PenguinPhotoCo
Veteran Member
Fake boobs too? LOL
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are there still Ethics and Morals these days?
- Thread starter PenguinPhotoCo
- Start date
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
Nick in Shanghai
Leading Member
Inconsiderate. Mostly only in your eyes.
He was being considerate to all professional photographers by offering blanket praise.
--
Nick in Shanghai.
Nick in Shanghai
Leading Member
There is a difference between having the right to speak ones mind and knowing when to exercise that right.
--
Nick in Shanghai.
Nick in Shanghai
Leading Member
I'm not condoning the points I raised - just querying how the hell you're going to enforce the 'laws'.
In the days of film photographers had it good and could charge a pretty penny as the majority of consumers could not take good photos.
Photography has now undergone a complete transformation with the digital age, computers and the i/net. It's been opened up like never before and at some point in time I imagine we will have to reassess whether what applied in the past will still be relevant in the future.
I've got no idea where it will all end - I'm just in there for the ride and enjoying it.
Zoooming
In the days of film photographers had it good and could charge a pretty penny as the majority of consumers could not take good photos.
Photography has now undergone a complete transformation with the digital age, computers and the i/net. It's been opened up like never before and at some point in time I imagine we will have to reassess whether what applied in the past will still be relevant in the future.
I've got no idea where it will all end - I'm just in there for the ride and enjoying it.
Zoooming
FriscoRon
Senior Member
Seriously, why is this a conversation? Why couldn't this stupid post simply be ignored and go away?
Surely most of us realize that these people are posting these stupid threads just to get people riled up. Probably half the people responding to this are all the same people with different aliases. But I don't know, don't care.
I'm just amazed how so many people are pulled into these unbelievably stupid threads.
--
Ron
http://www.ronmckinneyphotography.com
Surely most of us realize that these people are posting these stupid threads just to get people riled up. Probably half the people responding to this are all the same people with different aliases. But I don't know, don't care.
I'm just amazed how so many people are pulled into these unbelievably stupid threads.
--
Ron
http://www.ronmckinneyphotography.com
Bill McLeod
Senior Member
Wow. Two posts to get to Godwin's Law and you were the original poster. Classic.
Richard Katris
Senior Member
Half way through the realize and I have to comment...both sides are right.
I agree with the OP....it wasn't done right, and the photographer deserves credit. It is possible the poster of the image was trying to protect himself by not identifying the photographer whose work was posted. I have found that some clients think as long as they do not identify the owner...it is ok to use and post images somehow as if that was the problem rather than the posting of the image itself.
In this situation and in the current way life is....I agree that the OP has gone overboard in defending the infringed photographer. Is he correct? sure. Is he being practical or realistic? no.
As for paying day rates and giving out all rights....in the old days....that type of permission was about 7x or 10X what it was to do the shoot for prints package....so if the print package was normally $50...then that means anyone who shoots and gives them all rights to the images should be charging a minimum of $500 per session....anyone here doing that in the "charge them what it is worth" camp?
Doubtful.....and if that is not the case, then the amount being charged is not sufficient to assume a transfer of rights to the client...unless the market has become seriously degraded due to all the shoot and burn folks who claim they have not degraded the income potential in the photography business.
On another note, like Vegaslvr... I do not post any except the smallest photos on my site for the same reason he doesn't post images at all...and keep them for stock usage to sell for real money.
I am of the camp that one should sell prints. Why? because if you hand over a file to a person who is not an expert at printing...they will make prints that likely are not much better than what they could photograph themselves...and see increasingly fewer reasons to hire a pro to work for them. I see this as a downward spiral to oblivion for professional photography. The ones who will stay in the more successful part of this business are the ones who sell big and expensive prints...not the ones who sell files.
A couple of years ago practically everyone on this forum advocated selling files and doing away with the antiquated print model....today, there are more and more pros who are still working who are now advocating selling prints rather than files. I find this change of attitude educating....the ones still making a profit are the ones selling prints....many of the ones who swore that selling your time and charging appropriately for the value of the time....have found fewer and fewer buyers willing to pay a sustainable income from that business model....and many have gone away..
The other fact is...as was mentioned...people are buying the impact of the image...expression over lighting....and the problem there is they CAN capture more images than any pro can....and to many that IS what they want....and for many trying to earn a living in photography this is the problem staying in business with the digital cameras now available to anyone.....quality of image is no longer king....content...express... and the moment are....and our market is contracting all the time....not to speak of the economy being in the dumpster at the moment.....combined it makes a hard market for those of us in this business.....
So...in closing...today we need to realize that photos will be posted by clients on the internet no matter what our intentions...and we do need to provide for that reality. Educating the client as to the requirements for that type of posting...and even providing low res files for that purpose should probably be a part of the packages we provide...but the education part of that equation is really up to us to inform...up front about rights and usages, and credits needed in displaying our works.
My paperwork defines all of this, as does my web site, and as I do in talks with my clients. When approached in a non confrontational manner I find most of my clients agree with my principals and try to comply and even ask permission in areas that I have already granted them license.....before they use the images....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
I agree with the OP....it wasn't done right, and the photographer deserves credit. It is possible the poster of the image was trying to protect himself by not identifying the photographer whose work was posted. I have found that some clients think as long as they do not identify the owner...it is ok to use and post images somehow as if that was the problem rather than the posting of the image itself.
In this situation and in the current way life is....I agree that the OP has gone overboard in defending the infringed photographer. Is he correct? sure. Is he being practical or realistic? no.
As for paying day rates and giving out all rights....in the old days....that type of permission was about 7x or 10X what it was to do the shoot for prints package....so if the print package was normally $50...then that means anyone who shoots and gives them all rights to the images should be charging a minimum of $500 per session....anyone here doing that in the "charge them what it is worth" camp?
Doubtful.....and if that is not the case, then the amount being charged is not sufficient to assume a transfer of rights to the client...unless the market has become seriously degraded due to all the shoot and burn folks who claim they have not degraded the income potential in the photography business.
On another note, like Vegaslvr... I do not post any except the smallest photos on my site for the same reason he doesn't post images at all...and keep them for stock usage to sell for real money.
I am of the camp that one should sell prints. Why? because if you hand over a file to a person who is not an expert at printing...they will make prints that likely are not much better than what they could photograph themselves...and see increasingly fewer reasons to hire a pro to work for them. I see this as a downward spiral to oblivion for professional photography. The ones who will stay in the more successful part of this business are the ones who sell big and expensive prints...not the ones who sell files.
A couple of years ago practically everyone on this forum advocated selling files and doing away with the antiquated print model....today, there are more and more pros who are still working who are now advocating selling prints rather than files. I find this change of attitude educating....the ones still making a profit are the ones selling prints....many of the ones who swore that selling your time and charging appropriately for the value of the time....have found fewer and fewer buyers willing to pay a sustainable income from that business model....and many have gone away..
The other fact is...as was mentioned...people are buying the impact of the image...expression over lighting....and the problem there is they CAN capture more images than any pro can....and to many that IS what they want....and for many trying to earn a living in photography this is the problem staying in business with the digital cameras now available to anyone.....quality of image is no longer king....content...express... and the moment are....and our market is contracting all the time....not to speak of the economy being in the dumpster at the moment.....combined it makes a hard market for those of us in this business.....
So...in closing...today we need to realize that photos will be posted by clients on the internet no matter what our intentions...and we do need to provide for that reality. Educating the client as to the requirements for that type of posting...and even providing low res files for that purpose should probably be a part of the packages we provide...but the education part of that equation is really up to us to inform...up front about rights and usages, and credits needed in displaying our works.
My paperwork defines all of this, as does my web site, and as I do in talks with my clients. When approached in a non confrontational manner I find most of my clients agree with my principals and try to comply and even ask permission in areas that I have already granted them license.....before they use the images....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Nick in Shanghai
Leading Member
Depends on your market. I've never sold prints. Most of the professional photographers didn't either except for a couple that did "fine art" limited edition prints of their works.
The photographers sold their talent in capturing their unique view of the subject commissioned by the ad agency/client/magazine whatever. Files or prints are a by product of the creative process being purchased.
Everyone will find their level, pricing structure, product offered and sold based on their talent and the needs and requirements of client they are selling to.........trying to lump everything into one box for convenience sake is futile.
If as a client I want a CD of files and you aren't prepared to sell them to me, only prints, you are going to have to be one hell of a photographer to get me to acquiesce to your demands or I walk away and find someone with a similar skill set that will sell me what I want not what they want.
--
Nick in Shanghai.
Richard Katris
Senior Member
and my argument is just that.....the only survivors in the field will be the ones who have that skill set that does set them significantly apart from the average. If little or nothing sets them apart, then there is little to differentiate them from the average digital slr owner who is not a pro but has some talent or luck and can take enough to be good enough. With the others the downwards spiral of pricing will eventually make the income untenable to be sustainable financially.
Look to the news reporting field and the current situation if you don't believe me.....they now have reporters do their own photographic coverage as it is "good enough"...and staff photography positions are dying in the news media....hires at companies that need photographic work are being pressed into learning and doing the photography for the company instead of hiring outside pros.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Look to the news reporting field and the current situation if you don't believe me.....they now have reporters do their own photographic coverage as it is "good enough"...and staff photography positions are dying in the news media....hires at companies that need photographic work are being pressed into learning and doing the photography for the company instead of hiring outside pros.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Nick in Shanghai
Leading Member
Then I don't understand the comment that selling prints and not files will save the industry as a whole. The complexity of the market is such that one method of final delivery is not the only way to go.
To me it's all about fulfilling a clients needs. Negs, transparencies, files, prints, B/W, colour being the usual method of supplying the final product.
I tend to stay well clear of mugs, mousepads keyrings, weddings and selling 4x6's.......I'm ploughing a different field.
--
Nick in Shanghai.
I am SO gratetful for the 'ignore' feature on this forum, which lets you hide serial blowhards' comments. Mr. Penguin just made the cut.
dc
dc
Richard Katris
Senior Member
commercial clients have an entirely different set of needs than portrait ones and dealing with them is an entirely different ball of wax. As I often am annoyed by the people shooters who lump all photographers together in thinking handing over the files is a great business plan for all...when a good portion of my income is from stock sales of images I have done originally as portraits (shooting animals allows this secondary market), we all seem to live in our own micro markets worrying about the particulars of our own niches. If I shot weddings...I would be far more likely to include the high res files as the stock market potential of those images would likely be less than the animals I shoot.
For me...handing out high res files of images I might market to commercial users later is akin to slitting my throat as they would then (and do) seek out my portrait clients and try to get my work for free from them.... I do disclose my secondary market intentions to my portrait clients upfront, so there is no dishonesty in this practice. I explain that the commercial use subsidizes the fees I charge the portrait clients and keeps my prices lower for them.... but still they are not photographers and would have no idea the potential value of my imagery in the markets I sell to commercially...and so for me distributing the images to them in hi resolution would be a major head ache. Different strategies for different markets and subjects.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
For me...handing out high res files of images I might market to commercial users later is akin to slitting my throat as they would then (and do) seek out my portrait clients and try to get my work for free from them.... I do disclose my secondary market intentions to my portrait clients upfront, so there is no dishonesty in this practice. I explain that the commercial use subsidizes the fees I charge the portrait clients and keeps my prices lower for them.... but still they are not photographers and would have no idea the potential value of my imagery in the markets I sell to commercially...and so for me distributing the images to them in hi resolution would be a major head ache. Different strategies for different markets and subjects.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Richard Katris
Senior Member
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34640509
their final solution.....seems to be don't name the zoo....and it is OK....just like cut off the photographer's signature and it will be OK.....morals?!?
They totally miss the point of the zoo trying to earn a living to pay for the expense of keeping the animals up....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
their final solution.....seems to be don't name the zoo....and it is OK....just like cut off the photographer's signature and it will be OK.....morals?!?
They totally miss the point of the zoo trying to earn a living to pay for the expense of keeping the animals up....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Kiz
Active member
Yeah, I know he's trolling, but it gave me something to do in the quiet spot at work.
PenguinPhotoCo
Veteran Member
His intent was to flatter or thank all pro photogs.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
PenguinPhotoCo
Veteran Member
True.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum