-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Professional photography vs. "citizen journalism"
- Thread starter Jani Jrvinen
- Start date
KIPAX
Well-known member
Exactly! .. My question to the person who wrote the article the OP pointed to.. and the subsequent irate professionals in this thread .. is... Why should we? Its your place to make sure you earn a living.. not ours. harsh but true I am afraid. Sorry if our hobby impacts on your living.. but it's not something we should be taken to task for is it?
--
http://www.kipax.com
ePan
Leading Member
OK, lets change the profession/hobby so it's not personal.
Lets say I get together with a few friends in my garage and record a song that no music industry executive in their right mind would ever pay for. It's just a recording sitting on my hard drive or CD. Someone offers me the opportunity to upload this song to a site where people from around the world can download it for free, and if they choose pay a few pennies for it. Explain why this is such a terrible thing and a threat to the music industry.
Professional photographers will always be in demand because when it comes down to the important stuff (be it news events, sports, or a wedding) we are not going to trust the hobbyist who just may happen to get a great candid shot. However, if a particular candid or cliche shot a hobbyist takes happens to be exactly what I want, and I can get it from iStock for 25 cents, then so be it.
--
- Eric
There is a difference between Joe Public being in the right place at the right time & getting his/her mobi pictures published, and some guy working in another job to buy £1000's of camera equipment etc & then working for free for the media, to make them money. That's deliberately setting out to put other photographers out of work.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
Tom Batinich
Senior Member
Right here,
"But professionals do seem to think they are better than amatuers... Your very posts suggests you think professionals know more than hobbyists.."
You are the one who is implying what pro's think aren't you ? So you feel slighted by all the pro's who look down on you ? Really who are they ?
It seems to me that you have a pet peeve regarding this subject.
"But professionals do seem to think they are better than amatuers... Your very posts suggests you think professionals know more than hobbyists.."
You are the one who is implying what pro's think aren't you ? So you feel slighted by all the pro's who look down on you ? Really who are they ?
It seems to me that you have a pet peeve regarding this subject.
wrong and I have never even come close to implying that.. quite the
opposite.. where on earth have you got that from.. I am stating
that amatuers are as good as professionals... I am not suggesting
either is better than the other... not one single bit.. can you
show me where you get the above from? please dont make it up to
try and score points... I would hope this is an adult debate
KIPAX
Well-known member
Or its having a hobby and wanting to be good at it...
Do you really think someone would go to the trouble of sitting in the cold and wet for 5 yrs at non league grounds.. working up his equipment buying and selling and getting known enough to be published.... Just so he can put someone out of work... I think your being a bit silly now
--
http://www.kipax.com
ePan
Leading Member
Absolutely right! But do you really see this at a scale that's going to make even a minor impact?
Sports, maybe... lets face it many amateurs would PAY a lot of money just to have the opportunity to stand in the press box, but I don't really see newspapers handing out passes to amateurs with the hopes of getting some free pictures. I'd be the first one in line with the best equipment money can buy, it they did--I can't promise to bring back anything worth printing though.
--
- Eric
KIPAX
Well-known member
No.. its all there.. read the thread.. plenty of prof togs are saying amatuers cant do as good or even handle the equipment... Read the thread... its all there I aint making it up
who looks down on me? behave yourself.. try reading the thread and sticking to whats been said.. trying to post what i feel or think is at best childish.. if you can't add anything to the debate then just read.. but lets not be silly eh
you are absoloutly right there... I dislike seeing articles like the one the OP pointed to and i dislike seeing professional photographers saying they are better than amatuers.... read the thread.. its all there in print so please stop accusing me of making it up..
--
http://www.kipax.com
One of the worst things that happened to photography is photographers, semi pros and pros being persuaded to sell their images on a Royalty Free Basis by Photo Libraries. The winners are the photo libraries and buyers and only a very, very, small handful of photographers.
To survive as a full time professional photographer you must sell images in high tens, hundreds or in the occassional thousands to make a reasonable living.
I read the other day someone was excited becuase he had sold an 8 images for a total of£8.00 on istock - what a joke!
Two competing banks in the USA recently purchased what they thought were bargain RF images, unknown to them, the same Royalty Free image, which they both published at the same time - serves them right for being cheap skates. Had they purchased a licenced image the likely hood of this occurring would be slim.
The problem with many amateurs, some take professional standard images and exceptional images, is they know little about the true value of their image. Taking a picture is a very small part of being a successful professional photographer. Knowing your fees and copyright is another skill altogether.
One website is promoting free images to share amongst designers. The owner of the web site owns a design company, apparently a succesfull business. I wonder how he would feel if I set up a free design company right next door to him to devalue his profession?
Sadly since digital technology and the internet have arrived on the scene everyone can get in on the act. Nothing wrong with this provided, when an image is sold for commercial use, the right fee is charged.
There will always be a need for different pricing structures but not the dumb give away prices made available at present on istock, etc. If a company cannot afford the right fee, as some are already doing, let them go and take their own snaps and learn the hard way.
My last fee for sports clothing company was in the thousands not £1.00!
To survive as a full time professional photographer you must sell images in high tens, hundreds or in the occassional thousands to make a reasonable living.
I read the other day someone was excited becuase he had sold an 8 images for a total of£8.00 on istock - what a joke!
Two competing banks in the USA recently purchased what they thought were bargain RF images, unknown to them, the same Royalty Free image, which they both published at the same time - serves them right for being cheap skates. Had they purchased a licenced image the likely hood of this occurring would be slim.
The problem with many amateurs, some take professional standard images and exceptional images, is they know little about the true value of their image. Taking a picture is a very small part of being a successful professional photographer. Knowing your fees and copyright is another skill altogether.
One website is promoting free images to share amongst designers. The owner of the web site owns a design company, apparently a succesfull business. I wonder how he would feel if I set up a free design company right next door to him to devalue his profession?
Sadly since digital technology and the internet have arrived on the scene everyone can get in on the act. Nothing wrong with this provided, when an image is sold for commercial use, the right fee is charged.
There will always be a need for different pricing structures but not the dumb give away prices made available at present on istock, etc. If a company cannot afford the right fee, as some are already doing, let them go and take their own snaps and learn the hard way.
My last fee for sports clothing company was in the thousands not £1.00!
Actually, if he was able to get some money for what he does, and the publisher did pay him... I'm guessing that actually the publisher would then have LESS money freed up to pay other photographers who are are on his payroll.
In any event, if this photographer did charge for his services to cover the events that he goes to, I don't see how another photographer that wants to also be paid by the same publisher would be better off?
In any event, if this photographer did charge for his services to cover the events that he goes to, I don't see how another photographer that wants to also be paid by the same publisher would be better off?
No but that's what you have done (put somebody out of work) because you are doing something for free, that media organisations should be paying for. None of them is going to stop you doing it & they probably have come to rely on you doing it for free. Sure they would have probably only have paid somebody £12-15 a shot for covering some non league match in the rain. But that is the principle that's been breeched by what you are doing, and now these organisations are expecting everything to be supplied for free because good natured but ultimately flawed individuals like yourself are doing this as a 'hobby'. I can try & extrapolate this to tother trades/professions - does a plumber work for free, does a lawyer practice law for free or a s a hobby of course not. What you are doing is ultimately cross subsidising from one employment (your FT job) to another - your photo role - and this is putting somebody out of work.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
I dont think it works like that- people like KIRPAX are generating an expectation by employers that photographers will work for nothing. If you value your work at nothing, your work will be worth nothing. I dont know of many professions where people work for nothing, hobby or otherwise, to make others money.
I think ultimately the bottom line I am working to here is the work KIRPAX is doing is actually worth nothing, because nobody wants to pay for it, and maybe somebody else will come along with all the gear & do it for free. So the intrinsic valu is nothing. Maybe I am being too generous in thinking he is putting somebody else out of work, as there actually is no viable payable work being done ??
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
I think ultimately the bottom line I am working to here is the work KIRPAX is doing is actually worth nothing, because nobody wants to pay for it, and maybe somebody else will come along with all the gear & do it for free. So the intrinsic valu is nothing. Maybe I am being too generous in thinking he is putting somebody else out of work, as there actually is no viable payable work being done ??
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
Maybe I just dont like working for nothing. I draw a distiction between working to produce saleable images for a media organisation & giving them away for free, and producing images for myself.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
Tom Batinich
Senior Member
Of course, what others think is silly. What others say is not contributing, unless the agree with you.
Your busted dude. I was replying to what you specifically said as per your request. Don't play that kids game "hey everyone else is doing it".
Your busted dude. I was replying to what you specifically said as per your request. Don't play that kids game "hey everyone else is doing it".
No.. its all there.. read the thread.. plenty of prof togs are
saying amatuers cant do as good or even handle the equipment...
Read the thread... its all there I aint making it up
who looks down on me? behave yourself.. try reading the thread and
sticking to whats been said.. trying to post what i feel or think
is at best childish.. if you can't add anything to the debate then
just read.. but lets not be silly eh
you are absoloutly right there... I dislike seeing articles like
the one the OP pointed to and i dislike seeing professional
photographers saying they are better than amatuers.... read the
thread.. its all there in print so please stop accusing me of
making it up..
--
http://www.kipax.com
The only difference between a full time professional and an amateur is that a full time professional sells images to exist. An amateur pursues his hobby for pleasure, research, relaxation or whatever stimulates him to take images.
There are some outstanding amateur photographers who choose not to pursue the photographic professional path as there are exceptional amateur sportsmen and women and many other disciplines in life.
The only problem with amateurs, since the advent of modern technology, both photographic and internet, is they 'help' screw up maters up for the professionals when it comes to pricing and copyright.
Not all images have to be ultar creative, some only require to be competently shot. Studio pack shots lit for example, bread and butter work for studio pros. A good amateur can create the same images. The problem being amateurs, and semi pros are happily upolading their images at £1.00 at time on istock instead of charging several hundred pounds or more thus devaluing the profession.
There are some outstanding amateur photographers who choose not to pursue the photographic professional path as there are exceptional amateur sportsmen and women and many other disciplines in life.
The only problem with amateurs, since the advent of modern technology, both photographic and internet, is they 'help' screw up maters up for the professionals when it comes to pricing and copyright.
Not all images have to be ultar creative, some only require to be competently shot. Studio pack shots lit for example, bread and butter work for studio pros. A good amateur can create the same images. The problem being amateurs, and semi pros are happily upolading their images at £1.00 at time on istock instead of charging several hundred pounds or more thus devaluing the profession.
"But professionals do seem to think they are better than
amatuers... Your very posts suggests you think professionals know
more than hobbyists.."
You are the one who is implying what pro's think aren't you ? So
you feel slighted by all the pro's who look down on you ? Really
who are they ?
It seems to me that you have a pet peeve regarding this subject.
wrong and I have never even come close to implying that.. quite the
opposite.. where on earth have you got that from.. I am stating
that amatuers are as good as professionals... I am not suggesting
either is better than the other... not one single bit.. can you
show me where you get the above from? please dont make it up to
try and score points... I would hope this is an adult debate
ePan
Leading Member
And the solution is???
Canon only sells full frame cameras and L lenses to photographers with professional credentials?
Labor Department intervenes to regulate hobbies?
Lawsuit against iStock mandating what they must pay?
any others???
--
- Eric
Tom Batinich
Senior Member
And that is pressure. A pro feels the pressure of getting the shot he is hired for. Keeping the client happy and keeping your reputation in tact.
There are some outstanding amateur photographers who choose not to
pursue the photographic professional path as there are exceptional
amateur sportsmen and women and many other disciplines in life.
The only problem with amateurs, since the advent of modern
technology, both photographic and internet, is they 'help' screw up
maters up for the professionals when it comes to pricing and
copyright.
Not all images have to be ultar creative, some only require to be
competently shot. Studio pack shots lit for example, bread and
butter work for studio pros. A good amateur can create the same
images. The problem being amateurs, and semi pros are happily
upolading their images at £1.00 at time on istock instead of
charging several hundred pounds or more thus devaluing the
profession.
"But professionals do seem to think they are better than
amatuers... Your very posts suggests you think professionals know
more than hobbyists.."
You are the one who is implying what pro's think aren't you ? So
you feel slighted by all the pro's who look down on you ? Really
who are they ?
It seems to me that you have a pet peeve regarding this subject.
wrong and I have never even come close to implying that.. quite the
opposite.. where on earth have you got that from.. I am stating
that amatuers are as good as professionals... I am not suggesting
either is better than the other... not one single bit.. can you
show me where you get the above from? please dont make it up to
try and score points... I would hope this is an adult debate
Morihei
Senior Member
Yes, I agree with you too. There are very bad, terrible 'pros' out there and there are some incredible photographers (especially here on this forum) who are better than many 'pros' who earn their living just from photography.
I think the OP and that article was referring to was just the general public who all have camera phones and point and shoot digital cameras who email their shots to CNN. Those people might get a lucky shot like a one in a million shot, like a storm or crime in progress or any other breaking news story. BUT the there is a huge difference between those people just getting one shot out of thousands they take each month and a real 'Pro' PJ or a very series amateur with a pro DSLR who has as much talent and technical know-how (if not more) than that PJ from the New York Times, who will get many more 'keepers' as they say. If your a pro, wedding, sports, PJ, wildlife/adventure, you have to get the shot the first time and get it right.
The good amateur photographer (or the pro) if put in the exact same situation will most likely get a better exposed shot, better composed and better quality than that lucky person with a camera phone would. The average person walking the street with the camera phone or the point and shoot only has luck going for them and the pro can guarantee getting the shot.
http://www.pbase.com/michaelcorral
I think the OP and that article was referring to was just the general public who all have camera phones and point and shoot digital cameras who email their shots to CNN. Those people might get a lucky shot like a one in a million shot, like a storm or crime in progress or any other breaking news story. BUT the there is a huge difference between those people just getting one shot out of thousands they take each month and a real 'Pro' PJ or a very series amateur with a pro DSLR who has as much talent and technical know-how (if not more) than that PJ from the New York Times, who will get many more 'keepers' as they say. If your a pro, wedding, sports, PJ, wildlife/adventure, you have to get the shot the first time and get it right.
The good amateur photographer (or the pro) if put in the exact same situation will most likely get a better exposed shot, better composed and better quality than that lucky person with a camera phone would. The average person walking the street with the camera phone or the point and shoot only has luck going for them and the pro can guarantee getting the shot.
--I agree with you.
However I am reffering to hobbyist and amatuer photographers... who
may have top end equipment and know as much if not more than any
professional.. they have every right to take photographs of
whatever they want and do whatever they want with them..
I find it incredible that professional photographers believe they
take better pictures than an amatuer, Know more than an amatuer and
can work better equipment than an amatuer. As posted by various
professionals in this very thread. then they tell us that because
we don't get paid we are not allowed to distribute our photographs
where we want because they are the only ones allowed to supply
papers.
That is the debate as I see it and that is the only point I am
making. Amatuer/hobbyist does not = idiots and and know nothings...
as you all seem to be suggesting. We have equally as much right to
photograph the same things as you and distribute to whoever we want.
thats my opinion and I am sticking to it
--
http://www.kipax.com
http://www.pbase.com/michaelcorral
ePan
Leading Member
And now, just a little comic relief and perspective on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrK8fB6uYk
--
- Eric
KIPAX
Well-known member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum