photo shoot.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > If you do tell the client your doing the original shoot for, I guess the first question they would want answered is why am I paying full price for photos that someone else is getting for a lot less? Why am I paying you as the photographer for your time on this photoshoot when the other guy is only having to pay for the final product?
> ...



You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.


----------



## Designer (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.


Oh, whew!  For a while there I was afraid this idea was not going to work.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.



Then your back to .. oh look, stock photography. 

If you take a pro to a location and pay him to shoot then you've got a product that isn't pretty much the same as you can get from any stock photo website, which is how this was pitched but then of course you have serious conflict of interest issues and the pro's clients are probably (and rightfully) going to get seriously hacked off.  But supposedly your end user is getting a price break based on the fact that the pro is already there being paid to shoot, right?

If instead you have a pro that sets up a specific shoot for your client.. well then guess what, there's not price break involved because the pro is still going to have to do the same he does on any other shoot.  He's going to have to specifically invest his time, pay the models, etc, etc, etc...   Nobody else is covering those costs so there is no price reduction for the Art Director in all this, he might as well hire any local pro so at least he can supervise the shoot and make sure he gets what he wants.

Sorry, whatever your vision is here it's obviously not coming across to me, at all.  If such is the case, just imagine how incredibly difficult this is going to be to market.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> NickArt said:
> 
> 
> > My point is the capabilities and the opportunities are there, it’s just up to the photographer to see what resources they have available, that could be used to make extra money.
> ...



Again, I appreciate the brutal honesty.

A guy wouldn't pay you a huge dinero for a photo of a bowl of fruit that can get from any stock site because it's a generic photo.

However, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit that has a uncooked meat on it because they want to communicate awareness and healthy eating.

or even less specific, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit that has a glass of green smoothy front it.
can they find it from stock sties? maybe couple between all the stock sites, but certainly will not have enough to find the one that works. 

even less specific than that, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit but they need the photo to be framed in a way so there is a lot of room on the bottom which they'll use for ad copy. I don't know how much options they'll  have getting if from stock sites. Even  if they find something close, they'll have to spend time and money photoshopping it for it to work. So at the end, it will still cost them more than the price of the stock so paying that extra amount to the photographer and get a more natural result would be a better choice for them. 

Any of these scenarios are very similar to the real pain points that I've  seen clients experience. But if a photographer is shooting a bowl of fruit, it would be relatively simple adjustment for their shoot to get the photo they need.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> NickArt said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.
> ...


Add a NON-Pro to the equation and the concept could work for a bit as the non-pros rotate up the food chain.  Of course, the quality aspect of it then comes into play more vs a seasoned pro.

The key is trying to make money while trying NOT to be an agent to the Client or the Photog.  Liabilities can them come into play such as promoting a photog that doesn't quit live up to expectations, or  disaster as mentioned earlier.

If the OP thinks the concept would work then, as before, I say Fund it and Go for it.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Add a NON-Pro to the equation and the concept could work for a bit as the non-pros rotate up the food chain.  Of course, the quality aspect of it then comes into play more vs a seasoned pro.
> 
> The key is trying to make money while trying NOT to be an agent to the Client or the Photog.  Liabilities can them come into play such as promoting a photog that doesn't quit live up to expectations, or  disaster as mentioned earlier.
> 
> If the OP thinks the concept would work then, as before, I say Fund it and Go for it.



I guess the piece that I'm missing here is somehow this is supposed to appeal to a pro because they'll only be spending a very small amount of time shooting stuff because they are already there shooting anyway and getting paid for it.  But if such is the case how is that supposed to be if they are not on a shoot for another client?

If they have to setup a shoot that is not related to a client shoot, then how does that save the photographer any time or money?  I mean once you stipulate this would not be done on another clients shoot, all the "savings" go out the window and for the photographer this becomes just like any other paid, professional shoot, right?


----------



## Vtec44 (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.



I wouldn't use it, or provide it.  If a shoot is being funded by a client, they have my full attention.  Anything else would be unprofessional and unethical of me. Even with full disclosure, it would create a bad impression of me as a professional, and my company as a brand.


----------



## 407370 (May 25, 2016)

There is a kernel of a good idea here.
How about turning it around a little.....

I want a pic of a black rose sitting between a giant diamond and a unicorn with a cabbage as the background. 
I go to your site and register the request for free. 
The photographers registered to your site see the request and make submissions to the request. 
I can then view all the submissions on a given date and make a selection, at which point money changes hands. 
The photog gets his cut, the web site owner gets his cut and I get what I want.
I will obviously get a cut for coming up with the idea.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Add a NON-Pro to the equation and the concept could work for a bit as the non-pros rotate up the food chain.  Of course, the quality aspect of it then comes into play more vs a seasoned pro.
> ...


Yes,
you have to think what *if* the photog was on a shoot that was not paid for by anyone and not needing the attention nor specific time (day and amount needed) for a shoot.

In order for that model to work successfully it would probably be a non-(seasoned)-pro shooting.  ie we know if you get paid for anything then that can constitute a "pro".

So geared more towards the people just wandering around with a camera on vacation or something.  Or on a self-trip if taking landscapes, or in a restaurant where they throw their hamburger patty on top of their salad.

Anything more than what's available in front of them would require planning.  Increasing quality would require additional lighting, etc.  All of which has to be paid for. But per plan this is not part of the equation.  Thus the equation is non-seasoned-pro for the most part from what I can gather.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

407370 said:


> There is a kernel of a good idea here.
> How about turning it around a little.....
> 
> I want a pic of a black rose sitting between a giant diamond and a unicorn with a cabbage as the background.
> ...


Basically an auction house for a product .. last one to zero wins.

I've been on websites like that for IT services.  Normally quality is not part of the original equation.  Though after the product is completed it becomes obvious quality should have been part of the equation.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> 407370 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a kernel of a good idea here.
> ...



You're right, That's exactly why I didn't build a platform like that. It already exists and I think that model doesn't treat photographers fairly. They have to compete. All do the work but only one gets paid. 

That's why I built it so the client only works with the photographer that can deliver what they are looking for.


----------



## 407370 (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > 407370 said:
> ...


Snapwire has already stolen my idea........ 
I dont know why this is a bad thing. If a pic is requested then if you dont want to take a chance on your version not being chosen then dont enter a pic. This has enthusiast rather than pro written all over it. I might just join as a hobby, if its free.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

A global platform really limits your photog selection.
as in, low wage countries will win all the time in prices.

I saw it in IT .. I can't compete against someplace only charging $2.50 USD an hour.
I know there's so much more to it than price.  But who's going to vet the photogs to the client?

Unless you make it like a dating website and create best matches.  But then those are full of scammers too. you'll have to have a payment system like Paypal to hold the money until the product clears the completion hurdle.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> However, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit that has a uncooked meat on it because they want to communicate awareness and healthy eating.
> 
> or even less specific, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit that has a glass of green smoothy front it.
> can they find it from stock sties? maybe couple between all the stock sites, but certainly will not have enough to find the one that works.
> ...



So as the pro I have to setup the shoot, do all the lighting, etc, etc.. I'm not "saving" myself any time at all because I'm setting up a shoot specifically for your client - which is not how this was presented at the start. The idea was this would be a minimal time investment for the photographer because they were already "there" and shooting anyway, right?

The downfall here is the statement, "if the photographer is already shooting a bowl of fruit"... meaning if they are already getting paid by someone else to shoot a bowl of fruit then yes, they could make some adjustments and take a few specialty shots.

However, "if the photographer is already shooting a bowl of fruit", well then he's doing that on someone else's dime.  Which leads to the conflict of interest issues brought up earlier, upset clients and eventually loss of business and reputation for the photographer.  

If you stipulate the photographer isn't going to be doing this on someone else's paid shoot, well then it's no longer a simple matter of making a few minor adjustments to something your already shooting.  It suddenly becomes a full blown shoot of it's own that needs to be setup from scratch.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> NickArt said:
> 
> 
> > However, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit that has a uncooked meat on it because they want to communicate awareness and healthy eating.
> ...


yeah but does the photog get to keep the bowl of fruit ?


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

> I wouldn't use it, or provide it.  If a shoot is being funded by a client, they have my full attention.  Anything else would be unprofessional and unethical of me. Even with full disclosure, it would create a bad impression of me as a professional, and my company as a brand.



I completely understand and respect that.

This was not made to satisfy the needs of every client or every photographer out there. In fact, I wouldn't even have the slightest idea what you clients would want when it comes to wedding photography. But I know exactly what the clients need when it comes to advertising and marketing. I spent years working with them and understanding what their pain points are. And, I see an opportunity for photographers to make money to relieve those pain points.


----------



## astroNikon (May 25, 2016)

I'm sure they could facebook hunt too for a photographer specializing in a certain category.  Not all photogs are experts at all categories.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> yeah but does the photog get to keep the bowl of fruit ?



Well considering that it will be up to the photographer to buy it in the first place.. I would think, yes...

Lol.

So for the OP, I'm not going out of my way trying to be a debbie downer here, I'm really not.  I just see at least one very serious flaw in your business model, in that if a professional photographer isn't already shooting something for someone else, well then there is no cost savings to be had and as a result the photographer winds up working for peanuts.  While you'll probably still get photographers that are willing to do that, lets face it, they probably are not going to provide the quality end product that an Art Director or someone of that caliber is going to be satisfied with, so the end result will most likely be a lot of very unhappy clients.

The only way I see around that would be for you to vet the incoming submissions prior to sending them on to the client, which would be an extremely time consuming process and eventually a pretty expensive one.

That I would imagine is probably why most stock photography sites don't already offer this as a service.  With standard stock the client can look through the images first and decide which ones are high enough quality - if your doing a custom order like this though your relying on the service to provide you with a quality product before you can actually see the product itself.

Which of course for you means that you will need to ensure the product is of acceptable quality, and given the business model as presented I just don't think your going to attract the kind of photographers who will produce a quality product reliably.

Just my 2 cents worth of course.  YMMV


----------



## Vtec44 (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> This was not made to satisfy the needs of every client or every photographer out there. In fact, I wouldn't even have the slightest idea what you clients would want when it comes to wedding photography. But I know exactly what the clients need when it comes to advertising and marketing. I spent years working with them and understanding what their pain points are. And, I see an opportunity for photographers to make money to relieve those pain points.



I'm originally a commercial photographer  for a very large nationwide retail chain prior to starting my own business.  I still do commercial photography on the side on various advertising projects.  I also worked for WPP (Advertising, Branding, Consumer Insight, Digital, Marketing, PR, Design, Media - WPP) for many years.  I can tell you from experience that even well targeted, your plan has various critical flaws and many hurdles to work out.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> If you stipulate the photographer isn't going to be doing this on someone else's paid shoot, well then it's no longer a simple matter of making a few minor adjustments to something your already shooting.  It suddenly becomes a full blown shoot of it's own that needs to be setup from scratch.



Look at it this way.

There are millions and millions of stock photos out there right? It's a $5Billion industry. Most of those photos, not all but most, were set up properly at one point by a photographer, on his own dime, and did a full shoot hoping that one day someone, somewhere will need this photo.  So people are already doing this even with extremely bad returns.

If before their photo shoot, they let other know about it. They will have an opportunity to shoot the photos they already know that someone needs and will pay for it.

EDIT: would like to clarify that I'm not suggesting that this is only for stock photographer, I'm just pointing out that what you're thinking is impossible, already happens on a huge scale.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> Look at it this way.
> 
> There are millions and millions of stock photos out there right? It's a $5Billion industry. Most of those photos, not all but most, were set up properly at one point by a photographer, on his own dime, and did a full shoot hoping that one day someone, somewhere will need this photo.  So people are already doing this even with extremely bad returns.



People yes.  Pros, not so much.  This is perhaps one of the biggest problems with your business model.  Your target clients are Art Directors and people who expect a professional, high end product, right?



> If before their photo shoot, they let other know about it. They will have an opportunity to shoot the photos they already know that someone needs and will pay for it.



So we are back to a pro shooting stuff for you when they are being paid by another client, and all the problems that entails.

So things to consider:

1. A pro most likely won't touch this with a 300 foot pole, those that do are likely killing his own business as a result.  You just don't sell photos to someone else when your client is footing the bill for the shoot.  Bad business all the way around.

2.  You'll probably get plenty of interest from amateur's and fauxtaugs, but they won't produce quality results, at least not reliably.  That means vetting every submission, or losing serious face with your clients when they request a picture of a bowl of fruit with some uncooked meat and what they get is something their own kid could have shot with an Iphone for them.

3. So far in this conversation we've gone from a pro doing this on a paid shoot to no a pro shouldn't be doing this on someone else's paid shoot back to a pro doing this on someone else's paid shoot as being part of your business model.  That's going to make this whole thing pretty tough to market, don't you think?  In all honesty I think it would really help for you to sit down and think about what your actual business model is going to be, and the sort of photographers you'll be able to attract as a result.


----------



## NickArt (May 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> NickArt said:
> 
> 
> > Look at it this way.
> ...



Hold on a second, Are you suggesting that stock photographers are not pros?

I know stock has a bad reputation, but trust me,there are a lot of high-end stock photography out there.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 25, 2016)

NickArt said:


> Hold on a second, Are you suggesting that stock photographers are not pros?
> 
> I know stock has a bad reputation, but trust me,there are a lot of high-end stock photography out there.



Thought the idea here was to flesh out your business model, not distract from obvious issues with it, but ok sure, I'll play.

Stock photography websites don't pay squat.  There are some guys who are really phenomenal with huge portfolios that do manage to make some money at it, but lets face it the vast majority of the folks that submit to stock photography websites would have made more money per hour if they'd gotten a job working for McDonalds.

Most stock photography sites rely on large numbers of submissions from people who are either not pro's or those who are first starting out, they usually submit for a while, realize they aren't making any money and move on only to be replaced by a fresh crop of similarly experienced folks.

Nothing unusual or shocking about it, that's how the vast majority of stock photos come to be - primarily because for most folks stock doesn't pay well at all.  Just a fact of life.  I never stated or implied anything else.

I will however point out that this is completely tangential and does nothing to address the problems with your business model as stated, which was then changed, which was then changed back.  

Hey, I realize your probably kicking yourself now in asking for brutal honesty - but there it is, brutal and honest.  If you would prefer I simply wish you luck in your endeavor I can still do that too and stop responding.  Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## NickArt (May 26, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Hey, I realize your probably kicking yourself now in asking for brutal honesty - but there it is, brutal and honest.  If you would prefer I simply wish you luck in your endeavor I can still do that too and stop responding.  Whatever floats your boat.



Sorry it took little long to respond but I don't regret asking because I really wanted to get a brutally honest and constructive feedback.


----------



## astroNikon (May 26, 2016)

If you think it's totally viable 
Then fund it and make it happen
Then come back in a year and rub the noses of the naysayers if it does good


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 26, 2016)

Maybe I've misunderstood. I don't get the premise of this; seems like if a photographer's on a shoot it would be for a client, and it wouldn't be an option to try to take photos for someone else while on the shoot.

If a photographer's taking photos not for a client but on their own time, then it would be for stock photos, or fine art photography, or whatever other purpose a photographer might have.

Seems like it would work better for the art directors to realize sooner than later they're not easily finding stock photos to suit their purpose and need to contract with a photographer and get the job done.


----------



## NickArt (May 27, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> If you think it's totally viable
> Then fund it and make it happen
> Then come back in a year and rub the noses of the naysayers if it does good



Thanks for the encouraging words. I already put my money behind the concept and built V1 of the platform. I'm in the process of launching it. I won't put the link in here but If you want to look into it, look at my profile page. 

I know there are a lot of naysayers, and many do have a valid point. But that's not going to stop me you know why? Because over the years I came across many photographers who swore they'll never use DSLRs because it'll never be better than film. They swore they'll never upload hi res photos online because people might steal. They swore that they'll never use facebook because they don't want their pro photos appear on the same page with someone's cat pictures or selfies. I can go on and on. But now, the same people are some of the most active in doing exactly what they swore they'll never do.

People point out that there are a lot of legal hurdles, contracts to deal with and it's a hard work. Yes, I'm aware of that. And I'm solving those issues one by one, I don't think it's impossible and it will not stop me.


----------



## NickArt (May 27, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> Seems like it would work better for the art directors to realize sooner than later they're not easily finding stock photos to suit their purpose and need to contract with a photographer and get the job done.



The problem is even if the art director realizes that they'll have a hard time finding stock, contracting a photographer is not always an option.

It's not only the photographer they have to worry about. Besides searching for the right photographer and hiring her, they have to scout locations and get a location, do casting and hire a talent, deal with equipment rental and props, they might need makeup artists, assistants, and someone has to organize and schedule all these things. So it doesn't only cost a lot of money, but also a lot of time (which is also a loss of money).

So usually what happens is they compromise their creativity and still go with the closest stock they can find.

What I'm suggesting is a middle ground between choosing cheap existing photos from stock sites and an expensive photo shoots.

They'll still have to choose from existing photo shoots but they'll have some creative control over it and will pay extra to get that because the alternative is a lot more expensive.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 27, 2016)

NickArt said:


> I know there are a lot of naysayers, and many do have a valid point. But that's not going to stop me you know why? Because over the years I came across many photographers who swore they'll never use DSLRs because it'll never be better than film. They swore they'll never upload hi res photos online because people might steal. They swore that they'll never use facebook because they don't want their pro photos appear on the same page with someone's cat pictures or selfies. I can go on and on. But now, the same people are some of the most active in doing exactly what they swore they'll never do.
> 
> People point out that there are a lot of legal hurdles, contracts to deal with and it's a hard work. Yes, I'm aware of that. And I'm solving those issues one by one, I don't think it's impossible and it will not stop me.



Ok, well I'm more than happy to go on the record and swear that I would never, as a paid professional, take money from a client and shoot pictures I intended to sell to someone else on their dime.

Sorry, but it's just unethical, and no amount of time will change that.  I would encourage anyone that does shoot professionally to avoid using a service such as this.   You can overcome the legal issues, etc.. but ethically this is just wrong.

That's my 2 cents worth.  Sorry but as it turns out I really can't wish you luck in your endeavor, it's simply not ethically viable.


----------



## Designer (May 27, 2016)

How is the pay for being unethical?

How unethical would I have to be?

Are we talking about not sleeping well, or just hiding one's face at the supermarket kind of guilt?


----------



## robbins.photo (May 27, 2016)

Designer said:


> How is the pay for being unethical?
> 
> How unethical would I have to be?
> 
> Are we talking about not sleeping well, or just hiding one's face at the supermarket kind of guilt?



Well if Client A is hiring me and paying me for a job, and I turn around and sell work product from that job to Client B and discount prices because Client A was paying for the location, the setup, the models, etc, etc, etc.. 

I'd consider that to be extremely unethical.  I mean lets be completely honest, it's straight up theft.  It may not be technically illegal, but from an ethics point of view you really are just stealing from Client A and using the justification of, "well this isn't something he was going to use anyway" to justify it.

For me that would be in the wander around in sackcloth and ashes level of guilt, because what I had done would really be that horrible.  

I dunno, maybe other folks can justify that kind of behavior, but I certainly can't.  Just not how I'm wired.  I can tell you that if I were the client, if I ever found out about a photographer doing something like this on a shoot I paid for I would not only never work with that photographer again, I'd make darn sure that everyone I could think of would be contacted and informed of the situation and advised never to hire them either.


----------



## Designer (May 27, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> For me that would be in the wander around in sackcloth and ashes level of guilt, because what I had done would really be that horrible.


I was more hoping for the Saville Row and Gucci kind of guilt.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 27, 2016)

Designer said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > For me that would be in the wander around in sackcloth and ashes level of guilt, because what I had done would really be that horrible.
> ...



Lol.. well mileage may vary I guess.  I don't feel guilty when I buy something else that maybe someone else can't afford.  I worked for my money, I'm entitled to spend it as I see fit.  

Not that I would spend that on a suit, not with so many perfectly good camera lenses out there to choose from - but hey, that's probably just me.


----------



## NickArt (May 27, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, well I'm more than happy to go on the record and swear that I would never, as a paid professional, take money from a client and shoot pictures I intended to sell to someone else on their dime.
> 
> Sorry, but it's just unethical, and no amount of time will change that.  I would encourage anyone that does shoot professionally to avoid using a service such as this.   You can overcome the legal issues, etc.. but ethically this is just wrong.
> 
> That's my 2 cents worth.  Sorry but as it turns out I really can't wish you luck in your endeavor, it's simply not ethically viable.



Again, I'm this is not made for every photographer or every client and every photographer. So it's okay if you don't use a service like this. And thank you for giving your feedback. I have a very clear idea on where you stand.


I just want to clarify one thing. in you first post you said this


robbins.photo said:


> I'm not a pro photographer mind you,



in your last post you said



robbins.photo said:


> as a paid professional, take money from a client and shoot pictures I intended to sell



Please don't take this the wrong way and I don't want to discredit what you said. I just need to know the source of the feedback too that give me a better perspective of things.

Thanks again.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 27, 2016)

NickArt said:


> Again, I'm this is not made for every photographer or every client and every photographer. So it's okay if you don't use a service like this. And thank you for giving your feedback. I have a very clear idea on where you stand.



Well I guess if you have no ethical problems encouraging such behavior then I'd have to be once again brutally honest in saying I wouldn't want to do business with your service or any service like it.

If your willing to cheat a photographers client in such a fashion, I guess it wouldn't exactly engender a lot of trust on my part that you wouldn't eventually get around to doing the same to me as the photographer.

But frankly if I was willing to go along with cheating my clients, frankly I'd deserve it.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 27, 2016)

NickArt said:


> I just want to clarify one thing. in you first post you said this
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> ...



I'm not a paid professional photographer.  I have however sold photographs in the past, I just have no intention of doing so for a living in the future.

Either way the statement is quite clear - as a paid professional you should never consider doing something like this, it's ethically wrong.

Whether or not I am currently working as a paid pro or have any intention of doing so anytime in the future, again, simply obfuscates the point.  What your suggesting here is a theft of a paying clients resources.


----------



## NickArt (May 27, 2016)

Thanks for those who have shared their thoughts about this.

It would be really cool if other people also shared their point of view about this too.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 27, 2016)

I'm with the big ape on this one. I guess not everyone has the same standards.

What was described sounds like a commercial/fashion shoot. So if a photographer's doing that, the premise is that he/she would take some photos at the shoot that aren't for the paying client?

But wouldn't the photographer need model releases for other purposes? Would everyone at the shoot, makeup artists etc., go along with this and keep working at the shoot knowing it's no longer for the client who hired them? 

I would think it would just be a matter of time that eventually either someone else at the shoot would start questioning what the photographer is doing or a client would happen to see photos that looked like they were shot at the client's shoot and being used by someone else.

And I'm not sure how a photographer is going to contract for two jobs at the same shoot at the same time. This premise seems to be asking photographers to disrespect their clients by using their time and money for another job.

Maybe some others will add their opinions. Maybe I'm completely off track in understanding this premise. I just don't think it seems like it would be worth a photographer risking his/her professional reputation.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 27, 2016)

OK I'm really confused now after looking at the website... Now that I know it's up and running; some examples on there seem to be just - pictures. Like a bird in a bird house in the snow. That's not doing a photo shoot, any photographer could shoot that and market and license usage for whatever purpose. So now I really don't get what this is going for. To me there's a difference between taking photos like that and setting up a shoot with models and makeup artists etc. for clients.


----------



## LARZRARZ (May 29, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> I'm with the big ape on this one. I guess not everyone has the same standards.
> 
> What was described sounds like a commercial/fashion shoot. So if a photographer's doing that, the premise is that he/she would take some photos at the shoot that aren't for the paying client?
> 
> ...


Often times photographers will test with agencies (meaning the agency will allow you to photograph their models for free in exchange for the images) and there is no paying client and often no budget whatsoever except what you have in your wallet, and agencies give the more experienced photographers a lot of creative freedom. Generally these types of shoots get submitted as editorials to magazines usually with the only payment being tearsheets. These shoots often consist of an entire creative team (hair, makeup, wardrobe, set and prop designers, etc) who are also working in exchange for images for their portfolios as payment and tearsheets from potentially being published. It's likely that after submitting an editorial that there would be hundreds of extra photos from the shoot that were either rejected by the magazine or they weren't submitted in the first place, and depending on the publishing contract between you and the magazine you could hypothetically use those images to sell on a site that is designed to sell images like that. You could even potentially charge more for an image that has been retouched, or sell a raw image and not even have to bother; both could be valuable either way. If you end up earning money from the shoot though, the agency should get a cut to give to the model. Not being honest about this with the agency or model could ruin your relationship with that or other agencies, so it's important to be up front with them if you earn money, and pay them a percentage. As for the rest of the creative team, it depends on the circumstances and agreements you've made with them. I personally recommend paying all of them when and if you can, as it helps build a better relationship and will make them much more willing to work for you in the future whether they're paid or not, and a good creative team is a fashion/beauty/portrait photographer's most valuable asset.

I have no idea if a stock site like this would work, but hypothetically that is how I assume photographers would have images available to submit to the site and be sold. Honestly I think these kind of photos can be sold on regular stock sites as well though, but perhaps in that this site would be geared toward a particular type of client you may be able to sell for higher prices, so it could be a better option if it works.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 29, 2016)

Now I kind of get it, I think... On the website there were two live when I looked; both traveling/on vacation? so I suppose if someone wanted photos of something particular there it would be possible to contact and then contract with the photographers (who may be vacationing and working freelance, on their own, and licensing their photos for travel magazines? fine art prints? etc.).

But there may be a need for a property release to be obtained by the photographer depending on how the photo(s) would be potentially used. I don't know how much market there would be for travel/scenery photos, or if art directors are looking for that and can't find it elsewhere.

Seems like to do a shoot in most cases there would be a conflict of interest to be shooting for one client and try to take photos for someone else as well.


----------



## orljustin (Jun 3, 2016)

NickArt said:


> here are millions and millions of stock photos out there right? It's a $5Billion industry. Most of those photos, not all but most, were set up properly at one point by a photographer, on his own dime, and did a full shoot hoping that one day someone, somewhere will need this photo.  So people are already doing this even with extremely bad returns.
> 
> If before their photo shoot, they let other know about it. They will have an opportunity to shoot the photos they already know that someone needs and will pay for it.



Look, the big flaw, as someone mentioned, is that there is zero chance of the timing working out that would make this work in any reasonable amount.

We've already established that we aren't talking about people grabbing shots on another client's dime.  So, that leaves self-initiated, self-funded shoots.  Bob, the hobby shooter says "Hey, this Saturday, I'm shooting my friend doing some skateboarding at the local park."  Saturday passes, Bob takes his pictures.  Three months later, Joe, the editor says, "Boy, I wish I could get a picture of someone holding a skateboard over their head.  Oh, look, here's a shoot... oh rats.  It was three months ago."  There is no way the timing would work.

Otherwise, you have Snapwire, ImageBrief, etc., all the sites that offer up spec briefs and award one person, if any, the royalty, if the work is found satisfactory.

Seriously, don't waste your time on this.  BTW, it isn't an "existing photo shoot".  It's an "upcoming" or "planned" photo shoot.

eta: looks like you got a lot of feedback a year ago: MicrostockGroup


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 3, 2016)

So this is basically spam?  I called it (Possibly a new way to make money on your existing photo shoots.) !!!


----------



## acparsons (Jun 3, 2016)

Setup some workshops for shy photo enthusiasts, charge them, and pay the model. Keep a percentage.


----------



## hfocal (Jun 4, 2016)

@NickArt  I read a bit on the concept, can't find which post contains a link to your website so I can check it out. 

My first impression, as an aspiring professional photographer, is that I maybe a few of your target market. Someone who's looking to do something on the side at the moment. I started photography as a hobby anyways and I'm not opposed to doing something to make a living out of it. BUT I probably would not use it for long if I intend to create value in my work. Not to say that it's something your concept doesn't apply. It just seems like Plan C when there's already Plans A and B. 

Then again, Youtube, Amazon, Google , Paypal, Facebook etc were not on any top three .


----------

