Photographer ethics? Can you shoot yourself in the foot?

Hey all,

This is more of a rant than anything else, but I've recently been flicking through some photography websites. I have my own, and I'm always curious to see what other people are doing with theirs.


Anyway, one of the website I've come across is horribly misleading. I (vaguely) know the person who owns the site.

He has an advert on the website at the moment, promoting himself as being a photographer who can cover weddings, communions, gigs, parties, etc. Now, I don't mind that at all. A bit of promotion never hurt anyone at all. However, the photos that he's using to promote himself were certainly not taken by him.

They are great photos, but they're not his photos.


Also, on every second website I've come across, the photographer seems to have turned into a small company. Websites that are clearly the work of a single person, yet have "we" and "us" written in every second sentence. What's the idea behind that?

Surely writing "we" and "us" instead of "I" and "me" is misleading (not as misleading as using other people's photos, of course) and aids in removing any sense of honesty or personality from the site (unless of course, the site is by multiple people, but you can usually tell).


So I'm just wondering... What happens here? Does this come back to bite you?


I mean, if I seen photos that looked amazing and booked a photographer based on the images on his website, and then he delivered photos that clearly weren't up to the same standard, I'd be really annoyed. I'd never hire that photographer again, and I'd make sure to mention the experience to anyone I knew who was looking to hire a photographer.


But are most people like this? or are people willing to just take what they're given and keep a smile on their face throughout?


I realise everyone has to start somewhere, and that's grand. But is it OK to use other people's images (even with their permission) to promote yourself? Does this ever actually come back to you?


Has anyone done it? If you have used other photographer's images, did you ever have it said back to you by a client/potential client?


I just can't quite get my head around it. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Dodgykeeper

I suppose if he has the photographers permission or has purchased the pics from a stock site then he is not technically doing anything wrong, I would never do it and find the very notion of it shocking

mrboswell

If a photographer displays photos on their site that are not actually their own work it can lead to copyright issues for starters.
If someone makes a booking on the standard of work displayed on the site and doesn't deliver well that can lead to court proceedings also - and I have heard of a few cases being taken against photographers that didn't deliver.

I certainly don't get the 'us' and 'we' thing but what ever floats your boat...

smelltheglove

A long time back I did come across a wedding photography site that used stock images, I couldnt recall who it was but I had noticed due to seeing one of the images before on a stock site. It is very misleading and honestly I would say deceitful. How can a photographer honestly expect to impress clients by showing one standard and delivering another? Also even if he/she had the intention of delievering someone elses style when it comes to the nature of a wedding, the high pressure of getting the shot in that moment, there is no way you could possibly imitate any style but your own.

As for the websites, the I and We irritates me enough but then speaking in the 3rd person really does my head in, I mean are these guys trying to convince their clients that they have a web designer who speaks so highly of them? Although Id love to say sure my site is this that and the other, you cant check it because it is down right now, but really it is all I and me and it will stay that way!

Kbeg3

On the we and us thing it is a bit annoying. I was looking at a site recently where the photographer was talking about a shot he had taken, it was like we found the right spot, we set up the tripod, we used a long exposure, etc. It's strange as it's clearly just him who took the photo.

smelltheglove

Kbeg some stunning shots on your site!

Buckz

When we is actually I- that's not unusual- look at anyone selling stock- they all seem to do it. also look at certain photography courses- they appear to be big organizations but can be pure one man oufits.But using other peopls photos to gain credibility that is a little sad. While not using another's pictures, one trick that is nearly as bad is the wedding photographer portfolio shoot- instructor provides models, clothes, lights, sets up the shots, poses the models etc, and the budding photographers push the button, and get great portfolio shots for their studio brochures or website. Unfortunately for unsuspecting clients, they may not have the ability to do all this again.

magicbastarder

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I suppose if he has the photographers permission or has purchased the pics from a stock site then he is not technically doing anything wrong

i suspect (i.e. it'd make sense, but that doesn't mean the law agrees) it could be construed as fraud; if i pursued a photographer whose work did not match what was on his website, the fact that the work he was presenting as his own was not his (because it is a reasonable assumption to make that it's his work) would not be on good ground in the small claims court.

sNarah

On a similar note, something that has been annoying the living hell out of me... nearly every photographer that I know, now has a FB fanpage, XXX Photography... no matter how experiences they are or have good shots or whatever... WHY?

Looks like every single day someone starts a bloody page like that, and I genuinly don't see the point of it...

Using another photographers work on the other hand, is such a big no no! Why advertise a product if you won't be able to deliver the product!!

sNarah

sNarah wrote: »

XXX Photography

Wahey, what do they specialise in?!


To be honest, I think the Facebook page is a good idea. I have one myself, and even though it's not the most used in the world, and doesn't have many "likes", it's been quite useful to me. If nothing else, it provides a platform to link back to my website, or gives a quick overview of what I'm up to without the user having to leave Facebook.


Even if I hadn't yet taken any photographs, or had nothing to say, I'd still set up the facebook page and just leave the website URL on it. Can't do any harm (or can it?).

sNarah

I know, I know

Not saying it's a bad thing persé, but if every chump with a DSRL has one and, let's say, uses stock images, I'm a tad worried about seeing the light through the clouds (is that a saying in English??).
You know what I mean! And maybe I'm just friends with too many photoheads, it's just a bit much sometimes...

Myself, if I was interested in going pro (ha!), yeah, I'd defo have the FB, but as a accompaniment to my website, which would have but my own images.

Are you close enough to the person in the OP to ask questions on why he uses those images? Could be interesting to see the reasoning behind it.

magicbastarder

if the chap mentioned in the original post has a FB page, you should PM his name to a few people here who can go on his page and start asking awkward questions.

I do see what you mean sNarah, yeah, but I think that any advantage is the only advantage these days. There are so many people who picked up a DSLR and are chancing their arms, that everyone is trying to get one over on the next person.


The person I'm talking about wouldn't be close enough to me for me to ask him. To be honest, i had a comment written on his facebook page under his advert with all these images, but I rethought it and didn't post it. It's not really my place to jump in, and to be honest, I'm very curious as to how this will play out with him.

I believe he's covering an event for another friend of his (and charging for it).


Bastarder, he does have a facebook (and yes, sNarah, he has a fan page for his photography, too :P ) but I don't think i'd be too comfortable making him look like a cnut. I think I'd feel bad (though I probably shouldn't, he sounds a bit condescending at times, on the ould Facebook).

sNarah

KVV, I think you hit the nail on the head there by saying
There are so many people who picked up a DSLR and are chancing their arms, that everyone is trying to get one over on the next person.

And that's where the problem lays within the ethical questions about photography. On one side you have the committed, honest, hard working person studying the subject, trying to improve on every single shoot and offering the best quality they possibly can.

On the other hand, chancers, who "have a go at this photography malarkey". It's quite simple really... get a camera that looks "pro" enough, set up a funky site, have the FB page and you're good to go. Will cost you less than a grand.

From a potential customers perspective, it's very hard to find out which is which. Both websites will probably look similar, say the same things, have the same testimonials, and show the best shots available... So how does one figure out who's in photography "for real" or who trying to make a quick buck? Well, when you get your pics... and by then, t be too late.

From what I hear and see within the group of photographers I know, most of them are acting with good ethics and do it for the love of the art. That said, I'm afraid I also know a good few people of the latter category and it drives me mental to see them operate (rather successfully) without delivering a good product but making money on it. Worse is when they're close and if someone asks you for a reference... uh... um... well... how do you explain the reason why not to choose this photographer without badmouthing or potentially ruining their business (as bad as it may be). it's tricky.

smelltheglove

Does that mean I have to hide away now because I have a fanpage SNarah haha, it actually gets me a good amount of work though:p

On the website note, I absolutely hate the model images for samples too, I mean come on the majority of brides will NOT lay across the grass on their wedding day! I have Rock the Frock pics like that and whenever brides ask about pics like that I say look do you think you would be happy lying on dirty grass on your wedding day, if so lets do it I love it but if not lets rock the frock after!

On the fanpage Snarah, one guy added my hubbie recenntly and invited him to his page, my hubbie being in a band gets a lot of unknown ads, well he has now blocked this person from the constant irriation he was posting, the guy was runnning a competition for free band shots, over 30 bands entered though and looking at the pics I couldnt tell why.... after a few days whenever I heard him say ffs with the laptop open I knew this guy had annoued him more, blurry, noisy images with bad composition and the guy was saying something just landed on his lap which was going to make him a big player on the photography scene!

daycent

Buckz wrote: »

When we is actually I- that's not unusual- look at anyone selling stock- they all seem to do it. also look at certain photography courses- they appear to be big organizations but can be pure one man oufits.But using other peopls photos to gain credibility that is a little sad. While not using another's pictures, one trick that is nearly as bad is the wedding photographer portfolio shoot- instructor provides models, clothes, lights, sets up the shots, poses the models etc, and the budding photographers push the button, and get great portfolio shots for their studio brochures or website. Unfortunately for unsuspecting clients, they may not have the ability to do all this again.

The use of photos taken at wedding courses is something that a lot of people seem to feel justified in defending, which is strange. While not as bad as stock images, it relates to actual wedding photography only barely. The usual excuse is; 'ah sure, it's only to get me started...'

The stock photo thing is bizarre. I've outed a few "professional photographers" for this in the past. It's hard to get your head around someone justifying it to themselves when putting together a site. Or instructing their website designer to do it; 'You might just download a few photos from the web maybe, mine aren't that good....' :rolleyes:

With regards to photos taken at wedding courses, my opinion on that would be that it's fine, surely?

I've never done such a course, but if the photos are taken on your own equipment, in your own time, then I see no issue with them being used as a portfolio shot?

On the other hand, if there's hundreds of euro worth of lighting equipment involved that you don't own or can't use, or something along those lines, then I don't agree with it.

Borderfox

I went to a hotel in Athlone to cover a wedding and a photographer had left an album constiting of pictures taken of a model in a wedding dress, this wouldnt be an example of their wedding work, more like an example of a model shoot.

I have seen a few sites using pictures that look the same (stock pictures) and I would agree that this could be construed as fraud. I would agree that more and more people are picking up a camera and making a website and away they go. I know a "photographer" that charges more than I do and has f**k all experience and no backup equipment, only a matter of time before they are found out but not fair on the client when it happens.

smelltheglove

Deleted User wrote: »

With regards to photos taken at wedding courses, my opinion on that would be that it's fine, surely?

I dont think its fine really, I mean there is someone there guiding you, showing you how to take the picture so it kind of defeats the purpose of saying you are a professional, I mean are you only a professional with a professional leading you?

I have one example of this, I will not name names, I can across a photog in bebo days that started same time as me, this photog had wedding course photos, same couple I had seen from another photog. Anyway this photog was selling themselves as a wedding photog and in fact made a pretty good name in editorial work in the end, just goes to show though, people just assume the money is in weddings and go for it when in fact they may excel at another area.

squareballoon

I think it's really odd to use stock photos on your site. It would be like using someone elses drawings to advertise your illustration work.

I think the 'we' thing on a site is to give people confidence that you're part of a bigger organisation rather than an individual who might run off with all their money. I think most sole traders do it.
We use 'us' and 'we' on our site because there are two of us.

smelltheglove

smelltheglove wrote: »

I dont think its fine really, I mean there is someone there guiding you, showing you how to take the picture so it kind of defeats the purpose of saying you are a professional, I mean are you only a professional with a professional leading you?

Well, see that's another of my peeves, aswell. I hate anyone using the word 'professional' to describe themselves if they're not a professional.

Though that said, my definition of professional isn't someone who can make a lot of money at photography. My personal definition of professional photographer, is a photographer who can guarantee his work.

For example, if I were asked to do a wedding, I wouldn't be able to say "yeah well I can do those shots for you no problem" whilst keeping a straight face. I'd be very up-front about not being able to ensure pro-quality images at the end of the day.

A lot of the sites I come across, and indeed a lot of the sites I've seen, where I know the photographer, give the impression that they are professionals of the highest order. Just bugs me.

Maybe I'm alone, but I don't see anything wrong with saying "I'm not a professional". I say it on my site. (probably explains the lack of interest in me... that or my crap photos. Haha)

pixbyjohn

What is the way that a casual photographer can become an expert wedding photographer, reading this thread prompts me to ask the question ?

pixbyjohn

pixbyjohn wrote: »

What is the way that a casual photographer can become an expert wedding photographer, reading this thread prompts me to ask the question ?

Be a Pro's assistant? Ask to be a second shooter? Cover weddings where the couple either don't care about the photos or can't afford a pro?

I'm sure there are a few avenues you could follow?

smelltheglove

The whole professional debate is another thing though isnt it, I mean examples

PCPHoto is a pro photojournalist but he doesnt say he is a pro wedding photog

Ken, PaulW, Dodgy I would say are pro sports but they dont say they are pro commercial photogs

Border, eas, me and others would be pro wedding, I defo couldnt be a pro sports

The moments girls are pro kids but not sports

And the list goes on..... I woudlnt go around saying Im a professional photog, Im just a photog but my job is a wedding photog which means it is my profession, I dont like the debate really but if you market yourself as a wedding photographer you are hoping people see you as a professional so in all honesty you cannot use guided images as 'proof' of your high standard of work as you cannot guarantee without guidance that you would obtain this same set up.

I insist my clients are happy with the samples I provide, they see my gallery which has quite a few images, my blog has more and facebook even more then upon meeting they see sample albums along with their choice of full wedding start to finish, I usually have 5-6 full weddings on my laptop for the meeting. When I started out I would have been like KKV saying to clients look I cannot guarantee exactly how many or that every image would be a certain standard as I have only covered so many weddings, I ensured every client was aware I was starting out and in my book, model shots, stock shots, or guided shots would have been a breach of their trust.

Borderfox

smelltheglove wrote: »

Border, eas, me and others would be pro wedding, I defo couldnt be a pro sports

I'm Pro everything

daycent

The way you become a professional photographer is to join the IPPA of course :rolleyes:

smelltheglove

Borderfox wrote: »

I'm Pro everything

Haha, you are a rare breed. My enthusiasm is with weddings, I wanted to be pro everything but considering how much I look forward to a wedding I really dont have much interest in other things, I mean I like large family portraits and parties but put me on the edge of a ptch Id be pointing the wrong way!

Borderfox

PR/Event friday
Portrait Saturday
Horse Show Sunday
Party Monday
Wedding this Saturday

smelltheglove

Borderfox wrote: »

PR/Event friday
Portrait Saturday
Horse Show Sunday
Party Monday
Wedding this Saturday

Haha, so what do you moonlight as....?

daycent

Borderfox wrote: »

PR/Event friday
Portrait Saturday
Horse Show Sunday
Party Monday
Wedding this Saturday

Jealous....... well, the getting paid bit anyway!!

eas

I choose to use the plural "we" & "our" over "me" & "my" because my copy represents my business rather than myself. I've chosen to represent my business this way as part of my branding strategy for a few reasons, but mainly I don't want to be thought of a one man operation, simple as that. Not that there's anything wrong with being a one man operation, but that just doesn't fit where I hope to be in 5 years.

Ethically I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'm not making any claims that my business possess any extra abilities, skills or talents based on the fact that there could be more than one decision maker / photographer on staff. If that's implied somehow, than I guess I'm ok with that.

For what it's worth, in my "about" section I talk about myself in the first person without hesitation because I think it has a more personal objective. In fact, a large percentage of inquiries that come from my website include "Hi Eric" or similar, so it's not like people are expecting a multinational operation.

Oh, and none of the photos are mine either.

Off to check my facebook page.

Borderfox

"So I'm just wondering... What happens here? Does this come back to bite you?


I mean, if I seen photos that looked amazing and booked a photographer based on the images on his website, and then he delivered photos that clearly weren't up to the same standard, I'd be really annoyed. I'd never hire that photographer again, and I'd make sure to mention the experience to anyone I knew who was looking to hire a photographer.


But are most people like this? or are people willing to just take what they're given and keep a smile on their face throughout?"

You would hope it would come back to bite them but as you say in the last part I have quoted some people just accept it

Scamp-

When I get married I'm going to wear Lady Gaga's Polariod-glasses and have my bridesmaids carry around an elaborate array of mirrors.

stcstc

i dont find using course pics a problem, i mean how else would you get shots

I find the assumption that someone would be willing to train another person to then compete with them in the very over crowded market a little odd. the ammount of times i see people saying hey i want to get into wedding photography, would you mind me learning from you so then i can take your business.

I would of thought that using stock images would surely be false advertising.

eas

stcstc wrote: »

I find the assumption that someone would be willing to train another person to then compete with them in the very over crowded market a little odd. the ammount of times i see people saying hey i want to get into wedding photography, would you mind me learning from you so then i can take your business.

It's a bit odd, I had a conversation with another photographer a little while back and as he saw it he was providing on the job training to his assistants, so he started charging them for the privilege.

K_user

stcstc wrote: »

I find the assumption that someone would be willing to train another person to then compete with them in the very over crowded market a little odd.

Plumbers take on assistants, as do tilers and nearly every other trade I can think of. When a student leaves college and joins a company they get trained in. Technically they are being trained to be able to replace their trainer...

If someone was good enough to take you on and train you up, then the least you can do is to train someone looking for their break in the business.

K_user

I find it really disturbing that people are using the photographs of others to promote their photography business. It amounts to fraud and when they screw up and can't deliver then its the client that is going to suffer.

jpb1974

I find it really disturbing that people are using the photographs of others to promote their photography business. It amounts to fraud and when they screw up and can't deliver then its the client that is going to suffer.

How many cases do you know of altogether?

eas

K_user wrote: »

Plumbers take on assistants, as do tilers and nearly every other trade I can think of. When a student leaves college and joins a company they get trained in. Technically they are being trained to be able to replace their trainer...

I think they're called apprentices rather than assistants? In those cases it's likely they are actual employees of the business / contractor / whatever & the company makes income on having them.

K_user

smelltheglove wrote: »

Haha, you are a rare breed. My enthusiasm is with weddings, I wanted to be pro everything but considering how much I look forward to a wedding I really dont have much interest in other things, I mean I like large family portraits and parties but put me on the edge of a ptch Id be pointing the wrong way!

I couldn't agree more. We all have our separate interests and skills within "photography". What works for one, doesn't work for another.

Just because a person is really good at weddings doesn't mean they'd be any good at landscapes. Course given the time and given the effort, they would improve - but only if they had the interest in doing so.

My sister is getting married in a couple of months and she got really embarrassed when she mentioned that she had hired a photographer. She even went as far as asking my other sister if I'd expected to be asked to do the job. F**k no is the answer! I couldn't imagine anything worse. The thought terrifies me. Couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't want to!

K_user

eas wrote: »

I think they're called apprentices rather than assistants? In those cases it's likely they are actual employees of the business / contractor / whatever?

Same difference. They are there to learn what they can and move on.

I remember having this conversation with one of the guys that did work in my house. He said it straight out that within a couple of years the apprentices would be good enough to be competition. But they are needed to get the work done today.

The point is that when an apprentice/assistant has developed the skills to branch out on their own, the "professional" should already be an established business. But the newbie has it all to do.

K_user

jpb1974 wrote: »

How many cases do you know of altogether?

I don't, I've just been reading the thread...

eas

K_user wrote: »

Same difference. They are there to learn what they can and move on.

It's not the same. I could have an assistant once or twice and never see them again. An apprentice would more than likely be around for much longer. And as your builder friend alluded to, he's probably making a profit from having his apprentice on the job.

In some trades you're required to work as an apprentice for a certain amount of time before getting your papers.

K_user

eas wrote: »

It's not the same. I could have an assistant once or twice and never see them again. An apprentice would more than likely be around for much longer.

In some trades you're required to work as an apprentice for a certain amount of time before getting your papers.

And you broached a whole other problem right there. One that has been a problem and a bug bear of the photographic industry since its inception.

To be a plumber you need to serve x amount of time and learn x amount of stuff. To be a photographer you need to have a camera.

In any business if apprentices or assistants are taken on they are the "future" of the business. Be it with those that trained them, or in competition. Thats life. Thats business.

However certain businesses require licences, certificates or papers of some sort. Others don't. You'd go to a dentist, but not to a toothologist.

Some professional photographers are very good at their jobs. They have spent years training, working, perfecting and hard slogging to get to where they are. But others, well, they wing it. Thats not saying that they can't produce good work, but unlike a trade, there is no licence or certificate needed.

Training people, in the short or long term, is what we do. Its how information is passed along.

gbee

It doesn't matter, He might have permission, I know more likely not, but complaining is futile. if you have a problem the best way to get him is in court.

Complaining on websites and in newspapers only facilitate him as people never remember the BAD name only his name and they will forget after two weeks why anyway.

There is no such thing as bad advertising, that only gets the company's name on everyone tongue, two weeks later than they want a service, yes, that name is familiar ** BINGO!**

Plus, ironically, when dealing with the general public the bigger and more obvious lie you tell them the more likely they are to believe it.

gbee

eas wrote: »

with another photographer a little while back and as he saw it he was providing on the job training to his assistants, so he started charging them for the privilege.

You might as well, a young lad trained is your competition in three months time. The job is easy, getting the client and getting paid is a little more tricky ~ so invariably they start by taking your existing clients for less money and swing it by pointing out that they had actually shot the last series anyway .... etc and so on.

K_user

gbee wrote: »

You might as well, a young lad trained is your competition in three months time. The job is easy, getting the client and getting paid is a little more tricky ~ so invariably they start by taking your existing clients for less money and swing it by pointing out that they had actually shot the last series anyway .... etc and so on.

*Had to edit my post - read this wrong the first time round!

Ballyman

sNarah wrote: »

On a similar note, something that has been annoying the living hell out of me... nearly every photographer that I know, now has a FB fanpage, XXX Photography... no matter how experiences they are or have good shots or whatever... WHY?

Because it helps drum up business. In some cases a lot of business

gbee

Ballyman wrote: »

Because it helps drum up business. In some cases a lot of business

[And] It's the NEW Golden Pages and far more effective

jaybeeveedub

mrboswell wrote: »

If a photographer displays photos on their site that are not actually their own work it can lead to copyright issues for starters.
If someone makes a booking on the standard of work displayed on the site and doesn't deliver well that can lead to court proceedings also - and I have heard of a few cases being taken against photographers that didn't deliver.

I certainly don't get the 'us' and 'we' thing but what ever floats your boat...

unfortunately there is not much scope for such a claim in the courts....

the Products Liability Act only covers dangerous defects not defects of quality

the Sale of Goods and Supply of services then is your resort and here


39.—Subject to section 40, in every contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, the following terms are implied—

(a) that the supplier has the necessary skill to render the service,

(b) that he will supply the service with due skill, care and diligence,

(c) that, where materials are used, they will be sound and reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are required, and

(d) that, where goods are supplied under the contract, they will be of merchantable quality within the meaning of section 14 (3) of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 10 of this Act).


This means that only the most extreme cases of photos not being up to scratch will come under the remit of the act. The problem is that your appreciation of a photo is purely a subjective one which the courts will not apply. They will only ascertain if the photos are of what a wedding photographer can reasonably expect to cover. The only successful case I know of was brought in the uk, where there was only one photo of the bride and groom, it was at about 15 degrees off level and his legs were missing, there were images of dogs and the ground included in the photos delivered.

So long as the pictures cover the wedding, whether the style matches what is on the website will not be relevant in a court case, even if it were, the photographer can claim that he decided based on his skill and due diligence that due to the light conditions etc, the change in style was necessary in order to achieve acceptable results

To found a claim on tortious negligence you would have to show damage, which will not have occurred, you have photos of your wedding, they're just not what you expected...

AnCatDubh

I think the "I" / "we" is often a copy/proof issue. I know I deliberately set out to write little on my site but even so I fell into the pitfall of "I" in one part of a page and "we" in another part (same page - doh! - will have to sort it out this evening). I proof read what I wrote = great chance of errors.

I dunno but it appears that when you are of some repute as a photographer (or artist) that you will absolutely want it known no matter how many work for you that it is an "I" effort ie. that is why people are coming to your studio or photographic practice because they get "you" and no one else. I personally think the I singular approach is better. It is ultimately branding of you. This is what makes your brand unique and something that no one else can replicate -- that is until cloning becomes mainstream (or maybe that deserves to go on the conspiracy theory forum).

I don't have a problem with wedding images taken by the photographer on a course or with a model in a studio from displaying this as part of his/her wares. It remains their personal work even if under instruction, but that said, photographers should be clear - I have one such image on my site. It is my work. It is also clear that the subject is a model. There is little ambiguity. I also have a bride in there which simply has her name.

I think there will be a distinction between someone who passes themselves off as something they aren't and someone who is genuine. Knowing the difference can be a problem. Normally it says more about the individual than anything else should they not be upfront - but this is not unusual in life generally and doesn't necessarily purely pertain to photographers.