Sparrow
Veteran
... I often wonder why this sort of thread continues on after someone comes up with the answer
Michael Markey
Veteran
Because I`ve only just noticed it 
Eighty percent of my stuff is shot at horse events.
There are often pros present and if so I tend not to get in their way not that they`ve ever shown any concern.
I give my stuff away whilst they`re trying to make a living.
If its someone from a major publication like Horse and Hound I tend to be less circumspect..
Eighty percent of my stuff is shot at horse events.
There are often pros present and if so I tend not to get in their way not that they`ve ever shown any concern.
I give my stuff away whilst they`re trying to make a living.
If its someone from a major publication like Horse and Hound I tend to be less circumspect..
colyn
ישו משיח
Unless another photographer has exclusive rights you have as much right to shoot as anybody else..
goamules
Well-known
This has been a very interesting thread, and I appreciate both sides. On the one hand, there is the entrepreneurial spirit of ambition, and free enterprise. At first, I was totally thinking that anyone should be able to compete against pros at any level. Survival of the fittest and all. Technology changes all businesses, from saddle makers to Model T plant workers. I was going to say to the OP, be polite, don't be rude or obstructive to the Pro, but take your pictures and sell them if you like. But -
On the other hand, X-ray makes good points about the larger issue; a change in our work ethic and community ethics. Most people in their 30s or younger that I know today, including my college son, believe that everything should be free. So now I'm shifting to the consumer mindset, but it applies to the mind of the amateur photog too. My son was telling me that being able to get free knowledge, music, software, business ideas, etc. is a great thing for society. The "open source" writers, craftsmen, programmers, photographers "do it because they love it...what's wrong?" I asked about how do people make a LIVING, and he deferred, implying that if the "free everything" world was extended enough....there would be no need for money or professions.
Hogwash. Human nature will always include some that are ambitious, some lazy. A farmer doesn't grow a crop of corn because he loves farming, or wants to hand it out to his lazy neighbors that do nothing. He grows it to sell. This thread right here on our forum proves the point: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129890 (Summary: I want to buy a photog book! But it's too expensive. Here you go, a fee PDF of it! Thanks, he's the greatest expert in his field, I'm glad I didn't have to pay anything!) Those that work harder, and within the law, should be rewarded. Not pushed aside by the underground business minded folks. Otherwise, our country becomes like a 3rd world - full of bribes, collapsing buildings, and everyone with a hand out. Yes, compete, but do it the right way.
On the other hand, X-ray makes good points about the larger issue; a change in our work ethic and community ethics. Most people in their 30s or younger that I know today, including my college son, believe that everything should be free. So now I'm shifting to the consumer mindset, but it applies to the mind of the amateur photog too. My son was telling me that being able to get free knowledge, music, software, business ideas, etc. is a great thing for society. The "open source" writers, craftsmen, programmers, photographers "do it because they love it...what's wrong?" I asked about how do people make a LIVING, and he deferred, implying that if the "free everything" world was extended enough....there would be no need for money or professions.
Hogwash. Human nature will always include some that are ambitious, some lazy. A farmer doesn't grow a crop of corn because he loves farming, or wants to hand it out to his lazy neighbors that do nothing. He grows it to sell. This thread right here on our forum proves the point: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129890 (Summary: I want to buy a photog book! But it's too expensive. Here you go, a fee PDF of it! Thanks, he's the greatest expert in his field, I'm glad I didn't have to pay anything!) Those that work harder, and within the law, should be rewarded. Not pushed aside by the underground business minded folks. Otherwise, our country becomes like a 3rd world - full of bribes, collapsing buildings, and everyone with a hand out. Yes, compete, but do it the right way.
goamules
Well-known
Basically, I'm getting too philosophical. But there there is a paradox in today's attitude that everything should be free, including tax avoidance. But we also want wonderful free roads, parks, health care, education. If everything is free, who's paying for it?
Gumby
Veteran
... interesting question. So what was the answer?
Sparrow
Veteran
eh? ... 42! did you not know that?
Gumby
Veteran
I think we all agree on that in principle. Freeloaders are both annoying and with the huge number of htem... getting harder for the rest of us to support.
The question is about how black and white the situation is, or should be. If the "rule" should be that no photographer can ever sell a print without establishing a formal photography business, then the rule should also be that no camera "gearhead" should sell their gear on these forums without establishing a formal camera shop business. That level of extreme ethics is, ummm, to extreme to be realistic.
I don't know the intent of the OP, but it seems like he/she is not trying to "get into the business" but to make a little money to support a hobby. What's wrong with that? It is the OP's (or any of the rest of us') option to report that income an dpay taxes on it. No business license is required. There are "additional income" lines on tax forms just for that purpose. And like our German friend points out... "hobby businesses" are frowned upon and discouraged... at least in German where he lives and California where I live.
Gumby
Veteran
huddy
Well-known
Anyone who thinks roads, parks, health care, and education are free right now is a fool. Everything has a cost, even if you don't incur the cost at the point of delivery. I personally don't advocate for everything to be free. My position is that instead of being forced to pay for services for others or services that I do not get to choose, I should have the freedom to use my own income to pay for the services that I deem worth having.
Which of these is unethical?
A) A voluntary free market where services are paid for by those who directly consume them.
B) A regulated market where the government coercively takes the income of one class of people to pay for services that they do not necessarily choose in addition to services provided to those who do not pay for them.
Taxation is theft, plain and simple. Legal does not always equate to ethical or moral.
Gumby
Veteran
Even back in the caveman days there were freeloaders.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Communism vs Capitalism 101
x-ray
Veteran
You understand!!! Thank you!!!
To respond to another post, OK if one person sells a few images then what about 1 million weekenders selling images and doing weddings and family portraits? This is exactly what's happened. On a nice day in the parks around my home you can't walk through the park without falling over a weekenders shooting family pix and wedding formals. In the park recently there were seven people with assistants doing this. On I knew and had confronted him about getting a license which he had not done. I know for a fact that he makes substantial money doing this and never reports it. Where do these people thin the money comes from for the park?
I'm not at all against people stating businesses and I'm not afraid of competition. I started my business the right way and turned it into a major business.
I was going to get into this earlier and didn't get a chance. I'm 64 and going to retire next year. I love my work and have grown to hate the business. A lot of the reason I hate business is because I'm tired of all the crap that is required of a business. It doesn't get easier and the governments aren't reducing the load on us. In my state dollar one is taxable to the state business tax department. I know because I had several friends busted big time and they were only making small change. One friend thought the start point to be a business was $400 per month. guess what, $1 if you're doing the work with the intent to sell it. Huge penalties is what he got. States are hungry now and having to lay off employs. I don't like big government but I hate to see people that depend on the income lose their jobs.
I've done this for over forty five years and had a 6000 sq ft studio for many years shooting for major corporations including John Deere, Rubbermaid, Philips Electronics and on and on. I was shooting catalogs and advertising material and shooting about ten annual reports for major corporations per year. I simply got sick of working eighty hours a week and dealing with red tape constantly. I finally had enough of it and in 2000 shut the studio down and no longer use assistants unless I absolutely need them. I was paying more money in taxes than my next door neighbor physician made a year. I was sick of it and solved the problem.
None of us love taxes and piles of paperwork and none of us love working our butts off to pay them but if you want to be in business that's life. I scaled back and found the right balance of work and play but still run the business as a business and act as an ethical responsible part of the community paying for the resources I enjoy. None of this is free.
tstermitz
Well-known
Technology disruption by disintermediation. (I just wanted the opportunity to use that word.)
Changes in technology changes the previous economic balance.
Craigslist killed ad revenue to the daily newspaper. The internet killed record companies by eliminating their monopoly of the physical product delivery channel. The Macintosh and copy-machine killed the graphic design industry and the print shop.
In the film days, you had real, moderate expenses to shoot, and real, larger expenses to publish, and you needed high technical skills to produce good B&W or Color prints. Wedding photography or advertising were businesses, in which high-quality prints were valued by the customer and the differentiation in terms of barriers to entry and skill between amateur and pro was clear.
Then came digital cameras and convenient, web-quality image delivery. Uncle Frank at the wedding with his DSLR is able to produce for free a technically acceptable DVD of images. A photography pro might be a much higher quality choice, but how do you make the business proposition to the happy couple?
Several things have to be apparent to the buyer:
- how much better quality,
- what is the cost differential,
- what are the convenience factors,
- are they actually going to deliver? (timely, meet the expected quality, show up at all),
- are there any negative consequences riding on the decision (liability),
- do the buyers have their own economic ass on the line.
(Sorry x-ray. I'm not saying you are wrong on the moral case, but from the customer's standpoint, I don't see "Does the photographer pay taxes?" in the purchase decision. Liability when the light stand falls on the bride, maybe.)
I'm cheap and kind of a controlling about my business, but I'm willing to pay real money when I want the quality of a professional, especially when my own business success is on the line. I paid a real graphic designer to create my website appearance and business card logo because I valued his artistic ability and sense of design, and that will have an impact on how my customers see me.
Changes in technology changes the previous economic balance.
Craigslist killed ad revenue to the daily newspaper. The internet killed record companies by eliminating their monopoly of the physical product delivery channel. The Macintosh and copy-machine killed the graphic design industry and the print shop.
In the film days, you had real, moderate expenses to shoot, and real, larger expenses to publish, and you needed high technical skills to produce good B&W or Color prints. Wedding photography or advertising were businesses, in which high-quality prints were valued by the customer and the differentiation in terms of barriers to entry and skill between amateur and pro was clear.
Then came digital cameras and convenient, web-quality image delivery. Uncle Frank at the wedding with his DSLR is able to produce for free a technically acceptable DVD of images. A photography pro might be a much higher quality choice, but how do you make the business proposition to the happy couple?
Several things have to be apparent to the buyer:
- how much better quality,
- what is the cost differential,
- what are the convenience factors,
- are they actually going to deliver? (timely, meet the expected quality, show up at all),
- are there any negative consequences riding on the decision (liability),
- do the buyers have their own economic ass on the line.
(Sorry x-ray. I'm not saying you are wrong on the moral case, but from the customer's standpoint, I don't see "Does the photographer pay taxes?" in the purchase decision. Liability when the light stand falls on the bride, maybe.)
I'm cheap and kind of a controlling about my business, but I'm willing to pay real money when I want the quality of a professional, especially when my own business success is on the line. I paid a real graphic designer to create my website appearance and business card logo because I valued his artistic ability and sense of design, and that will have an impact on how my customers see me.
tstermitz
Well-known
There is an excellent little book called "Soft Selling in a Hard World". The basic premise is that people buy your product out of their own NEEDS, not the seller's FEATURES.
Needs are very basic: Money, Power, Sex, Pleasure, Friendship, Happiness, Removing Worry or Anxiety, etc. (I guess on RFF we have to add GAS as a need!)
The selling strategy then becomes: Determine the buyer's needs, and explain how you or your product meets them.
Quality photographs of a wedding is a feature, not a need, until or unless you can make the case why your quality satisfies one of the buyer's needs.
I think the OP hit it on the head when he pointed out that a victory lap with a blue ribbon is a high-value need.
Needs are very basic: Money, Power, Sex, Pleasure, Friendship, Happiness, Removing Worry or Anxiety, etc. (I guess on RFF we have to add GAS as a need!)
The selling strategy then becomes: Determine the buyer's needs, and explain how you or your product meets them.
Quality photographs of a wedding is a feature, not a need, until or unless you can make the case why your quality satisfies one of the buyer's needs.
I think the OP hit it on the head when he pointed out that a victory lap with a blue ribbon is a high-value need.
benlees
Well-known
Quite an oversimplification. You could have just as easily put the word "profit" in the place of "taxation" in your last sentence.
x-ray
Veteran
You're absolutely right about technology. Business as many of knew it is gone for ever. It's not necessarily a bad thing the model changed. I've stayed in business this long because I could and did change. I went from 35mm motion picture for commercials to video and 11x14 and 8x10 catalog film photography to digital. I've always been on the leading edge of the technology.
I also agree that for the average consumer whether a person is responsible and pays taxes makes no difference in the end. All they want is cheap and dependable. To the big business clients yes it makes a difference. My remarks about limiting ones self relates to whether a person is operating on a large scale or out of the trunk of their car and dodging taxes just for one example. The little guy working weekends out of his trunk has no effect on my business at all but it does the wedding and portrait guys. I deal with a totally different level of commercial client. My point is you will never make the big bucks working in the shadows. You can never advertise or get a phone directory listing for fear the tax folks will find you. I know in the city where I live the tax collectors troll the phone listings and cross reference them with tax licenses. I know a fellow that was caught that way. If you're ambitious and want to be a big scale wedding / portrait studio it's going to be tough because of the dilution of the market by the weekenders. Big studios can barely survive now. As a business man you know the costs of doing business if you've been in it for a while. Your car, building, theft and liability insurance, maintenance on your business vehicle, machines, cameras, utilities, depreciation of equipment, replacement costs, accounting, legal fees and help all go int the total price of the job. Every penny spent in the business has to be recovered to make it go. Today we have to take into account business loss from clients going bankrupt and those that never intended to pay when they assigned the job. Every couple of years I have to file a lawsuit to collect from deadbeat clients. Unfortunately the era has brought on a new generation of client that uses non payment as a means of fattening up the bottom line. This is all in the cost of doing business now.
I apprenticed under a master in the early 70's. Joe was a brilliant photographer and business man plus exceptionally creative. Joe always said you have to make 3x your expenses to make any money. Joe was exactly right. If my operating costs figure to $100/hr I have to make $300 per hour. One hundred to expenses, one hundred to the tax man and one hundred to me. If you don't take into account every penny of expenses you will be out of business soon.
Every year I see new commercial studios listings in the phone book. the next year they're gone and there's a new crop. Business isn't simple and not everyone has the talent to run one or the stomach.
This is why a photographer has to charge what he does or any other profession whether a plumber, mason, restaurant or whatever. Legitimate businesses are expensive to run. This is my total gripe. Let us all be responsible citizens and operate on the same playing field.
This has turned into a good thread. Great discussion. Also gives me some insight into the thinking or lack of thinking by some folks. I think this thread is a window into the future of business.
x-ray
Veteran
What services would you want.
Ok then I don't want to pay for your social security, medicare, the road in front of where you live or the police that might respond to your emergency. I only want to pay for what I want.
I hate taxes too and they've been seriously abused and wasted beyond belief on both the local and federal level. Not to get political but it's not getting any better. It's all parties involved as I see it.
I'm a big proponent of a register tax and doing away with the income tax system. If you buy something you pay no matter who you are or where you came from. Legal or illegal everyone pays as they go. If you don't want to pay taxes then save your money. Rebate to each person that pays taxes the amount that would be collected up to the poverty level then we're all on the same playing field. The poor pay none and we pay our share. The wealthy when they buy a $50M jet pay a chunk. No dodging and no loopholes. (off topic I know)
jwc57
Well-known
I wonder why many people think "competition is good" until Walmart comes to town?
In a way, Walmart does the same thing as a weekend "pro". Walmart offers the same quality (or good enough) goods at a better price than a Mom&Pop store. Walmart buys in volume for huge discounts to help their bottom line. The weekend shooter has a full-time job to take up the slack and buy new equipment. The result is the same---a smaller, dedicated business with a tighter budget goes under.
What you have left isn't really as good as what you had, but the customer voted with their wallet.
In a way, Walmart does the same thing as a weekend "pro". Walmart offers the same quality (or good enough) goods at a better price than a Mom&Pop store. Walmart buys in volume for huge discounts to help their bottom line. The weekend shooter has a full-time job to take up the slack and buy new equipment. The result is the same---a smaller, dedicated business with a tighter budget goes under.
What you have left isn't really as good as what you had, but the customer voted with their wallet.
Paul T.
Veteran
No - Walmart is all about establishing a monopoly. That's different from individuals providing competition to estabished businesses.
I can empathise with anyone who's losing business to, for want of a better work, amateurs. My own work is becoming, according to some, a past-time rather than a profession, but my experience is very different to x-ray's, and I'm in the UK, where taxes are far higher. I can make a reasonable sum, and pay not a huge amount of tax; I claim travel, broadband, computers, in my (lucky) case, I even claim for musical instruments, books. So I don't see tax as a huge burden.
While I'm making less than I used to, I don't see that as a reflection of my intrinsic worth. The fact I get paid for something other people would do for free means, really, that I'm lucky. It's a classic glass half-full, or half-empty scenario.