photographers excuses for shooting for free- MOD NOTE POST #60

Thecageyone

dave66 wrote: »

Why do some folks make/take things personal and in doing so take threads off track and regularly into a death spiral? There seems to be so much pent up anger that is unleashed at a whim, and an unceasing editing of posts.

What are you? Hyper sensitive?

that's what smilies are for

Fatcheetas, I wouldn't as I said before, swipe a job from from anyone. Maybe from you I might

But I am loving you following me around with the other usuals, must think of a pet name for you lot. Ready to jump on anything I say. It's like having groupies, without the physicality.

Thecageyone

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

So you're saying that should you like film photography then you're elitist?



An arrogant statement to make...... oh but look you were joking.

Where did I say that? You just happen to be a wee group of wannabe elitists who are consistently arrogant and happen to cream it over film ... nothing wrong with film in itself. It's YOU I was slating, not film users in general, get it right

Surprise surprise the groupies are in to try stir it. Think i'll leave ye to it this time ladies. I'm not bored enough for you atm.

dave66

Thecageyone wrote: »

What are you? Hyper sensitive?

that's what smilies are for

Guess that very adequately makes my point :eek:

Kintarō Hattori

Thecageyone wrote: »

Where did I say that? You just happen to be a wee group of wannabe elitists who are consistently arrogant and happen to cream it over film ... nothing wrong with film in itself. It's YOU I was slating, not film users in general, get it right

Ehh you said it just here:

Not the usuals who liked your post anyway, aren't they the ones who get wet over anything shot on film? Showing their elitism side yet again. Wouldn't mind but None of them any good themselves ..:D

And arrogant you say? Sincerely I'd never have thought of myself as arrogant but that is certainly how you come across. I'm not meaning to be difficult but definetly feel I have to address the arrogance issue you threw out.

imitation

The guy who wrote that article is a plonker.

He's tone is insulting, and he comes across as being obsessed with cash. Time to pick apart my "favourite bits"

I like my day job in IT, but at night I am passionate about photography. I don’t mind self-funding my work because it gives me more creative freedom.Guess what, IT guy? When India’s night work takes over your day job, don’t call me crying about it. Also, don’t bother trying to make a living from your “passion,” because you’re already doing all you can to undermine your chances — as well as everyone else’s.

I'd imagine IT is a much safer bet than photography, knowing you'll have money each week is nice for starters. I also reckon photography might be a little less recession proof than other day jobs.

No, actually, pixels are not free — but thanks for playing. Cameras and camera shutters have a lifespan of a few hundred thousand frames. Divide the number of frames you shot for free by the cost of the camera, and you’ll begin to get a sense of how much that shoot cost you

Let me see, lets assume 300k (probably an underestimation ?) shots for a decent amateur setup, what maybe 3000 euros ? Thats 1c a shot. Its not exactly the most expensive hobby.

I find the whole "amateur" vs professional thing tiring.Speaking broadly (not just about photography, infact its probably less applicable) To me its down to the individual, I have met plenty of bluffer professionals, and I have met plenty of amateurs who pour hours and hours into there hobby and can demonstrate some impressive work.

I think he's got a valid point underneath his crappy tone though, people doing work for free isn't going to be good for his business, it will reinforce the "ah shure I could just get a friend to do it for free" attitude. Then again, its not a new story, plenty of professions have been threatened by new developments, you just have to adapt.

humberklog

Thecageyone wrote: »

What are you? Hyper sensitive?

that's what smilies are for

Cough, cough http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67465048&postcount=16


:pac::pac::pac:

charybdis

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

if your business model doesn't work anymore because of what OTHER people are doing then it's probably time to change your business model.

Every business should have this engraved above their boardroom or equivalent thereof.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Where did I say that? You just happen to be a wee group of wannabe elitists who are consistently arrogant and happen to cream it over film ... nothing wrong with film in itself. It's YOU I was slating, not film users in general, get it right

Surprise surprise the groupies are in to try stir it. Think i'll leave ye to it this time ladies. I'm not bored enough for you atm.

Have you considered the possibility that you keep saying retarded things and the defensiveness & overcompensation followed by half-assed back-pedalling you've exhibited here and elsewhere suggest a perceived inadequacy on your part that you'd rather not address but would instead rather lash out at others? It certainly fits with your continued ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and complete unwillingness to tolerate criticism. It also fits with your inevitable response to this post suggesting I think very highly of myself for thinking I have you all figured out and that my criticism of your behaviour is illegitimate and is part of a wider conspiracy against you in which the participants are united by their use of film.

TinyExplosions

I don't want to be a party pooper, but can we get this back on topic a little... I think that there's some decent points in this thread, and think that this forum is a great place to have this sort of discussion, because there's a great mix of total beginners, weekend warriors, and full time pros that all have valid points if we could get away from it descending into needless namecalling, regardless who might have cast the first stone

AnCatDubh

ok,

as there are none of the moderation team online at the moment, i'll step in as is the prerogative of the CMod role across the category.

essentially the message to take out of this intervention is the next one to be off topic here will be wearing an "i'm banned" badge for a period.

Smiley's are good. They convey your intentional humour or other expression. That said if anyone needs to lace their post with smileys then consider that there is little point in you posting at all so please desist.

The moderation of the forum is not so stupid as to not recognise veiled insults and attacks on other posters and I will now proceed to raise the issues with relevant posters as I see them in this thread.

Now before anyone decides to respond on thread to this, particularly if the world and its mother are against you again, please note the provisions of the charter as extended.

Now, return on topic please.

Thank you.

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

Every business should have this engraved above their boardroom or equivalent thereof.



Have you considered the possibility that you keep saying retarded things and the defensiveness & overcompensation followed by half-assed back-pedalling you've exhibited here and elsewhere suggest a perceived inadequacy on your part that you'd rather not address but would instead rather lash out at others? It certainly fits with your continued ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and complete unwillingness to tolerate criticism. It also fits with your inevitable response to this post suggesting I think very highly of myself for thinking I have you all figured out and that my criticism of your behaviour is illegitimate and is part of a wider conspiracy against you in which the participants are united by their use of film.

Enough of the ass-kissing now, I have a disabled daughter and I take major offence to the 'retarded' jibe. I'd like a Mod to do something about that, thanks.

AnCatDubh

Regrettably, a user is now banned.

For reference to further off topic postings - post #60 of mine ie. the moderation note refers and remains in force. This, as highlighted in the thread title.

Mountainsandh

I really do not want to insult anyone on here, and my remark is absolutely general and impersonal, but here goes : if you're a professional, and you're up to scratch, there is no reason why you should feel threatened by amateurs doing gigs for free.
The fact is in Ireland, a lot of people have set themselves up as professionals during the boom years, when really they do not have the actual skills required to do the job. That's not just about photography. How many plumbers, builders, etc... are not up to scratch ?
I for one, know many.
Now, if you're a professional, and you're well experienced, equiped, qualified, and do a good job, people will recognize that and give you the job, it's that simple.
Hubby's a professional musician (lots of similar situations with that job btw), and has been well disappointed at the outcome of photoshoots with well known photographers. So now, it doesn't really matter who shoots the photographs, amateur, or pro, as long as he likes the results (and the whole experience). He's willing to pay, even if said amateur doesn't expect payment.
People are not as mean with their money as some seem to think, in fact, with music for example, we find with hubby that most people are happy to pay if they know they'll be happy with the results/gig.

-Chris-

Payment usually means some form of enforcable contract too, so if you pay for someone you can insist on a certain result, whereas with free you can only hope for it.

There are plenty who are prepared to pay in order to be able to withhold payment in order to get the results they require.

Mountainsandh

-Chris- wrote: »

Payment usually means some form of enforcable contract too, so if you pay for someone you can insist on a certain result, whereas with free you can only hope for it.

There are plenty who are prepared to pay in order to be able to withhold payment in order to get the results they require.

Chris I'm not sure that always applies to photography, in the sense that a sharp, well exposed photograph, is not necessarily one that the customer might be happy with. In the case of my husband for example, it's not like the photographs he received were disastrous from a technical point of view, they just weren't what he wanted. So he took as much of a chance paying a pro as he would have with an amateur from our point of view.

K_user

I didn't like the article. Not for the points being made, just the tone being conveyed.

Getting on subject, can payment be defined?

Cash is nice and most would agree that money is the key to any business.

Photographing for free though, while not cost effective, has it's benefits. Portfolio work is a requirement, no one goes to a photographer who has no samples. Also getting out of a lull, breaking new ground, helping a friend, taking the edge off - thats to say no money equals less pressure, a good way to loosen rusty fingers. Getting your name out is another good example, that is to say attending an event, shooting for free, but handing cards out to everyone and their mother. Market research is another reason to be "free" - again getting out among people and interacting, getting feed back*.

Basically as long as you are getting something from it then its not free, just not earning you cash.

But there is only so much "free" that you can do. A business needs to pay the bills. Else its a hobby.


*(I went to an event a few months back, didn't sell anything, didn't take any photographs, although I did have my camera with me. All I did was show off some of my stuff and chatted to total strangers - members of the general public - from that alone I learned quite alot. While I didn't earn any money, I was able to take away a plan for the future. Was it a waste of my time or my energy? Not at all.)

unreggd

Ugh, me no likey that article

I do a good bit of concert photography. I dont get paid, but I get photo passes to most gigs I want, and get good practice for taking shots.

I love being at a good gig, and hate not being able to have an SLR, so this is what makes my "unpaid work" worth it for me

Also, the more gigs you shoot, the more contacts you make = more paid work.

I do paid work every now and again. I always inquire about payment for any job beforehand, esp if I feel it's a job that a specific outlet usually pay for.

If I was asked to do something I didnt really wanna do, or was far out to get to, then I'd at least charge expenses.

Theres no right or wrong answer

I just hope stupid articles like the one in the OP dont make people think they HAVE to demand pay, always

thefly

humberklog wrote: »

Cough, cough http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67465048&postcount=16


:pac::pac::pac:

Mod as far as I know you are supposed to be impartial and not so one sided. Not the first time you've dug out an old post to prove a point. Your here to moderate and not take sides

charybdis wrote: »

Every business should have this engraved above their boardroom or equivalent thereof.



Have you considered the possibility that you keep saying retarded things and the defensiveness & overcompensation followed by half-assed back-pedalling you've exhibited here and elsewhere suggest a perceived inadequacy on your part that you'd rather not address but would instead rather lash out at others? It certainly fits with your continued ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and complete unwillingness to tolerate criticism. It also fits with your inevitable response to this post suggesting I think very highly of myself for thinking I have you all figured out and that my criticism of your behaviour is illegitimate and is part of a wider conspiracy against you in which the participants are united by their use of film.

That is terrible using that word. Very disrespectful and I take huge offense to it been used




As for the original article..............I can see his point. If you work for free you will be known for that and people will expect you to work for nothing again and again.

Calina

Re-iterating the warning in post 60 as noted in the thread title.

Do not post off topic arguments in this thread or bans will ensue. And have already ensued.

Mycroft H

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

OTOH pros who are already IN the industry probably have no small reason to feel aggrieved at other professionals underplaying or undervalueing their work, they're doing themselves no favours, so there's probably scope for some sort of code of ethics or protectionism or something of the like. IE STG, as a pro who relies on her photography as her livelihood, could feel aggrieved at another pro offering their services for free, because that undermines the entire industry that they -both- rely on, but neither could feel aggrieved at, for example, theCagyone offering services for free, as he's an amateur, his work probably reflects that, and he has no vested interest in the industry.

You really cannot be be serious here???


This comes across as incredibly snobbish and elitists, and frankly its the attitude I've seen from several "professional" photographers at football matches towards amateurs, Ie "I'm a pro and I'm getting paid for this so automatically I'm better then you"

My opinion is that if a professional photographer feels infringed by an amateur or another 'professional' doing the work for little or nothing, the onus is on the professional, that he/she improves their own work and rise above the standard of the crowd to ensure they get paid and get their wage. Not some narrow minded policy saying that "all work must be paid to protect us".



Now back to the original article :pac:


He really is full of crap. I've got paid for some shots in the past but there is now way I'd look for pay for everything. You would never get any experience or a name in the field if you didn't do some work for experience alone

dave66

I guess it all comes down to the definition of "free" as some people have said they don't charge cash for a shoot but receive some form of payment, whether it be passes to gigs or the like. In reality, it probably comes down to the old adage "there's no such thing as a free lunch". For example, if you were getting something framed and the framer really liked the print, if he offered to frame the shot in exchange for a copy of the print for himself, that's not free, it's an exchange of goods/services, however if the framer then sold on the print at a profit, then to me it could become unfair/unethical as that was not the basis of the exhange - if he wants to sell it, he should say, hey how about printing another I'll frame it and we'll sell it.

I also think confidence in your work (and this is something that I'm only learning after 25 years of making photographs) plays a huge role. A lack of confidence in your work, I believe leads invariably to under valueing of your work. If you don't value your work, then why should anyone else?

imitation

imitation wrote: »

I'd imagine IT is a much safer bet than photography, knowing you'll have money each week is nice for starters. I also reckon photography might be a little less recession proof than other day jobs.

I'd like to qualify my own statement here too, theres nothing wrong with photography as a career, but the nature of the buisness to me seems that you stake out your own work, and you get what you can get (be it 1 job a month or 10 a week).

I found it ironic that somebody in that line of buisness would try and attack the security of somebody who is in a 9-5 job.

Also, I can imagine free shots are the only way to get started, you can't get estabilished in any career without some hard work for little reward.

TinyExplosions

landyman wrote: »

You really cannot be be serious here???


This comes across as incredibly snobbish and elitists, and frankly its the attitude I've seen from several "professional" photographers at football matches towards amateurs, Ie "I'm a pro and I'm getting paid for this so automatically I'm better then you"

My opinion is that if a professional photographer feels infringed by an amateur or another 'professional' doing the work for little or nothing, the onus is on the professional, that he/she improves their own work and rise above the standard of the crowd to ensure they get paid and get their wage. Not some narrow minded policy saying that "all work must be paid to protect us".

I think that I can see Daire's point in this, and it's not necessarily elitest to an extent. Amateurs and weekend warriors (I love that term! ) really don't have a vested interest in the industry, as if they did they would be doing it full time. To them it's just a way to make a few quid on the side, and usually they put them selves across like that, the client knows it, and all is good in the world -this is mostly down to the sort of clients each photographer would get. Generally (and speaking in very broad terms here) the clients that take on cheap amateurs are the sort that wouldn't have the budget, or be prepared to spend the money on a pro. In this case, the amateur is providing a necessary service, and everyone's happy!

--please note that in all of my posts on this, I use amateur and professional to distinguish between those who do it full time for a living and those who don't, and make no assumptions on quality of finished product -I going down that route is a bit of a red herring, as there are plenty of very talented amateurs, and plenty of not particularly good professionals out there

gloobag

Amateur - WORD HISTORY - Descended from the Latin source, amātor, "lover, devoted friend, devotee, enthusiastic pursuer of an objective,"

Even if I did make my entire income from photography, I think I'd still prefer to be known as an "amateur". Just saying

jpb1974

If you work for free you will be known for that and people will expect you to work for nothing again and again.

Surely common sense says that if you do a freebie then you can keep it on the QT.... "listen, I'll do this on the free as a favour, just keep it between yourself and myself ok".

I did 2 mickey mouse events on the free for relatives, I wasn't wearing a sandwich board which read "Free Photos here". I was subsequently offered 2 paying jobs by friends of theirs.

It's just an exaggeration to exert that if you do a freebie that's all you'll be know for.

TinyExplosions

jpb1974 wrote: »

Surely common sense says that if you do a freebie then you can keep it on the QT.... "listen, I'll do this on the free as a favour, just keep it between yourself and myself ok".

I did 2 mickey mouse events on the free for relatives, I wasn't wearing a sandwich board which read "Free Photos here". I was subsequently offered 2 paying jobs by friends of theirs.

It's just an exaggeration to exert that if you do a freebie that's all you'll be know for.

It is and it isn't... if you work for someone for free in the hopes that it'll look good in your portfolio, or lead to more work, all it takes is the original client to say to someone else "sure use that fella, he did mine for free, he'll do yours too", and before long you'll have people phoning up and putting up a struggle because all of a sudden (to their mind) you've shot your prices up to astronomical levels. We're in Ireland, and a "keep it between yourself and myself" is next to impossible to guarantee.

I think it depends on where you want to place yourself in the industry really. For example, if I was to get into it (and I have no intention) I would work out what my 'proper' rates would be for a given job, and then run a promotion, and approach people and say "this is my usual rate, but I'm running a 50%/20%/ whatever off promotion for this month only" -this means you get the gig, but the client knows what your time is worth, and if someone comes up to you later, you just say "as i said clearly to yer man, it was a time limited offer, for you it's my full rate"

-this doesn't apply to freebies for friends and family of course!

TinyExplosions

Oh yeah, and I don't think the spirit of the article was about doing stuff for friends and family -I think that's grand to do for free -it's more the professional clients that want a magazine spread, or product shot etc etc for free that he's referring too -they're very different beasts in my opinion

gandalf

TBH as Al said earlier it depends.

At the weekend I took pictures at a Friends wedding, he had roped in 4 of his friends to take shots as they were doing the wedding on a budget and instead of a present he asked me to take pictures. I was happy to do this for them, I did make the proviso that it is just a hobby and the pictures might suck. Lucky most didn't.

Now this contrasts with my wedding last year in France. Myself and the Missus spent a bit on the event (less than here of course) and we wanted a professional to cover the day and the guy we hired did an excellent job and delivered just what we wanted. He even made me look good in the photos. We had no problem paying for that service.

My line is if I knew that someone would benefit financially from any shots I took either directly or indirectly I would expect them to pay me a fair price.

The guy in the article that the OP linked to comes across as an asshole, at the end of the day you get what you pay for. If you want something for free you don't have any comeback if its not what you wanted.

Borderfox

It does depend and your right jpb, one free job doesnt mean a life full of them. I dont do free work, as Al says I take work that is advantageous to me and there is a strategy to gain in the future.

unreggd

imitation wrote: »

I'd like to qualify my own statement here too, theres nothing wrong with photography as a career, but the nature of the buisness to me seems that you stake out your own work, and you get what you can get (be it 1 job a month or 10 a week).

I found it ironic that somebody in that line of buisness would try and attack the security of somebody who is in a 9-5 job

Haha, thats actually what I'm doin

Im startin an IT degree in Sept

My plan is to use that to fund my photography.

IMO the biggest hindrance in getting a photography career off the ground is money

and IT usually has good salaries and good progression prospects. Also, the degree covers lots of Entrepreneur modules, which can be applied to photography.

I just don't see the usual path of "do a 4 year photo degree, then scrape by for another 5 years til you make a name" viable. Shadowing as an assistant would be good, but I wouldnt do it long term.

and in the end if photography goes belly up, I still have a good career to fall back on, and one I actually like, as I love computers


Suck on that haters :P

Borderfox

its one of those subjects that will go round and round, there is no right answer only choices. If your happy with your choices then all is good

PCPhoto

landyman wrote: »

You really cannot be be serious here???


This comes across as incredibly snobbish and elitists, and frankly its the attitude I've seen from several "professional" photographers at football matches towards amateurs, Ie "I'm a pro and I'm getting paid for this so automatically I'm better then you"

My opinion is that if a professional photographer feels infringed by an amateur or another 'professional' doing the work for little or nothing, the onus is on the professional, that he/she improves their own work and rise above the standard of the crowd to ensure they get paid and get their wage. Not some narrow minded policy saying that "all work must be paid to protect us".



Now back to the original article :pac:


He really is full of crap. I've got paid for some shots in the past but there is now way I'd look for pay for everything. You would never get any experience or a name in the field if you didn't do some work for experience alone

I have to disagree with the highlighted part above ....sometimes its the FACT that the designated area on the pitch is "supposed" to be for working press photographers, not supposed to be for enthusiastic amateurs who apply under the "freelance" banner and this SHOULD be an issue for the professionals to bring up with the people handing out the passes....how do you know the people with the bad attitude were professional and not just enthusiastic amateurs who bought pro gear, theres plenty of boardsies who have professional equipment and get pitchside access.

I work as a full-time professional photographer and while most of the time it doesnt bother me if someone else is there taking pics (on the pitch or at a news story), there are occasions when I think .... what the F**k is that person doing they will get us all moved or none of us will get a pic if they dont stop doing what they are doing.....

- last week for example - the release of Larry Murphy - I was outside the prison (with other press photographers) from 8pm the previous night as he could have been released from midnight onwards, over the course of the night we were joined by a number of people with DSLRs who were not working press photographers ...some of these people were taking up good positions by standing in front of professionals and some got in the way of some of the working press so they (the amateur) could get a good pic - I understand it was just plain ignorance of these people but if you dont have respect for the people working why should they show anything but ignorance for people who come into their work and mess things up, I don't think any amateur photographer would enjoy if a professional photographer came into their dayjob and just started messing about.

I have the utmost time for people starting out - we all started at some point - but when you are starting off you need to stand back and learn instead of behaving like a c*ocky pr1ck - even as a professional I sometimes let the staffers go ahead of me as they have a right to be there ahead of me, its all about respect ..or rather the lack of it.

anyways - I'm fuming here - makes the blood boil... with respect to the article....if amateurs want to work for free ....thats fine, as long as they respect their role at the job and respect the people who have to get a pic, if that means standing back and waiting their turn to get the pic.... well and good - just don't jump in front of someone and block a pic because you want the shot and dont care about anyone else...its just disrespectful....if you are a freelancer trying to make money from it.... you'll quickly learn respect is the key !!

sheesh

there is one problem with shooting for free that has not been mentioned if you are not getting paid to do something it makes it very hard for you to impose any control in the shoot.

example local soccer club wants a photographer for their club social. A commitee member off his own bat asks me to come down to take some photos I say I'll come down and do it. I come down and nobody knows who I am. As I'm not being paid I don't feel I have the authority to tell people what to do. end result was photographs that are useless badly lit, the people not looking at the camera when what was required was formal portraits.

to make matters worse I work until early the next morning processing the images because he needs them for the local paper the next I create a huge email with the images so the guy who asked me to turn up can name the people in the pictures. so I can submit them. I need the names to give them to the paper. he never replies to the email...

Why? Because it cost him nothing and he was too busy the next day to do anything no skin off his nose.

if he was paying for it he would have got back to me.

gig photography is different as you are just taking as a punter and it is nice thing to do. So if you get permission to do it you can shoot for a while and then just enjoy the gig.

K_user

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It is and it isn't... if you work for someone for free in the hopes that it'll look good in your portfolio, or lead to more work, all it takes is the original client to say to someone else "sure use that fella, he did mine for free, he'll do yours too", and before long you'll have people phoning up and putting up a struggle because all of a sudden (to their mind) you've shot your prices up to astronomical levels. We're in Ireland, and a "keep it between yourself and myself" is next to impossible to guarantee.

Well thats not exactly true.

If you do a friends wedding for free and off the back of that 2 people contact you looking for your details, then they are approaching you as a business person. If they do ask about whether you'd do it for free then its easy to say that the last job was a favour for a friend and not usual practice.

If the person is looking for a freebee then they aren't a potential client and you haven't lost anything. But if they come to you because they liked your work, and your rates are reasonable, then they might want to hire you.

If not about jacking up prices. The only people to take insult tend to be those chancing their arms.

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think it depends on where you want to place yourself in the industry really. For example, if I was to get into it (and I have no intention) I would work out what my 'proper' rates would be for a given job, and then run a promotion, and approach people and say "this is my usual rate, but I'm running a 50%/20%/ whatever off promotion for this month only" -this means you get the gig, but the client knows what your time is worth, and if someone comes up to you later, you just say "as i said clearly to yer man, it was a time limited offer, for you it's my full rate"

You could deal with your freebee's the same. Its simple to say that today is free for x reasons, but you usually charge...

K_user

PCPhoto wrote: »

I have to disagree with the highlighted part above ....

PCP I understand what you are saying and for the most part I agree.

Professionals have a right and a responsibility to do the best job that they can, it is after all what they do for a living. Amateurs do have to understand that they are amateur's. That no matter how good a photographer they are, they still mightn't be as aware as to how things work, nor are they getting paid.

But photography is an open skill. There are no real rights and wrongs here. If an amateur captures the perfect image then they have the right to sell or promote it. If an amateur turns up hours before an event and gets a prime spot, why should they be moved for a freelancer who shows up 5 minutes before something happens?

On the flip side, if a someone is getting paid for an event, then amateurs should respect this and not be getting in the way and messing things up.


Anyone can own a camera. Hobbyists can be quite gifted and carry much of the same equipment as a professional. The question really comes down to respect - on both sides.

K_user

sheesh wrote: »

there is one problem with shooting for free that has not been mentioned if you are not getting paid to do something it makes it very hard for you to impose any control in the shoot.

example local soccer club wants a photographer for their club social. A commitee member off his own bat asks me to come down to take some photos I say I'll come down and do it. I come down and nobody knows who I am. As I'm not being paid I don't feel I have the authority to tell people what to do. end result was photographs that are useless badly lit, the people not looking at the camera when what was required was formal portraits.

to make matters worse I work until early the next morning processing the images because he needs them for the local paper the next I create a huge email with the images so the guy who asked me to turn up can name the people in the pictures. so I can submit them. I need the names to give them to the paper. he never replies to the email...

Why? Because it cost him nothing and he was too busy the next day to do anything no skin off his nose.

if he was paying for it he would have got back to me.

Oh there is so much I agree with in the above post!

TinyExplosions

K_user wrote: »

Well thats not exactly true.

If you do a friends wedding for free and off the back of that 2 people contact you looking for your details, then they are approaching you as a business person. If they do ask about whether you'd do it for free then its easy to say that the last job was a favour for a friend and not usual practice.

That's why I said before that there's a big difference between doing freebies for friends, and doing freebies for commercial clients!

K_user

TinyExplosions wrote: »

That's why I said before that there's a big difference between doing freebies for friends, and doing freebies for commercial clients!

And I would agree with you on that.

K_user

Out of curiousity, where do people stand on charities?

Technically they are commercial clients, but they are charities.

sineadw

As far as I'm concerned, doing charity work is volunteering for them. So I'd have to care about the work they do, but nope - no problem here.

Wouldn't be an every day thing though.

TinyExplosions

K_user wrote: »

Out of curiousity, where do people stand on charities?

Technically they are commercial clients, but they are charities.

Depends on the charity... I've done both paid, and unpaid work for some in the past (in web design, not photography, but it's similar enough)

If it wasn't a charity that I believed in strongly and wanted to help out, I'd bid for the job as normal

charybdis

PCPhoto wrote: »

I have to disagree with the highlighted part above ....sometimes its the FACT that the designated area on the pitch is "supposed" to be for working press photographers, not supposed to be for enthusiastic amateurs who apply under the "freelance" banner and this SHOULD be an issue for the professionals to bring up with the people handing out the passes....how do you know the people with the bad attitude were professional and not just enthusiastic amateurs who bought pro gear, theres plenty of boardsies who have professional equipment and get pitchside access.

I work as a full-time professional photographer and while most of the time it doesnt bother me if someone else is there taking pics (on the pitch or at a news story), there are occasions when I think .... what the F**k is that person doing they will get us all moved or none of us will get a pic if they dont stop doing what they are doing.....

- last week for example - the release of Larry Murphy - I was outside the prison (with other press photographers) from 8pm the previous night as he could have been released from midnight onwards, over the course of the night we were joined by a number of people with DSLRs who were not working press photographers ...some of these people were taking up good positions by standing in front of professionals and some got in the way of some of the working press so they (the amateur) could get a good pic - I understand it was just plain ignorance of these people but if you dont have respect for the people working why should they show anything but ignorance for people who come into their work and mess things up, I don't think any amateur photographer would enjoy if a professional photographer came into their dayjob and just started messing about.

I have the utmost time for people starting out - we all started at some point - but when you are starting off you need to stand back and learn instead of behaving like a c*ocky pr1ck - even as a professional I sometimes let the staffers go ahead of me as they have a right to be there ahead of me, its all about respect ..or rather the lack of it.

anyways - I'm fuming here - makes the blood boil... with respect to the article....if amateurs want to work for free ....thats fine, as long as they respect their role at the job and respect the people who have to get a pic, if that means standing back and waiting their turn to get the pic.... well and good - just don't jump in front of someone and block a pic because you want the shot and dont care about anyone else...its just disrespectful....if you are a freelancer trying to make money from it.... you'll quickly learn respect is the key !!

Your issue with enthused amateurs interfering with designated photography areas and rules in private settings such as sporting events isn't really a complaint against photographers as much as it is a complaint about how those areas are poorly managed by the organisers. If an area is supposed to be used by working "pro" photographers, it's up to the organisers to decide what that means and manage it as such.

I have no idea how anyone could reasonably suggest that being "a professional" means they have more right to an area of public property while huddled outside a prison waiting to photograph someone being released than the people they consider to be "amateurs". In this situation, what distinguishes you from any other person with a camera in the same place?

I agree that people should behave respectfully, but that also means professional photographers should not begrudge amateurs they see as being in their way when they have no more right to be where they are and doing what they're doing than anyone else.

DeVore

As that article continues, it just sounds more and more like a whinge about HIS reasons why YOU shouldnt shoot anything for free. Seems he's more worried about his own skin then anything else.

PCP, I agree with your post, I've been on both sides of this with the poker photography. I wouldnt by any means say that its just amateurs who are the guilty culprits though.... dont you have pros who come along and do the same thing? Jump in the way and block things etc? Cos when I was shooting the World Series of Poker, you would need elbows a mile wide or you would get shots of the back of pro's heads! Not to mention TV who were ignorant so-and-so's!

I think your point is well made that people should learn the manners and culture of a profession/group/community before jumping in with both feet but mostly I think your point really targets manners and politeness rather then any schism between free and paid for.

The guy just ends up frothing at the mouth by the end. In business a "loss leader" is so successful an approach that companies have to have rules about using it (like under-price selling laws etc). I think the shots PCP takes will always be paid for as the newspapers need to be sure someone does the nasty work of sitting outside a prison waiting for a rapist to be released. But if you make your money from selling close ups of flowers..... you better start retraining


DeV.

magicbastarder

i once had a discussion with a wedding photographer about how intrusive the photographer is/can be during the ceremony. his attitude was that if he was being paid to get the best shots, it was kinda his *job* to shoot photos in an intrusive way, otherwise he wouldn't have been doing his job properly, because it allows you to get better photos.

jpb1974

i once had a discussion with a wedding photographer about how intrusive the photographer is/can be during the ceremony. his attitude was that if he was being paid to get the best shots, it was kinda his *job* to shoot photos in an intrusive way, otherwise he wouldn't have been doing his job properly, because it allows you to get better photos.

i71jskz5xu42pb

DeVore wrote: »

As that article continues, it just sounds more and more like a whinge about HIS reasons why YOU shouldnt shoot anything for free. Seems he's more worried about his own skin then anything else.

Indeed, he should give up the photography and come to Dublin to drive a taxi. He'd fit right in.

He's well within his rights to outline the reasons why he does not do work for free. But once he starts telling others what to do I think he's crossed a line.

I love that he cites IT as an example (my own industry). The reality is that there are loads of qualified IT people in the developing world ready to work for very little. I can choose to react to that or pen whiny blog posts. His reality is that it's much easier to set up as a photographer than it used to be - he can react to that or whine about it.

(Edit if it matters: I'm very much an armature photographer, charging does not even come into it for me, I'd never be asked)

PCPhoto

charybdis wrote: »

Your issue with enthused amateurs interfering with designated photography areas and rules in private settings such as sporting events isn't really a complaint against photographers as much as it is a complaint about how those areas are poorly managed by the organisers.

Technically my issue is the fact that amateurs apply - AND - they are given access (but have been told that will change in next 12-18months...efforts are being made to create agreements with various bodies to give access and refuse others).

charybdis wrote: »

I have no idea how anyone could reasonably suggest that being "a professional" means they have more right to an area of public property while huddled outside a prison waiting to photograph someone being released than the people they consider to be "amateurs". In this situation, what distinguishes you from any other person with a camera in the same place?

I agree that people should behave respectfully, but that also means professional photographers should not begrudge amateurs they see as being in their way when they have no more right to be where they are and doing what they're doing than anyone else.

I agree with you - neither has a "right" but its more of a common respect for someone who is under pressure to get an image versus ignorance in order to get the best image for themselves....there are a number of professional photographers who regularly step out of line and try to get in front of everyone - these people are watched carefully by other professionals and repremanded before the event occurs - they usually only do it on a rare occurrance, two of them are from the same agency and their boss has been told about their behaviour in the past.... as a professional he takes it on board and the behaviour is curbed (for a while).

back onto the original thread about working for free .

like I said before, if someone wants to work for free.... no problem, its possible that you are taking money from someone else, then again - its also possible that the professional has his rates to high or isn't a personable person. A pro will more than likely take into account all the money he/she has spent in the past when quoting for a job, an amateur will be happy with the odd couple of quid as they don't see their camera as an expense they see it as a toy (ok toy might not be the right word but they see the camera as something they dabble with...not intending to earn money ...its a fun thing to do...take pictures)

I'm all in favour of the barter system - instead of working for free.

nice1franko

Borderfox wrote: »

its one of those subjects that will go round and round, there is no right answer only choices. If your happy with your choices then all is good

+1

K_user

PCPhoto wrote: »

Technically my issue is the fact that amateurs apply - AND - they are given access (but have been told that will change in next 12-18months...efforts are being made to create agreements with various bodies to give access and refuse others).

Well thats good and bad.

Good because there is some regulation. But bad in the sense that it will prevent some from building up a body of work on which to turn professional.

PCPhoto wrote: »

I agree with you - neither has a "right" but its more of a common respect for someone who is under pressure to get an image versus ignorance in order to get the best image for themselves....there are a number of professional photographers who regularly step out of line and try to get in front of everyone - these people are watched carefully by other professionals and repremanded before the event occurs - they usually only do it on a rare occurrance, two of them are from the same agency and their boss has been told about their behaviour in the past.... as a professional he takes it on board and the behaviour is curbed (for a while).

Could I suggest a baseball bat?

PCPhoto wrote: »

like I said before, if someone wants to work for free.... no problem, its possible that you are taking money from someone else, then again - its also possible that the professional has his rates to high or isn't a personable person. A pro will more than likely take into account all the money he/she has spent in the past when quoting for a job, an amateur will be happy with the odd couple of quid as they don't see their camera as an expense they see it as a toy (ok toy might not be the right word but they see the camera as something they dabble with...not intending to earn money ...its a fun thing to do...take pictures)

Again I agree to a point. But there are amateurs who see their camera as a tool and who do take jobs, or create jobs for themselves, using that tool.

PCPhoto wrote: »

I'm all in favour of the barter system - instead of working for free.

Again I think it depends on what you are bartering. What I might consider a good trade might seem absurd to you. As long as both parties are getting something small - and no one party is taking advantage of the other - than "free" is more of a gentlemans agreement.

Mycroft H

PCPhoto wrote: »

I have to disagree with the highlighted part above ....sometimes its the FACT that the designated area on the pitch is "supposed" to be for working press photographers, not supposed to be for enthusiastic amateurs who apply under the "freelance" banner

See I wouldnt be taking photos at league of Ireland games, inter county gaa games, just my local rural gaa club. The manager who is my neighbor asked me to take a few photographs for the new clubhouse. I've also sold several photos to the liffey champion, again local matches.

You see these pitches are open, just a field, no special 'designated' areas for photographers, and on more then one occasion I've been confronted by 'professionals' who ask me who I'm shooting for or am I a member of the NUJ? When i tell them i not working/member of either, I am basically told to f off as I've no right to be taking photos there. Now who is the c0cky pr!ck there ?

PCPhoto wrote: »

just don't jump in front of someone and block a pic because you want the shot and dont care about anyone else...its just disrespectful....if you are a freelancer trying to make money from it.... you'll quickly learn respect is the key !!

I think this is right. There has to be mutual respect on both sides from a professional to a non-professional viewpoint and vice versa. Otherwise these debates will keep occurring

actuallylike

Apologies if you feel this is ever so slightly off topic (it's about payment for work so I thought it was relevant) but you might want to have a listen to this classic rant from Harlan Ellison regarding 'freebies' and the negative effects they have on things.

I know he comes across as a moany old fart (he seemingly is) but I think he has a point and it's only recently that I have seen a lot of my friends going through the exact same situation in various jobs that I can really relate to the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE