jsrockit
Moderator
Exactly... I wouldn't consider this work or exposure. I'd consider this friendship.
Photographers are now able to use "Exposure" in place of Cash
- Thread starter Darthfeeble
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 5K
Exactly... I wouldn't consider this work or exposure. I'd consider this friendship.
Sparrow
Veteran
... yes I know a plumber who does bits of work free sometimes, old or needy folk around the village and the like, I did him his portrait as a small mixed-media drawing a couple of years back just to keep the karma balanced
His wife was delighted with it and unfortunately showed it off in my local pub ... I then got badgered to do another for one of the pubs regulars.
The second chap was shocked by what I expected to be paid. He thought three hours of time spent plumbing was quite different to three hours drawing.
jwc57
Well-known
I've been in business for 16 years--and it will come to an end June 30th. I can not completely blame people doing freebies, but it is a large part of the drop in income the past two or three years. My last few cancellations were due to the clients having a relative who just bought a camera and needs the exposure. I didn't believe them, thinking they liked someone else's work better, until I saw the images on Facebook--along with the "awesome shots"; "love this" replies. The photos are off-color and have other technical problems--plus the cliche railroad track photos. The good news is I no longer feel obligated to post slick digital photos on Facebook in an effort to market myself. I can now do what I want and if I sell a piece here or there, great. I feel a little awkward though about job hunting just a couple of months before turning 58 years old.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
They've been delighted. Then again, most of the "free" pics I've done have been either for friends -- usually quite close friends -- or for causes I believe in.
And it's been the same from the other side. If friends have been kind enough to let me use their pictures "for exposure" in my books, I've loved the pics. Then again, I wouldn't have used their pics (or indeed asked to use them) if I didn't like them.
Working for strangers, for a job they'd normally have to pay for, is another matter, though a while back my "fee" for a picture in an academic book was no more than a copy of the book. It was a fascinating subject, but I would rather have the $100 book than a penny-ante fee (half page interior B+W, print run a few hundred).
There is NEVER a "one size fits all" answer.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
nongfuspring
Well-known
Most of us live in more or less capitalist societies, and our compensation is determined by the market value of our labour. The simple story is that there are too many photographers. It's the same with a lot of professions at the moment, the problem is more extreme with young graduates and creative professionals, "unpaid internships" and "exposure" being the new norm often for the first few years out of university. Labour has priced itself out of the market as Fredric Jameson would say.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Hi Roger,
I agree that there isn't a one size fits all answer. I make photographs now of family, children married and grand children. I do it for free.
However, at least here, organizations and some people mostly of a particular type, try to get folks, particularily artists to work free for them. They need to realize that some of us work, for me used to work, at making a living with this photography medium. I guess that it's the attitude that some embrace once they have a job with one of these organizations.
I may sound harsh but when I was a member of our TCPPA, after sitting down and trying to help, how many folks were struggling to get their business off the ground. It seems to me, at least from folks I have met, they are afraid, lack self confidence, sales skills to get interested potential clients to pay an amount that they should receive.
My mentor, once said to his wife, "i need to go see Joe." She replied, "you're goung to be nothing more than a cheap clone of Joe." He replied, when getting ready to drive to his studio, "I may be a clone of Joe but I won't be cheap!"
I'll get off my soap box for now. Thanks for reading my comments and I appreciate your thoughts Roger.
I agree that there isn't a one size fits all answer. I make photographs now of family, children married and grand children. I do it for free.
However, at least here, organizations and some people mostly of a particular type, try to get folks, particularily artists to work free for them. They need to realize that some of us work, for me used to work, at making a living with this photography medium. I guess that it's the attitude that some embrace once they have a job with one of these organizations.
I may sound harsh but when I was a member of our TCPPA, after sitting down and trying to help, how many folks were struggling to get their business off the ground. It seems to me, at least from folks I have met, they are afraid, lack self confidence, sales skills to get interested potential clients to pay an amount that they should receive.
My mentor, once said to his wife, "i need to go see Joe." She replied, "you're goung to be nothing more than a cheap clone of Joe." He replied, when getting ready to drive to his studio, "I may be a clone of Joe but I won't be cheap!"
I'll get off my soap box for now. Thanks for reading my comments and I appreciate your thoughts Roger.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Look at it another way 'round:
Would you support a particular organization financially if you could afford to? In my case, let's choose the Tibetan Government in Exile. If the answer is yes, and I can afford to give them $1000 of work but not $1000 cash, it's not a hard choice. The more so if for their $1000 cash they couldn't get as much work, or as good, as I can give them in kind.
Or for another 'nother way round:
You have a friend who asks you a favour. You oblige (or not). You don't really count the cost, but if they're always asking and never giving, you stop obliging. Generally, though, doing things for friends for nothing - be it photography, pulling out a tree stump, picking up a prescription from a pharmacy 10 miles away when they're ill - is the way that most of us live our lives.
The cash nexus has grown overweening.
Cheers,
R.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Hi Roger,
Appreciate your thoughts. The friends I have are very busy with family, business and traveling. My neighbor on one side of me owns a business in the financial area, my other neighbor is a Mary Kay sales director. She is currently in London with Mary Kay folks. My wife still works and is a professional at a firm downtown Minneapolis. Where she works, they all work hard, long hours. For me, since 1973, I have relied on my own skills, never part of the corporate umbrella, company or government job. I had to fend on my own and I liked it that way.
With my photog business, I was the only employee, others worked on an as-need basis. Time management was important to me. I didn't do trade offs, this person does this I will do that. To put it another way, time is important; it's an important part of my life. For me, I could accomplish more spending my time in ways I considered productive.
To be truthful, now that I'm retired I'm still busy! Maybe it's because I move slower now!
Have a wonderful week.
Appreciate your thoughts. The friends I have are very busy with family, business and traveling. My neighbor on one side of me owns a business in the financial area, my other neighbor is a Mary Kay sales director. She is currently in London with Mary Kay folks. My wife still works and is a professional at a firm downtown Minneapolis. Where she works, they all work hard, long hours. For me, since 1973, I have relied on my own skills, never part of the corporate umbrella, company or government job. I had to fend on my own and I liked it that way.
With my photog business, I was the only employee, others worked on an as-need basis. Time management was important to me. I didn't do trade offs, this person does this I will do that. To put it another way, time is important; it's an important part of my life. For me, I could accomplish more spending my time in ways I considered productive.
To be truthful, now that I'm retired I'm still busy! Maybe it's because I move slower now!
Have a wonderful week.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
First highlight: That's one way of approaching life: "long, hard hours" for the almighty dollar. But it's completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Second highlight: For me it's since December 1981. But again, what of it? I decided many years ago that I'd rather be paid less, and do what I love, rather than chase money all the time. My wife decided she'd rather do the same. We've had a great life together since we met on May 14th 1981, ten days under 34 years ago.
Third highlight: You may be missing the point. Not every hour of our lives is work; not all of it can be monetized. Of course you do things for others; of course they do things for you. This isn't a trade-off. It's a part of being human. But even in business, have you never borrowed a flash head or lent someone a tripod?
Fourth highlight: I'm not retired, and I don't want to retire. I enjoy what I do. I'm perfectly happy to do less of it, because I don't need as much money any more: I own my house, I have no debts. But when I work for nothing, it's almost invariably because if I didn't do it, either it wouldn't get done, or it would still get done for free by someone else, but probably not as well. This is not the same as taking a job away from a professional by working for nothing.
Cheers,
R.
oftheherd
Veteran
My daughter worked for a while with a nationally known and respected charity. They were having a run and wanted photos. My daughter volunteered me. When I went there to meet the man in charge of publicity for the event, and he found out I only did film (and this was some a good 10 years ago), he was very uninterested, and worse dismissive in a not too polite way. After seeing that attitude, I was glad he didn't want me. Like Chris, I am sure he would not have been happy with the work.
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that I wasn't a working professional photographer.
I am glad it had been different for you Mr. Hicks.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, I think that it was just that he was a sh*t.
Also, there's a big difference between volunteering and being volunteered. I would never work for anyone I hadn't met unless I knew his boss REALLY well, to the point that the fellow who was briefing me wouldn't dare be too nasty or dismissive.
Cheers,
R.
You're right, Simon... Perhaps it's easier to notice in a smaller community. There are charitable efforts going on continually, using donated efforts and expertise. Habitat For Humanity, for instance, builds houses using donated work and materials, and there are projects by churches, Rotary International, etc. They get exposure from local news items, thank-you ads, signs at the work site, social media...
Huss
Veteran
Slightly off topic, but not really, the people who make money in photography now are the contest organizers and big event show producers.
Photo competitions? $20 entry fee, that is all!! Per photo...
Big events? How about the recent Paris Photo Expo that was in LA this past weekend? $12 to park. $20+ to get in. And I cannot even imagine how much the booth owners were charged. Not sure if on top of that the expo took a cut of anything sold.
Many galleries are the same way. The clue is if they rent wall space to artists. Pretty much how they make their money is by collecting rent, many I know could not care if they sold anything. Some that I visited in LA even had their lights off during business hours to save on electricity! I went in, flipped the light switch so I could see the art (which annoyed the attendant/owner (I guess?), but most people would not even have stopped in thinking the place was closed.
Anyway, this is a variation on working for free. Paying rent to someone to display/sell your work who may not have much incentive to do so because they have already made money off you.
Photo competitions? $20 entry fee, that is all!! Per photo...
Big events? How about the recent Paris Photo Expo that was in LA this past weekend? $12 to park. $20+ to get in. And I cannot even imagine how much the booth owners were charged. Not sure if on top of that the expo took a cut of anything sold.
Many galleries are the same way. The clue is if they rent wall space to artists. Pretty much how they make their money is by collecting rent, many I know could not care if they sold anything. Some that I visited in LA even had their lights off during business hours to save on electricity! I went in, flipped the light switch so I could see the art (which annoyed the attendant/owner (I guess?), but most people would not even have stopped in thinking the place was closed.
Anyway, this is a variation on working for free. Paying rent to someone to display/sell your work who may not have much incentive to do so because they have already made money off you.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not necessarily. For the former, the fees are sometimes designed as a simple deterrent: without them, the flood of entries would be even greater than it is. Going through hundreds of pictures is difficult enough (I used to do it for PIC magazine); going through thousands would be insupportable. In the days when people had to make physical prints and send them, the cost of the prints and the postage was adequate deterrent. For electronic submissions it's another matter.
Likewise, the economics of big events are not necessarily as they seem. Parking fees are often set by the venue, and the cost of hiring the venue itself is massive. This is before you hire staff, pay insurance and utilities, etc. Then you get the exhibitors who delay payment or don't pay at all. I've known a few exhibition organizers well enough to discuss these topics with them. Of course they're pleading their own corner but even so I've seen enough annual exhibitions disappear to know that they aren't exactly a license to print money.
Cheers,
R.
