Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

This Photograph is Not Free

profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
So I'm coming to a point in my photographic "career" where I'd like to start making money off the images I create. And in trying to deal with such a task, I've come to a horrible realization that all professionals surely go through: a vast majority of people, clients, and companies I've had to deal with simply do not understand/appreciate the value of a photograph.

I remember seeing this article some time ago, and I think it helps get the point across (albeit in a somewhat rude manner):

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/

I thought it was worth posting to spark a little discussion, and hopefully focus it around photos marketed in ski industry.
Dec 15 2012 8:14PM
1 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
note: "I think it helps get the point across" -- this isn't something I actually send to people who give me a hard time, but helped me first understand the reasoning behind charging for work
Dec 15 2012 8:18PM
0 0
profile picture
BrightonFridays
Posts: 952 - Karma: 2,314
good post!

I also am wondering how everyone decides what they actually charge
Dec 15 2012 8:49PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
That's a whole new can of worms, and would take a long time to cover every scenario. But if people want to chime in with what they've found to be fair prices, go for it
Dec 15 2012 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Rob.
Posts: 189 - Karma: 16
Some discussion already going on over here: https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/671958/

I can't contribute for the ski industry, but am interested to hear what people have to say. I've tossed around the idea of getting into retail photography a bit as a side gig (gotta justify some purchases!) but haven't acted yet.
Dec 15 2012 9:08PM
0 0
profile picture
FatWhore
Posts: 2213 - Karma: 1,098
So hard now aways. Half the time watermarks dont do shit, and people just steal everything online.
Dec 15 2012 9:10PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
damnit, this is probably where I saw it haha

Currently, I think it's best (from what i've gathered, at least) to never sell yourself short and NEVER do work for free, as you a) give off the impression you will in the future do the same, b) give off the impression that all photographers will do that and c) as a whole, devalue the work a photographer does.
Dec 15 2012 9:11PM
0 0
profile picture
*SID*
Posts: 3133 - Karma: 975
I honestly don't think you can count how much the camera, computer, programs etc. to say it took you $6000 to take a photo.
Dec 15 2012 9:11PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
It fucking sucks big time. I've found people believe downloading an image and posting it on their own without credit is not a big deal.
Dec 15 2012 9:13PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
This was a comment (well, comments) posted in the article:

Weddingcrasher
the math is an example to show that photos have cost, he didn't include the experience, time and skills, that costs a lot more

pat_rob_242
It was just sarcasm. People really try to take advantage of us photographers though. Companies that make millions of dollars don't want to pay. Last time I checked, CREDIT doesn't pay bills. CREDIT doesn't replace equipment. I love the way he used the "faulty math" to bring across the point. It takes time, effort, risks, composition skills and equipment to make these images. My first sunrise for the new year, I was out at 6a.m. in the cold just to get that perfect shot. As a photographer, in order to capture certain shots that wow consumers, there is a lot of sacrifice involved

Obviously that isn't the case, but it goes to show a lot was put into the image and it shouldn't simply be given away and treated as such
Dec 15 2012 9:16PM
0 0
profile picture
*SID*
Posts: 3133 - Karma: 975
Yeah, sorry hadn't read the whole article before I posted. I understand It's a bitch to sell photos when people think It's like using a point and shoot camera and then consider It to be free.
Dec 15 2012 9:18PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Good read, not sure about that math, but it is a good point, it took you a ton of money and effort (not to mention learning how to take it, which adds much more) to create that one photo. It sucks how easy it is for people to steal photos online :/

Dec 15 2012 9:56PM
0 0
profile picture
BK
Posts: 2353 - Karma: 1,123
Im not a still photographer but it seems like these days you hold onto the stuff you want to sell and only email it to people who might buy it or mail it to magazines, if you are publishing everything on the web right out of the gates for personal advancement the value of the photo is already diminished.

ITs all about getting contracts to go on trips and cover events before you take a frame. The difference between getting paid to go shoot and the difference between shooting and then trying to get paid after the fact. Videographers almost never go shoot video, make an edit and then try to find someone who wants to buy it. Forge relationships and get sent to locations to cover things, then take the best pictures you can.
Dec 15 2012 10:39PM
0 0
profile picture
FatWhore
Posts: 2213 - Karma: 1,098
Thats just the best. Yeah, I dont expect any money for busting my ass and spending thousands in gear an countless hours of time to get the shot. No biggy
Dec 15 2012 10:50PM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,459
This is a least the third time I've seen this blog posted. I get the shock point but he is totally overdoing it. I think it's so exaggerated that it has no value at all. Besides, like it or not, a t2i with a kit lens laying on any flat surface could have taken that photograph if you really know what you're doing then a little work with a lightroom free trial and it's done. Costs would be nowhere near $6600.

Dan Brown recently said he archived 52k photos last year. Sure, he uses a lot more equipment than 1 lens and has at least a backup body but that's dividing hardware costs by 52k. Of course, some photos are more valuable than others but i'd be impossible to allocate that.


What the guy should be saying is, you've seen my work, if you want work like I can produce, you're going to have to pay me enough to be worth my while because plenty of other people wanting me to shoot for them as well. And then say, factored in my costs are part of the costs of my equipment gas, time, etc.
Dec 15 2012 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,459
Even if you aren't willing to work for free, if someone else is, it will devalue your work. What a photographer needs to do is prove to the employer that they are worth the price difference of another guy before a photograph is ever taken. If that can't be done, that photographer doesn't deserve the paycheck.
Dec 15 2012 11:12PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,329
As quoted a few posts up from the comments, it's not really the point that each time I snap a photo with X camera that costs Y dollars, my image should be worth Y dollars.
Dec 15 2012 11:22PM
0 0
profile picture
mattytru
Posts: 2788 - Karma: 5,618
ding ding ding
Dec 15 2012 11:45PM
0 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,459
I never said that was the point. I was making a low blow as saying his 6600 was way too high to begin with for a replacement photo.

There is a crucial missing variable, you need the variable for what the customer is willing to pay.


Cost (X) is determined by the photographer
Price (Y) is determined by photographer and/or customer.
Value (Z) is determined by the customer.

A photographer is only willing to sell if X≤Y.
A customer is is only willing to buy if Y≤Z.
For a transaction to take place X≤Z.

Why should the customer we willing to pay more because the photographer used a $2500 camera? The customer shouldn't. The photographer justified cost but did not justify why a $2500 camera should influence value. Tell me why a more expensive camera should make a photo have more value. It doesn't. How many times has the oh, that's a great picture, you must have a really expensive camera anecdote been in this forum?
Dec 16 2012 12:19AM
0 0
profile picture
Fonzy.
Posts: 216 - Karma: 30
God never realized how expensive photography is.
Dec 16 2012 1:36AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61649 - Karma: 123,487
So glad that its way harder to steal video footage vs a photo.
Dec 16 2012 4:28AM
0 0
profile picture
panojibber.
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 683
Im just going to play devils advocate here... If you use music in an edit without requesting the artists permission or illegally downloading the song, aren't you just as bad as people that steal your photography? I don't see how it's any different (not saying its right though).
Dec 16 2012 12:19PM
0 0
profile picture
kootenayklaus
Posts: 3914 - Karma: 2,179
Quoting for emphasis.
Dec 16 2012 12:37PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
to be honest, I didnt like the way the guy wrote that. He just came off as a huge douche bag. I realize he is trying to get his point across, but being witty and sarcastic wont do anything for him with his clients.


on a side note, i agree giving your work away for free is a definite no no, but for a ton of the kids on this site (including myself) will give a client mediocre work. Saying dont sell a photo/video for cheap should be loosely used. obviously, dont be filming and editing for $50 for the whole project... but just because you have a t2i and a tamron 17-50 and torrented FCP doesnt mean you should charge a client $500 + for work that doesnt justify that cost.

I think someone on this site said this (landis?). you should charge for what your work is worth. I guess thats a rule what i will be living by if i ever get the chance to do a paid gig.
Dec 16 2012 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
BK
Posts: 2353 - Karma: 1,123
its definetly not 'as bad' because the piece of media you have created is 'substantially original' How much different is a video with cool titles, graphics, quality footage, people talking edited cleanly that sits on youtube, vs a song that is sitting on sound cloud. The type of media itself is different, the song only one element of the video. When someone steals a photo and posts it, they didn't add anything to the work to make it original or different, just ripped it off.

A variation could be a graphic designer steals a photo and adds unique art to the photo, then its a different argument, ie Shepard Fairey vs Associated Press over Obama poster.


Dec 16 2012 3:03PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)