Interesting Perspective on Professional Photography

Welcome Greg,

Well said.

(Now, go download a copy of http://www.iespell.com - send them a donation.... ;o)

--
bob
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
pictures from Thailand, Myanmar(Burma), and Nepal

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

hehehe ... so the vegetables I grow in my garden ... do not belong
to me?

Click to expand...

They should, however, those stinkin rabbits, deer, and other animals think the vegetibles I grow belong to them. I should start capturing and caging every animal that eat the veggies I work so hard on growing!

--
dgrogers

http://www.pbase.com/drog

While I don't illegaly download music or illegaly copy CD's, I think the music industry would do much better if they started producing music from tallented bands where every song on a CD is worth listening to instead of these so called artists that only have one or two decent songs on a CD and the rest is filler that's painful to listen too. If I only did a good job on 1 or 2 projects out of 10 at work, I'd be fired. The tallent is out there, why aren't the talented being signed? Oh, I forgot, the problem is it's who you know, not how good you are. People are willing to pay for a good CD.

Greg Silberman said:

Hello

First let me say that I have been lurking here for 6 months and
have found the insight of this Web site invaluable. I am a patent
attorney and amatuer photorapher who has managed to sell some shots
to magazines and to stock and web sites. I really feel the need to
jump in here because I have spent the majority of my adult lfe
protecting intellectual property rights.

It is not about how much Michael Eisner or anyone else makes.
Musical performances, movies, software, photograghs and other
intangibles are all valuable contributions to society. They
required time, effort, skill and resources to produce and they are
at least as valuable as tangible objects. While no one is deprived
of their use by ciopying them their value is none the less
diminished by such copying. If a college student downloads an
album from Limewire insted of paying for it the record company is
deprioved of porfits. While many may argue that the record compnay
did not actually write or perform the music odds are they have a
great deal to do with bringing to the public. While it is nice to
pretend that artists are in it for the attribution and love of
their fans, many would be unknown and unappreaciated (and
unavailable for our enjoyment) but for the existance of a
commercial mechanism to promote them. While I understand that many
may contend that the Internet changes that by making more widely
available direct from the artist the reality is that without the
support of major record labels many artists would be doing
something else than providing us with music.

On the photography front I am very concerned becuse the current
state of digital technology makes it very easy too coopt (steal)
someone elses photographs. I wholeheartedly agree that there is
going to need to be a change in the way many photographers charge
for their services because it is so easy (and getting easier by the
day) to rip off someone elses work. I don't know what the answer
is but it is wrong for someone to wrongfully benefit from the
efforts of another just because they feel they don't want to pay
what that person is charging for their services. If youy don't
want to pay for the services of a porfessional photographer at your
wedding you are not being forced to hire one.

Also, the term of a patent is currently 20 years from application
not 17 years from issuance.

Cheers,

Greg

Click to expand...

--
dgrogers

http://www.pbase.com/drog

Another interesting thing to consider is the life of files saved on a CD-Rom. If this is the actual medium that images will be delivered and preserved on then how long will they actually last? Are you going to hand the CD on the wall, or are you going to want a quality print in a nice frame? Just another twist, I thought I would add to this perspective.

Jason

Capital Man said:

The article is correct that it has gotten less expensive for those
with digital know-how to make some pretty good looking prints.

But long before digital, people could be relatively inexpensive
35mm cameras. Long before digital, people brought cameras to
weddings and took their own photographs. Long ago, the amateur
photographer who knew what he was doing could take a few
photographs at the wedding that look as good as the
pro-photographers photographs. The difference is that the paid
photographer spends his entire time photographing the wedding,
capturing all of it, while the guest takes a few pictures and then
puts his camera way. And while it may be that some guests know
what they are dong with their camera, most don't take good pictures
because they haven't bothered to learn how to use their cameras.

Click to expand...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

Capital Man said:

There is no natural law of the universe that says that sharing a
digital file is morally wrong. It's not like stealing actual
objects. Or causing someone physical harm.

Click to expand...

You didn't steal a digital file. You stole someone's work.

No matter how you rationalize it, it's theft. Just as if you'd gone into the store and stuck the disk into your pocket.

Someone created that music (or software, or movie), and now you imply that they don't DESERVE to make a living doing it.

You, however, DESERVE whatever it is you want. You're "entitled" to it. Yon can steal from them without getting caught, so you do. You even rationallize it, "It's just some nameless faceless corporation. It's not like there's PEOPLE involved."

I doubt you'd like it if I walked into your home and helped myself. Or if I went into your place of business and just walked out with whatever it is you produce.

If you in fact produce anything worth stealing.

Amusing, but not the same issue at all.

Premium car brands are regarded as good value for money by the people who buy them. They have to be, or people would buy a cheaper brand because they have that alternative.

Your analogy would apply if, for example, CDs made by Sony were overpriced but those by Columbia were good value. That's not the case: the alternative of buying a cheaper brand for CDs doesn't exist. IMHO most people regard all CDs as overpriced (at least here in the UK).

John Burns said:

I like your thinking. psst.....you know that way overpriced
Mercedes down at the dealer? How about meeting me tonight and
helping me get it over to my house.

Click to expand...

There's another good example of what I'm talking about.

I don't know what camera system you use, but for the Canon equipment I have there is a variety of RAW file conversion packages and thumbnail viewers available (YARCplus, Breezebrowser, ThumbsPlus etc.). They are all VERY reasonably priced for their feature set and offer excellent value for money, so much so that people buy them to use even though packages that will do the same job (albeit not with quite the same functionality) come free with the camera.

If you go on Kazaa and do a search for ripped-off keys or keygens for these programs, how many do you find? None. I think that's because people will willingly pay for something they feel is worth the fee charged.

John Burns said:

alFR said:

I'm talking about Joe Public) is that they
don't perceive the originals to be value for money and feel they're
being ripped off. It's not the music they don't want to pay for,
it's the overpriced vehicle in which it's delivered.

--

Click to expand...

John

Click to expand...

I don't disagree but the growing popularity of digital cameras has increased the probability that that amateur photographer is really pretty good given the availability of better equipment, software and learning opportunities. I don't think that the pro can hide much longer behind his acquired skill as the pack is catching up. The advent of quality software and printing capabilities at a reasonable cost is only accelerating the trend. I don't doubt that there will be quality "artists" who will claim top dollar but that kind of artistry is not that common. Also, the numbers favor the amateur even if only one shot in a hundred turns out a winner. He can now take large numbers of shots with only the cost of haveing to look at them and maybe printing a few. The steady drumbeat of click, click, click..... is changing the nature of photography.

Peter said:

Ben White said:

Hello all,

I came across this at SlashDot. It is a perspective on photography
by a free (as in speech) software person on the value of the
services of a professional photographer. Here is a very brief
excerpt:

"... the digital revolution is crowding in her profession, and
threatening her sense of ownership over her own intellectual
property."

And here is the link:

http://digitalpilgrim.com/personal/photo.html

Worth a quick read in my opinion.

ben white

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Having never sold any wedding photographs (or any personal/social photographs for that matter (graduation, bar mitzvah, etc)). I would be curious to know how many pictures get sold after the initial order? Do clients order pictures in multiple rounds or is it pretty much pick the proofs or the shots and that is it? Presumably the order window is longer for the casual shots if they are made available on the web for the guests to order from. Would there be much loss in revenue with turning over the negatives on the first aniversary and thereby cutting down on what the photgrapher has to keep track of?

Cheers

Greg

Richard Smith said:

The guy who wrote this article missed a basic fact about planning a
wedding ...

Click to expand...

Hi Richard

If Mark (the guy) would be a such a perfect person like maybe you are, we would need no forums like this here more - what an awful idea It's not a problem to make a mistake at all, the problem is: are we able to learn from our mistakes and imperfections or not.

His article and the replies are more than interesting.

On the other hand we should understand Mark's words also as a "Quo Vadis Photography?" question .... though we know, that propably more than 90% of the analog photography will die one day, like vinyl LPs and steam engines did. When? Only our Digital-God may know the facts

Regards

Andy Lisius
http://www.lisius.de

Well I have never used Kazaa but I just went to a site that posts cracks and every single program you listed was represented. All had cracks for multiple versions.

alFR said:

If you go on Kazaa and do a search for ripped-off keys or keygens
for these programs, how many do you find? None. I think that's
because people will willingly pay for something they feel is worth
the fee charged.

Click to expand...

--
John

I admit my example was meant to be tongue in cheek but your argument is weak here. I have a large classical music collection. Almost all of my recordings are of major symphony oprchestras(Mercedes). I could have bought the same works recorded by much lessor orchestras(Kia).

Things are almost always more complicated than they seem at first glance.

alFR said:

Premium car brands are regarded as good value for money by the
people who buy them. They have to be, or people would buy a cheaper
brand because they have that alternative.

Your analogy would apply if, for example, CDs made by Sony were
overpriced but those by Columbia were good value. That's not the
case: the alternative of buying a cheaper brand for CDs doesn't
exist. IMHO most people regard all CDs as overpriced (at least here
in the UK).

John Burns said:

I like your thinking. psst.....you know that way overpriced
Mercedes down at the dealer? How about meeting me tonight and
helping me get it over to my house.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
John

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Interesting article .. and interesting thread to read. No
question the professional photogs business model will change. It
will evolve. Guess the real issue is "fair use". You buy a CD ...
should you have the right to copy songs from that CD ... and others
you own ... to make your own compilation? How is that different
from making a copy of the pic you purchased? Can honestly say ...
I do not have an answer.
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com

Click to expand...

Karl:

The Analogy that has been used in this thread between copying CD's and copying photographs of one's wedding is a poor one. I see that it is very distinctly "different".

The thrust of the original post in this thread is the issue of how a wedding photographer markets his/her talents. The song writer or musician is involved in creating a CD that will be marketed internationally. They hope to sell the CD to millions of unrelated individuals. The wedding photographer has a single customer. (If I can apply the word single collectively to the bride and groom.) The writer/musician never meets the ultimate purchaser. He/she must use the talents of others to mass market the product. There is no actual relationshihp between the writer/musician and the final CD purchaser. On the other hand, the wedding photographer not only knows the final customer, but must develop a personal relationship with that final purchaser, in order to properly perform his/her function. The CD creator has no privity of contract with the final purchaser; but, the wedding photographer certainly does.

As an attorney you know this very well from dealing with your own clients. You deal directly with the client; and, most often must develop a good relationship with that client. In your field of the law, this is particularly important. This relationship would be analogous to the wedding photographer and his/her client. However, if you were to write a book on family law, and sought to mass market that book nationally or internationally, you would be in the situation more akin to the sale of a CD.

Your relationship to the book buyer would be far different than your relationship to a client in your practice of law.

The issue presented by the artical involved how the wedding photographer would have to change to continue to meet the desires of the client, whom the photographer deals with in a personal one on one relationship, for the purpose of peforming work related to a peronal and omotional happening in the client's life. The CD is being sold in a cold and impersonal manner to a faceless multitude.

Though the question of copyright protection is of great importance to professional photographers, it is of no consequence to the true issue brought out by the article. We are dealing with the simple business issue of how to keep the custimer happy. In dealing with this issue, the photographer must concern himself with the wants and desires of his customers, and not with taking a bunker mantality of how do I protect my work product from the customer. In any business, trying to protect oneself from one's customers often leads to one having no customers.

The businessperson who learns how to keep his customer the happiest, while making a reasonable profit for himself, will find success in his endeavor. I know photographers would rather be artists than businesspeople; but, without being a business person, that artist will be a starving artist. The author of the article made a good point in regard to the business side of photography. Though protection of one's product is important, photographers should not develop a protect at all costs bunker mentallity that blinds them to business realities.

Cliff

CliffB said:

Though protection of one's product is important, photographers
should not develop a protect at all costs bunker mentallity that
blinds them to business realities.

Cliff

Click to expand...

I think you make a good point here. A case in point might be those photographers who don't let ANY proofs out of the studio any more, but rely on digital presentations at the studio to sell their product. That may be convenient for the photographer, but not such a good deal for the client, and they are the ones who are paying the bills.

William Henning said:

How would your hypothetical couple react if the photog, instead of
charging for prints, charged as follows: ...

Click to expand...

The particulars of the situation are unimportant. What's important is that giving customers a lowball up-front price, and then letting them discover later that there are all these extra costs, is a guaranteed way to have unhappy customers.

If your auto mechanic says repairs on your car will cost around $150, and then he winds up billing you for $250, you get mad and feel that you were ripped off. When the automechanic says repairs will cost around $250, and then it costs $250, then you are a satisfied customer.

Maybe in the short run, the auto mechanic quoting the lowball price gets has a few less customers walk away, but in the long run he loses money because he doesn't get business from repeat customers and word of mouth. And he has to look in the mirror every day and know he is ripping people off.

I'm certainly not alone in feeling this way. I checked out the usenet alt.wedding newsgroup and I see that a LOT of people are very mad about wedding photographers who hold negatives hostage.

Photographers should certainly get paid for their work, but they shouldn't set up their fee structure in a sneaky manner the way that they do.

In the airline industry, most airlines have sneaky fee structures where one person with a $200 ticket might be sitting next to another person with a $1200 ticket. And all these sneaky airlines are losing money. The most profitable airline is Southwest, and Southwest and has honest every day low prices. No one pays $1200 to fly on Southwest. And Southwest makes money year after year while the airlines with sneaky prices lose money.

Greg Silberman said:

While it is nice to
pretend that artists are in it for the attribution and love of
their fans, many would be unknown and unappreaciated (and
unavailable for our enjoyment) but for the existance of a
commercial mechanism to promote them. While I understand that many
may contend that the Internet changes that by making more widely
available direct from the artist the reality is that without the
support of major record labels many artists would be doing
something else than providing us with music.

Click to expand...

Is there a SINGLE example of a musician who quit the business because of the internet? I doubt it.

I've seen plenty of musicans who don't get a cent from record companies. They play in bars and other venues across the country. Some of their music is really very good, but they aren't "recognized" because some music company hasn't marketed them.

When you pay $20 for a CD, you are paying mostly for the music company's marketing of the musician. You are paying for the privilege of the music company TELLING you what music you should be listening to! If there was ever an example of paying money for nothing, this is it.

As I said before, copyright law should exist to benefit society. When there is greater benefit to society without the copyright, then the law is bad and should be changed. Currently, the copyright law with respect to music is bad.

Greg Silberman said:

On the photography front I am very concerned becuse the current
state of digital technology makes it very easy too coopt (steal)
someone elses photographs.

Click to expand...

A reprint made by scanning a print will never look as good as a print made directly from a negative or digital file. This is the same thing that made music copying not much of a problem until recently. When I was a teenager, we'd make tapes of each other's record albums. (You must have been a strange teenager if you never did this.) But the copies were never as good as the originals. But now, because of technology changing, the copy of a music CD is as good as the original. Because the digital genie is out of the bag and there is no way to put it back in, the copyright law needs to be changed to better reflect the reality of current technology.

Greg Silberman said:

Also, the term of a patent is currently 20 years from application
not 17 years from issuance.

Click to expand...

When was that changed? Who lobbied Congress for that change? Certainly not the common voter. It must have been big drug companies.

Oh I'm far from perfect, but I did plan my own wedding last year. I
interviewed two photographers. One who worked in medium format and
worked the traditional way with regard to reprints, and one who worked
in 35mm and delivered the negs as part of the deal. Needless to say I
went with #2. I made it clear to #1 that having options available as
far as converting to digital was one of my criteria.

After the honeymoon I bought a cheap ($800) film scanner and made
hi-res scans of the "money shot" negatives, which I then cropped
myself and uploaded to Ofoto, made a B&W for the paper, you know, all
the fun digital stuff.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's cool that this guy got his views up
onto Slashdot. I just wish he could have talked to me first, before
the wedding, so I could have set him straight. ;-)

John Burns said:

I admit my example was meant to be tongue in cheek but your
argument is weak here. I have a large classical music collection.
Almost all of my recordings are of major symphony
oprchestras(Mercedes). I could have bought the same works recorded
by much lessor orchestras(Kia).

Things are almost always more complicated than they seem at first
glance.

Click to expand...

True.... but do the CDs for these different recordings cost a different amount, or are they all the same?

Anyhow, I think we're going to have to agree to differ on this one . Been good debating it with you though.

Al

The "open source" movement is interesting, but there's a fairly large software industry out here and we make our cash from not being "open" in that sense. If you want me to make your [computer] systems work, I charge money for my services. It's an open market... if you can get away without using my services, good luck to you. Mostly I charge by the hour, although some people make money from copyright (not that many).

I also take pictures, and I don't see much difference. Copyright law's the same; you justr get paid less for photography or I'd do more of it.

If anyone tried the "open source" argument to get to my RAW files, they would not get very far. If they'd paid me my daily rate to produce those files, then unless the contract agreed otherwise they'd own the stuff anyway.

--
Phil
http://www.wigglesworld.btinternet.co.uk/

It's an interesting read, and an accurate one. To think that all our jobs will be preserved in their current state for ever and ever, amen, is naive.

Before computers, there were rows and rows of clerks who did the books for large companies. The computer turned those jobs into something else (some of them got turned into networking and computer maintenance people). And it will follow with every new technology as it becomes integrated into society. What's wrong with that?

Cheers,
D

Ben White said:

Hello all,

I came across this at SlashDot. It is a perspective on photography
by a free (as in speech) software person on the value of the
services of a professional photographer. Here is a very brief
excerpt:

"... the digital revolution is crowding in her profession, and
threatening her sense of ownership over her own intellectual
property."

And here is the link:

http://digitalpilgrim.com/personal/photo.html

Worth a quick read in my opinion.

ben white

Click to expand...