Work for free rant

Phototoxin

It's against the law in this country for members of any profession to agree on a standard charge for any job, it must be priced ndependently from their trade/professional association

>sic<

Yeah but this is EIREAAAA ! (*kicks person into hole*) the laws of the real world dont apply due to so little competition for high end electrical goods such as say a camera I priced in 3 different shops who all gave me the the EXACT same price..

melekalikimaka

at the end of the day its personal choice, all i'm saying is, your personal choice may have effects on fellow photographers, and I feel as a patron of photography, maybe thinking twice on some of the more 'commerical' for what of a better word assignments many of us do for free.

AnCatDubh

Invariably the jobs for free debate ends up with two camps - those that would/will and those that think they shouldn't/wont. This represents the dichotomy of personal choice.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the whole cutting the throat of the industry thing. It constantly referenced by those that think they shouldn't/won't. But the world moves on. Home taping of music didn't kill the music industry - they have just had to rethink the business model when they discovered that they couldn't control the air supply (not the band!) and sell value add ons. Music is no longer a money earner - the business model around the music is where the money is. The world hasn't stopped. The software industry has not imploded because many applications have a free and alternative open source product. The business model has changed significantly. Companies still sell software as a boxed package but the clever ones are selling the empowerment of organisations by releasing the foot off the throat of the air supply (cash!) which is expended on traditional licenced models. Microsoft eventually becomes as irrelevant as IBM. Its all in a cycle. That cycle is about 30 years.

Like home taping of music (60's and 70's in particular) photography for free will not kill the industry. It signposts the need for change. The industry must be ready to change. You used to pay a professional photographer (in years gone by) because they had far superiour gear and know how than the average guy on the street. The advent of digital driving down costs has meant that it is affordable for someone to get good without even a formal apprenticeship in the discipline. Your average Uncle Bob or Aunt Maud are likely to have gear which is every bit as good as the professionals and while they may not have a formal 'package' on offer, the end result can be as good if not better sometimes than the professional. There are some extremely talented amateur photographers on this forum which would put many a professional to shame. There are some extremely talented professionals also on here which put many amateurs to shame. There is middle ground sometimes overlap between the two.

More and more the amateur gets better (ok - some get worse ) The game gets up'd, Amateurs willing to do jobs for free are often in their 'progression' phase - they may have a way to go, but are glad to have the photographic opportunity to advance them. Professionals are different. The are good (at least supposed to be) - some brilliant. But their advancement is not as quick as the amateur - simply, they have less to learn and hence their incremental learning is slower. So the industry has a real fear to contend with. Here comes the nerds with their pointy hats and half a*sed ideas which by the way often deliver.

Have the industry well grounded fears? You betcha. Analyse the photographic industry under any business strategy tool and you'll find they have problems. For any of you business heads Porters 5 forces (forcefield analysis) is a case in point. The model analyses the industry under the criterion of;

1. The threat of substitute products - Very high. Never mind within the industry the non professional can make a substitute for virtually any photographers product.

2. The threat of entry of new competitors - Very high again. I feel like i'm going to do a free gig on Friday night = band don't ring professional photographer.

3. The intensity of competitive rivalry - Very high i'd suggest and the ground on it hasn't even been broken. Apart from those in the industry being a rival what about every Tom, Dick, or Harriet which has a 10 megapixel P&S - these that might land on the playing field.

4. The bargaining power of customers - If they know they can get it cheaper and are willing to find out how to do it, then they can bargain. As a professional you might decide not to accept but because the threat of substitute products is very high, the customer will just move on. Bummer and all as that may be it is the reality of the situation.

5. The bargaining power of suppliers - Not particularly high. With one capital investment the pro and non pro alike can go for long periods if the want to. In practice they don't but if a pro or non pro have to use an 'old' lens for their next gig instead of a latest model then the suppliers don't have very much bargaining power.

There are many other business models that could be offered which still arrive at the same conclusion - photography is an industry which doesn't have exclusivity on exclusivity.

Moving beyond this problem that faces the industry, more the debate which we should engage in is when will the 'photography industry' recognise that the world is changing. They may not want for it to change. They may become the sluggish software company fighting with the free open source. They may not comprehend the new business models of the world and the concept of 'free' may be completely alien.

It hasn't yet happened and may be longer coming than the music industry or the software industry. The ghosts of the past continuously fight battle with the present - the old and sluggish software companies fight with their free open source rivals. The music industry fights with the pirates over a 99c track which aggregated 'costs' the industry billions i'm sure. And yet we all compensate the same music industry with exhorborant concert fees and merchandising revenues which is this new model. Sure there are arguments of needing R&D, new talent to be mentored, new innovation in software. These can all be debated until the cows come home. One thing is for sure that the world is changing and perhaps - just maybe, that which was photography will have to change.

I haven't the answer (at least yet) for the photographic industry and those that are employed by it. I accept and respect that photographers must make their living but they are not immune to the worlds rotation and the change that this will bring. In time to survive they will need to change. Like anything, the early adopters will have the opportunity to shape the impact of this change and will have the opportunity to establish themselves as pioneers of this new world perhaps even being in a position to make a living.

Perhaps this has been an alternate rant. I know its taken a little while to type up and comes with no particular structure except that of random thinking on the issue. It doesn't intend to offend anyone yet I appreciate that it may well do (particularly if you at the moment are waiting on payment for a gig or work taken). This post intends to offer a perspective on why those that do free / pro bono work are not those which will cut the throat of the industry, rather simply people that are involved in the change which perhaps someday will become a revolution to the industry.

Borderfox

People doing free work ups my game, I dont really have too much of a problem with it. Quite a lot of my work is very specialised and draws on high end equipment/skill/timing/ and my knowledge of the areas I am involved in. Other areas such as portraits/weddings people tend to have the idea to hire a pro to get the job done. Some areas eg Music are traditionaly areas where bands start off small and there is great opportunities for new photographers working for free, as I have said before, I wouldnt like to be in this area.

It is one of those questions that bounces around every now and again and as you said there is no definitive answer to it depending on your point of view and which side of the fence you sit on.. good points made above too

ThOnda

I can only confirm what is written above. The wohle day with the same camera and lens and I wasn't able to get a mile close to his pictures. Borderfox is just very very good. And I sux

Dragan

melekalikimaka wrote: »

its all well and good saying that and I can see your point, but by doing so your undercutting someone whos career is based on what your giving away, just something I learnt to keep in mind when these situations arise

*grins* It's funny, would that thought have entered into your head when, as you said yourself, you were happy enough to do stuff for free?

How many of you have sat outside an interview ( assuming you have all been for interviews etc at SOME point in your life ) and looked around at the room and thought "You know what, **** my career progression, that person over there has been working for 5 years now and i should walk out the door and give it to them".

The mistake people are making is the assumption that this work is being done for free, or their is no skill or career progression involved.

Right now i have a much higher chance of working for free than i do of getting paid, so i will work for free until the day i look at my pictures and start to think "yeah, i'm good enough to get paid now".

Photography is exactly the same as any other job, you have a skillset, an expected salary and the work will find you or you will find it. You have to look, there will be competition, some of that competition will be willing to do the work for far less money than you will, some clients will be willing to accept far less quality than you yourself would be able to provide them.

It's the way it goes.

So far, their have been only two elements of photography that have consistantly hacked me off and this would be one of them.

Nobody other than YOU is expected to protect your business. I am here to progress myself as a Photographer, that's about it.

smelltheglove

Wow this debate is coming along. I learnt through my first ever 'job' that working for free should be selective. I covered an event and was kept a couple of hours over the time agreed with no opportunity to leave. I was then expected to travel across city for perusal of pictures twice before the client agreed to purchase some. Free agreement was pictures supplied to newspapers.

The same client then requested 2 further shoots which were agreed at a huge discount. By the time I had finished travelling to and from and sitting in a waiting room hours on end I was out of pocket never mind the insults I was given because the client wanted me to make her slimmer in a crowd shot which is near impossible to do, I walked away in tears at one occassion. My lesson learnt was only work for free for those that otherwise would not hire a photographer, those that would not appreciate it.

Yesterday I was invited to the Christmas party of the boxing club I shoot for. All the proceeds of the nest fight night will be going towards heating and finishing off details in the training facilities, the last few have gone towards equipment. I will not charge as I know it is worth the experience and the cause. I walked in the room yesterday and my pictures were tapped to every wall, the founder introduced me to everyone there who each complimented my shots. The local politicians were giving out awards and during this time while I shot away I was called up with appreciation of my work and given a gift with cheers and thanks from all present. This is what I will work for free for. Not for someone who has the money to pay and will insult at every opportunity. It is true that working for free takes away someone elses potential earning when done in a capacity that someone needs aphotographer and you offer it for free instead. The way I see it is if someone is going to pay a photographer then if they want me they can pay me. The people I shoot for free otherwise would not have the opportunity to promote their band / club and I do it for the enjoyment. Everyone else can pay me.

Paulw

I think there is also a difference between commercial work, and then doing stuff for friends/community/clubs. It's a case of give and take.

Commercial stuff - weddings, portraits, covering events for papers, promotion work - why should it be for free? You give your time, effort, use of your gear, skill, etc to capture images. The people you're photographing are most likely paying others for their services, so why should they not pay you too??

Yeah, sometimes being told that you'll be credited for the photos is tempting. But, what will that get you? As people have experienced here, once papers/publications start getting your images for free, they then don't want to ever pay you, no matter how much you progress.

Here's a thread on DPReview I liked, particularly the very first posting. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=29838250


With regards to clubs/community, I think this is a give and take situation. We all want to help local clubs and the community. These groups normally have very little money, but can be used to make further contacts and spin-off business.

Personally, I don't do free. I always make that clear when talking to potential clients. I covered a number of sporting events and have been asked for many images, for free. I'll certainly cover the event, if I'm available, but I won't give images for free. I will continue to offer them my picts, for a fair price, and see what happens. I did that this year, after each game showing the club Media Officer my picts, and comparing them to the images they used on their website and in their programme. They were getting those for free. In the end, they decided that my images were well worth paying for, so we agreed a contract.

It's about offering the client the quality and consistency they want/need and agreeing a price. At the end of the day, I do photography because I enjoy it. I certainly don't do it for a living. But, I do feel that I can produce what a client needs, and am prepared to charge an appropriate fee for my services.

Phototoxin

on the way home from the GF the only photo magazine was 'professional photographer' or summink similar. So I had to get it (needed to use the laser card and a bottle of water isn't enough to warrant it on its own =p)

In it there were articles on this very topic, basically the conclusion (which I agreed with then again I'm not professional really..) was 'suck it and adapt'. With above points like AnCatDubh made. Professionals just get paid, it doesnt mean they are any good. Similarly amateur means for the love of it, you can still be a great photographer and not have to charge people. People are stupid if because they think that you dont charge that you are rubbish!

Anouilh

I have just allowed one of my photos to be used on the Dublin "Howth Cliff Walk" Schmap.

This amounts to offering work for free or is, at least, vanity publishing.

I retain the copyright and if I remove the photo from the system, Schmap can no longer benefit.

Normally I have "all rights reserved" on my photos, even though I am an amateur and have never sold a photo.

Recently I learned that copyright on photos expires after twenty years (from the date of publishing).

Everybody should protect their interests.

Giving to charity is a time-honoured practice and does not undermine any industry, or so experience in writing both for money and for free has taught me.

Borderfox

The only difference between and amatuer and a professional is the professional only gets one chance to get the shot.

Paulw

Anouilh wrote: »

Recently I learned that copyright on photos expires after twenty years (from the date of publishing).

Where did you hear that? Copyright is normally the life of the photographer + 70 years. - http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/copyright/Page171.html#Topic180 or specifically for Ireland - http://www.patentsoffice.ie/en/copyright_duration.aspx

Covey

@ Smelltheglove

I'd be inclined to take your friends advice regarding the music industry.

To my mind it generally takes advantage of photographers and photographers themselves contribute to this.

On one hand they appear to offer something in return for free photography i.e. entrance to gigs, mixing with the stars etc. But that is really a false "gain" for the photographer. If you go to a gig to listen to the band and enjoy it, well, the photographs won't be up to much. Conversly, if you concentrate on the photography, you're not going to get much from the gig.

The above is also applied by sports organisations in a lot of cases.

Whilst I can see the merit in supporting your community/charity etc, I'd be inclined to charge something for music or sports, even if that is not making you a profit. Aside from anything else, the fact they pay for it will focus the mind on getting an acceptable result for what will then be your "client".

Borderfox

I would agree with the sports/gig element Tommy, if you want to enjoy an event dont bring the camera.

Eirebear

Borderfox wrote: »

The only difference between and amatuer and a professional is the professional only gets one chance to get the shot.

I think thats making things a little too black and white.

In most cases on this in terms of "working for free" we are talking about amateurs who have some sort of proffesional/semi proffesional aspirations.
People who eventually would like to earn some sort of money from photography.

Now, lets take my bit of "working for free".
During any work i do for the GFT I turn up around 10 minutes before the film starts, after the film the guest comes into the picture hall and does a Q&A session.
Now through your work, you understand the pressures of shooting in dim lights, and trying to do it as quietly and unobtrusively as possible, doing so while someone is talking in a cinema is exactly the same.
After the Q&A the guest is whisked off to be wined and dined in a hotel somewhere away from prying eyes.

Before i started doing this, it was a complete amateuer doing the job.
They had exactly the same scope as i did.

In fact, i cant think of very many occasions where the amateur has more than one attempt at THAT shot.

EDIT: For me the difference between Proffesional and Amateur is that the proffesionals livliehood depends on getting a winning shot every time, the amateurs doesnt.

Paulw

Covey wrote: »

On one hand they appear to offer something in return for free photography i.e. entrance to gigs, mixing with the stars etc. But that is really a false "gain" for the photographer. If you go to a gig to listen to the band and enjoy it, well, the photographs won't be up to much. Conversly, if you concentrate on the photography, you're not going to get much from the gig.

The above is also applied by sports organisations in a lot of cases.

I'd have to totally agree here, especially from a sports point of view. I've been to many sporting events, as a photographer and as a fan (separately). When I cover a rugby game to photograph, I then tend to go home and watch the match on TV (recorded or highlights) because you miss the game. You only have a partial view, through the lens.

If I go to watch a game (and happen to bring the camera), then I'd tend to take very very few photos (maybe 10-20 images)and spend the vast majority of time watching the game. When there to photograph, I'd take many more images (400-600 images) and then miss the game.

Covey wrote: »

Whilst I can see the merit in supporting your community/charity etc, I'd be inclined to charge something for music or sports, even if that is not making you a profit. Aside from anything else, the fact they pay for it will focus the mind on getting an acceptable result for what will then be your "client".

With my local club (Sat/Sunday team) I tend to price images (prints) at just over cost. It's cheap enough for them, and it covers me.

Nothing in life is free. And, as they say, a good deed never goes unpunished.

Covey

Paulw wrote: »

Where did you hear that? Copyright is normally the life of the photographer + 70 years. - http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/copyright/Page171.html#Topic180 or specifically for Ireland - http://www.patentsoffice.ie/en/copyright_duration.aspx

Sound Recordings interestingly are 50 years from the date of recording. There are court proceedings pending by Paul McCarthy and Mick Jagger to get that extended as their copyright to their recordings start to expire soon.

Interestingly computer generated works are only 70 years. I could well forsee argument in the future over whether an image was a photograph or a computer generated work.

Anouilh

This was discussed in a thread here some time back.

I have taken to posting some links in the Boards.ie Flickr group, as it gathers interesting topics together in one place and means not having to rummage for hours looking for pieces that have struck a cord.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/boards_ie/discuss/72157607344142077/

Perhaps the members here would be interested in doing the same? Flickr groups are ultimately the Vanity Publishers delight. I have worked like a navvy for the past year on photography, for no money and simply so that I can make a body of work that expresses personal experiences rather than be subject to the public iconography of our times.

By improving the Boards.ie presence on Flickr, the Irish way of seeing the World (if such exists) could find a wider audience.

There is also a thread there on saying "Hello" and linking to one's persona here and there:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/boards_ie/discuss/72057594128884821/page2/

There may be value for professional photographers in having their work better known by linking there, in general, as the widgets showing Flickr group activity are easily embedded in blogs and websites.

Perhaps, in time, there will be no excuse for working for no pay...

cooligPhoto

This may be slightly off topic but it fits with the Professional vs Amateur aspect.

An ex-colleague of mine recently attended a wedding where he followed the professional photographer around taking photos with his pocket camera. During said wedding, he was talking to the photographer who travelled the world taking wedding photos: hence very highly paid. Obviously he was very sought after based on his quality.

This ex-colleague then decided to go out and buy a D300 and a lens. He is now touting himself as a "Professional" photographer. Pushing for business as such.

He knows absolutely nothing about photography. He has 2 lenses: 18-70mm and 80-200mm and asked me what lens he could get to fill the 10mm gap between the two lenses ?!?

I was talking one day about taking photos with my 200mm f/2.8 + 2x converter and he asked me where the converter goes ?!?

Now I've been into photography for about 30 years. Had my own darkroom. Am about to embark on paid sports photography. I'm happy to do work for free (whilst angling to get more work paid). I have a very large portfolio.

This ex-colleague insults the world of photography. He's the type of person the professionals should be worrying about, not those of us who'd be prepared to do the odd little job for free. He's the type of guy who will likely bring a bad name to professional photography.

Who would want to hire a "professional" when they (ie. this guy) gives them prints from Harvey Norman. Compared to myself (amateur) who has many years experience and can print 13x19 water colour/velvet/super glossy prints that should last 200 years?? And I'll frame them too (for extra cost).

melekalikimaka

@cooligPhoto - the irony is that what you said is true but encompasses alot of the less regulars here, anyone half consistant posting are in general, feet firmly on the ground as regards the scheme of things, but its funny cos that goes through my mind alot of the time here with some of the threads that pop up. I would by no means consider myself even semi professional, still alot to learn but I find it amusing seeing posters here with the 'I got a d40 with kit lens and want to get into weddings...whats a flash' sorts threads, its hard to tell them to cop the feck on without being rude.

tis an art at the end of the day, anyone can but the best paintbrush in the world and most expensive paints but would never call themselves a professional painter...its funny how photography doesn't get the same rationality

Anouilh

cooligPhoto wrote: »

He knows absolutely nothing about photography. He has 2 lenses: 18-70mm and 80-200mm and asked me what lens he could get to fill the 10mm gap between the two lenses ?!?
...
This ex-colleague insults the world of photography. He's the type of person the professionals should be worrying about, not those of us who'd be prepared to do the odd little job for free. He's the type of guy who will likely bring a bad name to professional photography.

Who would want to hire a "professional" when they (ie. this guy) gives them prints from Harvey Norman. Compared to myself (amateur) who has many years experience and can print 13x19 water colour/velvet/super glossy prints that should last 200 years?? And I'll frame them too (for extra cost).

I think you underestimate people's appreciation of good photography. While I would love to sell a photo, in time, I have no illusions about my skills or photographic equipment. I once minded a colleague's photographic equipment at a photo shoot while he went off for yet another lens. It almost filled the room and he had arrived looking like Quasimodo under a vast burden.

That experience convinced me that news photography should only be attempted by very strong and large people...


I think there is a market, online, for miniature works by amateurs. Your "friend" has great neck and I'm glad he is not a doctor, for instance.

There are charlatans in every trade.
Most people choose a professional through word of mouth.

Covey

Anouilh wrote: »

I think there is a market, online, for miniature works by amateurs.

Care to expand ?

*Dallas

cooligPhoto, i know exactly how you feel about your ex colleague.

I know a person exactly like that.. .just went out and bought a standard camera and lens, puts no effort what-so ever in to the images or even posing of people, just point and click but still manages to get invited to events.

It really annoys me that people call him a 'photographer' IMHO he's a chancer.

Im a total amateur (with the hope of becoming professional) and was asked to do a communion by an old schoolmate, got there discussed pricing in stuff (literally just €50 to cover my petrol and prints)... and I got burnt. Payment was never handed over, they talked about what a rush they were in. :eek: i was stupid enough to email the photos thinking payment might still arrive.. then the photos ended up on Bebo!!

So, even as an amateur, I'll never offer to do anythin for free again.
I've learned my lesson.

Anouilh

Covey wrote: »

Care to expand ?

I have a free account with Fotopic.

The premium account offers an interesting system where the company will sell photos online for you, taking all the fuss out of marketing and sending photos oneself.

http://fotopic.net/gallery/premium/printshop.php