|
pico23
Dec 7, 2008, 12:32 AM
Post #1 of 7
(5704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
If you head over to strobist you might blow a fuse.
After years of seeing pros who predominantly pay their bills off photography (versus semi pro or amateurs who make some portion but not enough to live off of from photography) say DON'T ever work for free! Now I see a guy who has a large following on the web who is a working pro, going and advocating people work for free (even pros).
So like the "How Good Is Your Camera" thread, I was just wondering what you thought about this?
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Dec 7, 2008, 7:29 AM
Post #2 of 7
(5638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Well, after reading the entry, it really wasn't anything all that radical. I have considered offering some services to charities just to help out a good cause. Collaborations are also their own thing; not all work one does in their life has to be done for profit.
There's still a really fine line to be walked though. If the user of my images is making profit then I am making profit. What I do takes time and financial investment, so why should I lose out for someone that's making a buck? No, in that case I need to be compensated just like anyone else that provides a service does.
I feel like there's a bit of softness in the photo industry these days with the abundance of images floating around. Some people are desperate for a bit of validation with their work and some companies are looking to make a quick buck. The Orphaned Works Act also appears to be a bit of a weakening of a photographer's entitlement.
I would hate for there to be even more encouragement to under value an industry.
For me, I will continue to work in whatever the industry climate will be whether I totally agree with it or not. If things change then I change to keep up; that's just life, I guess. If people want to work for free then by all means, that's their call.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Dec 10, 2008, 8:17 AM
Post #3 of 7
(5529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
http://strobist.blogspot.com/...der-working-for.html
I assume you mean this post, well I don;t see anything new or radical here. I know I've volunteered tot ake photos before. Sometime for a church group or other small business. I exchange, I don't get paid, I get acess to something I wouldn't be able to shoot otherwise and I get stock images too.
I know for a fact that people in this very forum have donated thier images to start up climbing publications, post their images on this site, and volunteered to shoot something for the images they ight get.
I realy like his example of getting with a website that needs images that you can easily shoot for them. What great publicity that is. Photo credit.
When I do it, I make sure the person I am shooting for knows not to exchange any $$ issues with other people. When asked, he should just refer potential clients to me and let me deal with the money.
Again, I see nothing new or radical here.
Good read and thanks
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
rokklym
Dec 22, 2008, 2:36 AM
Post #4 of 7
(5362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2001
Posts: 185
|
What I got out of that when I read it was that a lot of pros can't shoot what they want to shoot because that's not whats paying the bills. Its just like being a climbing guide, you get into it because you love it, but then it becomes a job and you can no longer get out and do what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Dec 22, 2008, 6:53 PM
Post #5 of 7
(5302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
rokklylm, very well put. I shot corporate photos for many years unitl the subject matter bored me to death. Now, when asked to shoot something and I know there will be minimal or no pay, I ask myself if it sounds interesting or if I might learn something new from the experience. If the answer is yes, then it sways me in the direction of doing the shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Dec 22, 2008, 9:02 PM
Post #6 of 7
(5245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Ir's funny, but I was going to say almost the opposite thing, but I sort of realized that it would depend on the individual and what part of the industry they're in.
Personally, what I want to shoot isn't part of the equation when it comes to work. It's not about the subject matter or the general direction of the shoot for me; it's about liberty. Ideally, like to have one of two extremes: the person I am shooting for knows exactly what they want and I just orchestrate it or, the person I am shooting for gives me free reign to make the shot look good.
The latter is a pipe dream for the most part, but for the former it's amazing just how unprepared some people come to a shoot.
When I'm getting paid it's my job to work with what I'm given whether it makes a lot of sense or not, but when you aren't working for monetary compensations it's a fair demand to take some liberties as the photographer.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Dec 22, 2008, 10:26 PM
Post #7 of 7
(5218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
rokklym wrote: What I got out of that when I read it was that a lot of pros can't shoot what they want to shoot because that's not whats paying the bills. Its just like being a climbing guide, you get into it because you love it, but then it becomes a job and you can no longer get out and do what you want.
I got the same thing.
I was once hazed on another forum because I said, I never had any desire to be a "professional" photographer, as if that meant my photos were better or worse. I always have to explain this to my in-laws when I do a paid shoot and they say, "oh thats good, maybe it will lead to something bigger, isn't that really what you want to be doing." No, not at all. Not if it sucks the enjoyment out of something I get immense satisfaction from regardless of if there is a check waiting for me at the end of the process!
The reason was, freelancing, and picking my own subjects like picking prime cherries out of a bin was far better than having to do exactly what I was told.
So while I do do some paid stuff with rules (mostly sports), most of my stuff is sold to people who are interested in the print, stock news agencies, etc. If I make enough money per year to cover my gear, and expenses related to photography I am happy. The truth is I'd still be a photographer if I made $0 a year because it's largely a hobby, a hobby that I'd like to pay for itself.
This allows me to do whatever I want, and I have no pressure.
I never envied the guy that is told exactly what to shoot and how to shoot it, even if photography is his career, and the only income he lived off of.
And in the media room at many large events, I hear some of the best photogs in my region bitch and moan about how they were sent to do this and that (such as shoot a house fire hours after it was out, just because the editor had nothing else for them to do).
So I understand what he's saying, but at the same time, it's antithesis of what most pros believe. Afterall, isn't being a pro essentially being continuously employed and having a steady stream of income? Any job that allows that is subject to the management of the person paying!!
(This post was edited by pico23 on Dec 22, 2008, 10:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
