Can I Make Money With Photography?

[Paul T.]

Read much?

If you did you would see I cut out references to any names in the quote (unlike others above).

I disagree. This was one of the nastiest posts we've had on rff, that seeks to denigrate someone's life and make them feel a failure. It was probably inspired by jealousy, for the person in question has at least maintained a career based around photography, without particularly compromising, which is an achievement in itself.

I empathise, anyway.

I've made my career in the creative arts for 25 years, but with all the copyright landgrabs going on, a drop in rates (recently halved by some major publishers), and a crisis in book publishing - which funded me quite nicely, with another year to go, I'm wondering whether now is the time for a graceful exit, and to start at the bottom in a new career.

If I do, no regrets, plenty of better people than me have gone crazy doing what I do.

 

[gdi]

I disagree. This was one of the nastiest posts we've had on rff, that seeks to denigrate someone's life and make them feel a failure. It was probably inspired by jealousy, for the person in question has at least maintained a career based around photography, without particularly compromising, which is an achievement in itself.

I empathise, anyway.

Thanks for your viewpoint - I was wondering if others really saw this as so insulting as to warrant banning. It is a judgment call, but I see many other posts insulting people just as offensive. A lot of it depends, I am sure, as to who's ox is being gored at any particular moment.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I've made my career in the creative arts for 25 years, but with all the copyright landgrabs going on, a drop in rates (recently halved by some major publishers), and a crisis in book publishing - which funded me quite nicely, with another year to go, I'm wondering whether now is the time for a graceful exit, and to start at the bottom in a new career.

If I do, no regrets, plenty of better people than me have gone crazy doing what I do.

Is the publishing rate drop due to the sad economic times or the incursion of microstock, do you think?

 

[Paul T.]

Is the publishing rate drop due to the sad economic times or the incursion of microstock, do you think?

I"m talking writing; I got an email this morning from a pretty well known writer, who mentioned that the Daily Telegraph group halved their writing rates a year ago - there was a drop in photography day rates, although I don't know the details.

The publishing industry - books and magazines - are in the throes of a profound panic. THey are responding to this by attacking their contributors, those who create the words and pictures which make them their money.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I disagree. This was one of the nastiest posts we've had on rff, that seeks to denigrate someone's life and make them feel a failure. It was probably inspired by jealousy, for the person in question has at least maintained a career based around photography, without particularly compromising, which is an achievement in itself.

I empathise, anyway.

I've made my career in the creative arts for 25 years, but with all the copyright landgrabs going on, a drop in rates (recently halved by some major publishers), and a crisis in book publishing - which funded me quite nicely, with another year to go, I'm wondering whether now is the time for a graceful exit, and to start at the bottom in a new career.

If I do, no regrets, plenty of better people than me have gone crazy doing what I do.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the support. Actually, I saw 'Lulu' as the failure. I'm not the one hiding behind a series of silly names, and I'm not the one attacking someone else's means of earning a living while keeping very quiet about what I do -- at which, it is hard not to suspect, he is a failure, or he'd not be so bitter. Nor am I struggling under a pile of debt: I own my house free and clear, my vehicles...

I completely agree about your view of publishing, but then, I would, wouldn't I, having earned a living from writing and photography for over three decades. The only other think I think I could have done as happily is teaching, but that's a lot more like hard work and doesn't involve anything like as much travel. I've just come back from a couple of weeks in the French and Spanish Pyrenees: on a shoestring, it's true, but it beats commuting to work every day. Or indeed getting up early in the morning.

There are many ways to fail, after all. I know some very rich people who are, from my point of view, failures because all they do is work non-stop at an unattractive job to fund the purchase of yet more meaningless stuff. Meaningless, that is, to me: more cars, fashionable clothes, second homes, $5000 kitchen refits every two or three years.

Cheers,

R.

 

[emraphoto]

i believe the landscape is about to change again. perhaps "hope" is a better word for it?

there seems to be a scramble to re-position oneself as a result of the new technology arriving on the scene. ipad etc.

i am apologetic up front as i cannot get into details (confidentiality agreement) yet but i am currently signing on board with an international magazine focused on this technology with a very interesting contributors model. i do hope i can share it with you as i have never encountered an "agreement" of this sorts and it involves regular work with decent re-numeration.

i am still to this day confident that the media we once knew will pull through. will it look completely different? most certainly. the industry (and i mean this in a very broad sense) has been bloated with mediocrity for a very long time and the viewing public (aka customers) have placed an appropriate value on it.

 

[antiquark]

I was wondering if others really saw this as so insulting as to warrant banning. It is a judgment call, but I see many other posts insulting people just as offensive. A lot of it depends, I am sure, as to who's ox is being gored at any particular moment.

If you're just calling someone a "moron" in the forum, that's part of the acceptable trash talk of the internet.

However, to dig into someone's personal life, then post the details here, then criticize them as being a lifelong failure... that's just going too far.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you're just calling someone a "moron" in the forum, that's part of the acceptable trash talk of the internet.

However, to dig into someone's personal life, then post the details here, then criticize them as being a lifelong failure... that's just going too far.

Dear Derek,

Thanks for the support, but the 'details' weren't very accurate. Perhaps more to the point, as I said earlier, there are lots of different ways to fail, and lots of different ways to succeed. I hesitate to accuse anyone of failing, as long as they're reasonaby happy and able to support themselves. Even then, failure to support yourself can be bad luck as easily as bad judgement.

I do however agree that deliberately trying to be extremely nasty is a reasonable cause for being banned.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Andy Kibber]

Actually, I saw 'Lulu' as the failure. I'm not the one hiding behind a series of silly names, [...]

Roger,

You make fair points for the most part but I don't think folks should be chastised for using pseudonyms. Not everyone wants their personal details splayed on internet forums.

-Andy

 

[antiquark]

Thanks for the support, but the 'details' weren't very accurate.

Sorry, I should have also mentioned that I didn't have much faith in the accuracy of the "details."

Even so, posting inaccurate personal details is akin to spreading rumors, which would be another example of bad forum etiquette.

 

[Paul T.]

Roger,

You make fair points for the most part but I don't think folks should be chastised for using pseudonyms. Not everyone wants their personal details splayed on internet forums.

-Andy

I wouldn't worry about the banned poster. As well as being a connected mobster, he was a multi-millionaire, so should be able to buy his own photography forum, where he can hold forth and provide career advice.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

You make fair points for the most part but I don't think folks should be chastised for using pseudonyms. Not everyone wants their personal details splayed on internet forums.

-Andy

Dear Andy,

Fair enough, though I've never quite understood what they're afraid of. It is usually quite easy to find out what you want to know about someone, if you care. An awful lot of people tend to assume that the world in general is far more interested in their affairs than is, in fact, the case.

What does annoy me, though, is when someone keeps inventing pseudonyms because they've been so unpleasant under a previous pseudonym that they were banned. It's the classic 'being rude on the internet' scenario, where people post things on-line that they'd never dare say to someone's face. If people were required to use their own names, they might pause to reflect a little more on what they're saying.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kuzano]

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the support. Actually, I saw 'Lulu' as the failure. I'm not the one hiding behind a series of silly names, and I'm not the one attacking someone else's means of earning a living while keeping very quiet about what I do -- at which, it is hard not to suspect, he is a failure, or he'd not be so bitter.

How interesting, especially when you consider the source of the name Lulu Rosenkrantz.

This is Wikipedia on "Lulu".

Bernard "Lulu" Rosenkrantz (1902 - 1935) was a New York mobster and a high ranking member within Dutch Schultz's organization. Serving as bodyguard and chauffeur, he was gunned down along with Schultz, Otto Berman and Abraham Landau at the Palace Chophouse in Newark, New Jersey on October 23, 1935.

The story goes on that Lulu, and two other body guards, plus Dutch Shultz were caught in a hail of gunfire in the bathroom of the Chophouse. Dutch died of peritonitis on the operating table and Lulu died of his wounds (6 or 7 including two shotgun blasts) an hour after Dutch.

Interesting side note: There is the term "stupid enough to take a knife to a gun fight". Well, it's noted that Dutch, standing at the urinal with one hand occupied, was able to reach in his pocket and pull out a switch blade knife when the shooting started.... The only weapon he took to dinner that night.

Whoever Lulu really is begs the question of his/her reverence for such people.

 

[apconan]

I disagree. This was one of the nastiest posts we've had on rff,

Everyone seems so offended by Lulu's post.
However, if you are trying to sell your expertise and yourself to other people, as Roger is, then it is only right that people can examine the validity of that expertise.

 

[Philly]

Everyone seems so offended by Lulu's post.
However, if you are trying to sell your expertise and yourself to other people, as Roger is, then it is only right that people can examine the validity of that expertise.

Furthermore I did not see anything invalid or inaccurate in Lulu's post.

I've seen Roger (and others) get far more inflammatory, in fact one member in a recent thread threatened to knock another member's teeth out if he met him on the street.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Furthermore I did not see anything invalid or inaccurate in Lulu's post.

I've seen Roger (and others) get far more inflammatory, in fact one member in a recent thread threatened to knock another member's teeth out if he met him on the street.

this happens quite frequently - on the net, when one member knows that he will almost certainly never meet the other!, and just emphasises the futility of some of the exchanges that occur! 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Furthermore I did not see anything invalid or inaccurate in Lulu's post.

I've seen Roger (and others) get far more inflammatory, in fact one member in a recent thread threatened to knock another member's teeth out if he met him on the street.

Um... The 'details' of his 'analysis' of my life, couched in denigratory terms, were actually fairly inaccurate, inflammatory and unpleasant. Rather more so, in some ways, than merely calling someone an idiot and threatening to knock their teeth out. The latter, we all accept, is 'mere puff' (Carlill v The Carbolic Smokeball Comany, 1892 1 QB 256) whereas the former is calculated nastiness.

As I said in my original response to his post, there is some truth in what he says. On the other hand, as someone else said, to accuse someone (in effect) of being a 'lifelong failure' is pretty nasty. At first I though he was merely an incompetent writer, making valid points rudely and unpleasantly. The alternative is that he can read and write, and was being deliberately unpleasant. From subsequent PMs this seems more likeky.

And as I said in another post, who is the failure? Who is hiding behind a borrowed name? A name, I now learn, borrowed from a (deservedly) dead gangster? Someone who reveals NO details of how he earns his living, and how successful he is at it? Has he ever been offered a teaching post at a university, for example (I have)?

As apconan says, let's examine the validity of the expertise. Mine is in my books, my articles, my columns, my websites. Where is his? I've never pretended I'm a rich man, but equally, I've kept my head above water for 30+ years by doing what I love, without (to quote again) too much compromise, and I don't owe anyone a penny.

The only thing I worry about is how lucky I've been, and how well I'm placed. I sometimes think it can't last. But maybe it can. because I'm quite good at what I do. Today, for example, I sold another article to a Land Rover magazine. Not a fortune, but it's income, and the money comes from (a) travel, which I love, (b) writing, which I love and (c) photography, which I love.

Again I say: who's the failure?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Philly]

... On the other hand, as someone else said, to accuse someone (in effect) of being a 'lifelong failure' is pretty nasty.

After checking his post again I can't see where he accuses you of being a "lifelong failure".
Perhaps you're reading more into it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

After checking his post again I can't see where he accuses you of being a "lifelong failure".
Perhaps you're reading more into it.

Well, as I said, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt in my original reply. Others read more into it and I begin to suspect that their reading is more appropriate to his intention than mine.

If I'm wrong, and he's merely not very good at expressing himself (which is entirely possible) then I revert to the stance expressed in my original reply.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Philly]

Others read more into it and I begin to suspect that their reading is more appropriate to his intention than mine.

So you accuse him because of what others read into his post?

As you like it, you're the pro.