Gumby
Veteran
I'm worried for you. That is a potentially high risk behavior. Around my part of the country most would probably respond to that kind of intrusion with a simple shrug, but others might give a one-fingered salute and tell you perform an un-performable sex act, but others might beat the crap out of you... or worse. If you do that again I surely hope that you know who you are dealing with!
jwc57
Well-known
While motives may differ, the end result is the same. The point was about another "business" undercutting prices to either establish their business with an advantage one doesn't enjoy. Either way, the dedicated business which may have provided better customer service and quality no longer exists. There have always been weekend shooters. I just don't remember a time when there were this many weekend shooters and part-time businesses all trying to serve the same market area.
Gumby
Veteran
Bill Clark
Veteran
Couples years back, couple hired my services to tell the story of their wedding.
Warned me, brides father likes to photograph.
What did I do? I helped him and he gave me copies of his files. Showed him how to capture in RAW.
Didn't bother me to have him around me. I was there to make the photos and to help others as well.
I love photographing people!
Warned me, brides father likes to photograph.
What did I do? I helped him and he gave me copies of his files. Showed him how to capture in RAW.
Didn't bother me to have him around me. I was there to make the photos and to help others as well.
I love photographing people!
jwc57
Well-known
When I shot weddings, I only asked folks to let me get my shots, then I'd step back and let them at it. I always left room at the end of the proof albums for the bride and groom to add photos guests had taken.
Those folks were never a problem and it was the professional thing to do.
The last two weddings I shot I was told that relatives starting their own photo business would be taking photos for their portfolios. That did kind of irk me. I once had a relative tell me to get out of his way so he could get his shots.
Those folks were never a problem and it was the professional thing to do.
The last two weddings I shot I was told that relatives starting their own photo business would be taking photos for their portfolios. That did kind of irk me. I once had a relative tell me to get out of his way so he could get his shots.
dbarnes
Well-known
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I find the use of "poaching" interesting. Poaching is the illegal taking of a public or private good, sometimes involving trespassing.
If an event organizer is charging photographers for access, that generally should mean that they're not greatly limiting photo usage. And if they're limiting photo usage (letting you shoot for personal use only), they probably aren't charging to let you shoot.
If that framework applies, I guess you could call it poaching if the event organizer charges photographers for access but, in practice, non-paying photographers also find that they can shoot with equivalent access because the payment rule isn't enforced.
But if it's just a case of pro and non-pro shooters shooting side by side in a non-restricted setting, that's been going on since there were pro photographers, I don't see it ending and I wouldn't call it poaching.
All that said, it's no fun to have amateurs gnawing away at your livelihood because tools have gotten better and easier to use. If I had worked years to be a solid sports action shooter with manual focus teles and then had Joe DSLR show up and shoot just as sharp with the machine doing all the work, I'd be irked. But it would be hard to fault the amateur for taking advantage of progress.
If an event organizer is charging photographers for access, that generally should mean that they're not greatly limiting photo usage. And if they're limiting photo usage (letting you shoot for personal use only), they probably aren't charging to let you shoot.
If that framework applies, I guess you could call it poaching if the event organizer charges photographers for access but, in practice, non-paying photographers also find that they can shoot with equivalent access because the payment rule isn't enforced.
But if it's just a case of pro and non-pro shooters shooting side by side in a non-restricted setting, that's been going on since there were pro photographers, I don't see it ending and I wouldn't call it poaching.
All that said, it's no fun to have amateurs gnawing away at your livelihood because tools have gotten better and easier to use. If I had worked years to be a solid sports action shooter with manual focus teles and then had Joe DSLR show up and shoot just as sharp with the machine doing all the work, I'd be irked. But it would be hard to fault the amateur for taking advantage of progress.
huddy
Well-known
Hmmm, I'd be curious on what basis you equate profit with theft. The whole premise of paying for a good or service is that I feel like they can provide something better and of more value than I can produce on my own, or can provide something of equal/sufficient value in much less time than I could produce the same item. Profit is purely an incentive for an individual or corporation to acquire if they can specialize in providing a good/service that a customer needs or wants. Additionally, profit is a very strong motivation for innovation.
Excellent question.
Social Security - I don't want this. I plan to take care of my parents and in-laws when they are elderly, and will expect my children to do the same; in the event that something happens to my children, I save in order to set aside money for the well-being of my family in the event of aging/medical issues/catastrophe. Retirement is a very new concept historically, and not one I ever intend to pursue. I plan to work until I'm too old to move.
Medicare - I don't want the government having a hand in my medical decisions/coverage/insurance. Health insurance costs too much money for my family. We pay for everything out of money and save tremendously. And having children means we do incur expenses beyond the occasional doctor visit.
Roads - The Privatization of Roads & Highways, Walter Block is a great read... and the foreword is an excellent summation that I would agree with. I don't need/want a government to provide roads to me.
Police - There is sufficient evidence to convince me that police are unnecessary. I am responsible for defending my family and property, and in the event that a threat was made against either, the police could only arrive in time to draw chalk lines.
I have no problem with groups of people banding together voluntarily to pay for services they want provided by a central agency. I just find it morally repugnant that I am forced to pay for services that I don't want. If there was a way to opt out, I would; unfortunately, government is neither reason nor eloquence, but force, a force that has no desire to let the individual be sovereign in modern times. A pay go system is great. If someone wants something, they can go pay for it. Freeloading is unsustainable and I have no desire to mooch off the government... I just want them to leave me alone!
Cheers!
Cold
Established
This has been a heck of a read! While things have appeared to have gotten somewhat heated at times, overall, the participants have keps good discussion going, and even as I was reading, I read things and points of view (on both sides of the discussion) that I hadn't considered before...so thanks, everyone, for that.
One thing that's been touched on, but that I really believe has more impact than many would like to admit, is that technology advancement has not just incrementally affected photography (on both the production and consumption ends); it has fundamentally altered the entire process. No longer must a photographer master things like precise focus, exposure, etc. For the vast majority of situations, autofocus, modern metering, and vibration compensation neuters, if not nullifies a fine level of hands-on experience.
True, this does not apply to all possible situations, but for the majority, which do not push the limits of the equipment...the wonders of technology have certainly 'lowered the barriers to entry', in effect, allowing a photographer with a fraction of the skill required of a professional in decades past to produce images of a technical quality that are much closer to that of the professional than they would have been a few decades ago.
Ah, but what about those situations where the technical wizardry can't solve all problems? Simply put, two main factors go a long way toward mitigating this: First, the sheer volume of images made possible by digital photography makes it easier for the photographer to justify simply not publishing the shots where his camera failed him, and sharing only those where all went well.
The second, more subtle factor is the consumers themselves.
While weddings still require a high level of expertise, for most other, more casual shoots, the primary intended use of the images, outside of maybe a handful of prints, is online sharing and other digital consumption.
Add to this, the trend in recent years toward what is, for lack of a better term, the acceptance, or even desire of 'intentionally bad photos' with obvious technical faults that intentionally look like a pocket camera snapshot, and the errors of the photographer can often be passed off as intentional...many times to the delight of the uninformed consumer.
A friend of mine has started doing portrait work in recent years, and seeing some of the stuff he puts on his page just makes me cringe. It's not that he's a terrible photographer, but at my own level of skill, I don't feel I'm "good enough" to charge someone for my work...and when I see the cream of the crop from his shoots...they're all shots that, even for my own personal use, I'd have scrapped. But it's what the people want...and as we all know, it's not about giving the customer what you want them to have...it's about making them happy.
One thing that's been touched on, but that I really believe has more impact than many would like to admit, is that technology advancement has not just incrementally affected photography (on both the production and consumption ends); it has fundamentally altered the entire process. No longer must a photographer master things like precise focus, exposure, etc. For the vast majority of situations, autofocus, modern metering, and vibration compensation neuters, if not nullifies a fine level of hands-on experience.
True, this does not apply to all possible situations, but for the majority, which do not push the limits of the equipment...the wonders of technology have certainly 'lowered the barriers to entry', in effect, allowing a photographer with a fraction of the skill required of a professional in decades past to produce images of a technical quality that are much closer to that of the professional than they would have been a few decades ago.
Ah, but what about those situations where the technical wizardry can't solve all problems? Simply put, two main factors go a long way toward mitigating this: First, the sheer volume of images made possible by digital photography makes it easier for the photographer to justify simply not publishing the shots where his camera failed him, and sharing only those where all went well.
The second, more subtle factor is the consumers themselves.
While weddings still require a high level of expertise, for most other, more casual shoots, the primary intended use of the images, outside of maybe a handful of prints, is online sharing and other digital consumption.
Add to this, the trend in recent years toward what is, for lack of a better term, the acceptance, or even desire of 'intentionally bad photos' with obvious technical faults that intentionally look like a pocket camera snapshot, and the errors of the photographer can often be passed off as intentional...many times to the delight of the uninformed consumer.
A friend of mine has started doing portrait work in recent years, and seeing some of the stuff he puts on his page just makes me cringe. It's not that he's a terrible photographer, but at my own level of skill, I don't feel I'm "good enough" to charge someone for my work...and when I see the cream of the crop from his shoots...they're all shots that, even for my own personal use, I'd have scrapped. But it's what the people want...and as we all know, it's not about giving the customer what you want them to have...it's about making them happy.
Messsucherkamera
Established
If the event is a public event held on public property, no one can stop anyone else from making photographs. If the event is on someone's private property it's a different story. The wishes of the property owner must be honored.
As for pro photographers, as long as you are not interfering with them doing their job properly, they should have no complaints.
JMHO.
As for pro photographers, as long as you are not interfering with them doing their job properly, they should have no complaints.
JMHO.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
No, provided the event is being held in a public place and not on private property.
Back to the freedom of expression/freedom of the press concept: No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public environment. Therefore photography cannot be lawfully restricted or barred in the public domain.
The above applies in the U.S. - if you are photographing in another nation, that nation's laws may vary.