dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I'm going to speak (or type) in generalities here.
Some photographers have got the biggest egos.
Some "photographers" believe that they're actually photographers.
Some photographers think that they produce "art".
Not all, but definitely some.
Some photographers need to be taken down a notch or two.
Not all, but definitely some.
Some photographers, on the other hand, are decent, hard working, and caring individuals.
Not all, but hopefully more than those that are "definitely some".
So what's the big deal with being able to "work for free" when it comes to shooting?
Many folks want to be paid; I mean, we all got to eat right? but how many of you here are doing your photography full time? How many are actually making a GOOD living at shooting here? Are you earning what you thought you would be? Are the benefits of being able to be your own boss all that you figured they'd be cracked up to be?
I'm not being cynical or pessimistic here, I'm just being a realist.
For some folks it's worked out great. For others, who may not have as much capital to begin with, it's a tough grind on a daily basis.
It's the latter who probably wouldn't mind doing the "work for free" now and then because it allows them to potentially network with an area that they may not initially have an "in" with.
I, personally, don't mind doing a "work for free" now and then if it's for a good cause. I mean, I have done charity events, some "giving back" to a community and such and, for the most part, it's a good feeling for me and I don't mind the "work". That said, I have a full time job and I earn enough money shooting weddings and portraits on the side that I don't have to worry about food and/or shelter.
Now, am I taking away a paying position from another photographer (whether that person be a full time photographer or a part-timer)? No. Why? Because the organizations can't afford to (or won't) pay anyone in the first place. So does one "hold out" and demand payment? If you do, likely, you lose that opportunity to do something you may not have had a chance to do in the first place AND the organization finds someone else who can fill the void.
I really think that sometimes the photography communities tend to be their own worst enemies. They chastise anyone who would "work for free" but at the same time they can claw each other to death with their conceit to get at the high paying jobs.
hmmm.. maybe I am cynical about this...
Have any of you ever taken on a "work for free" job for any organization?
Are any of you afraid to admit it for fear of reprisals from others in this (or any other) photographic community?
Curious,
Dave
Some photographers have got the biggest egos.
Some "photographers" believe that they're actually photographers.
Some photographers think that they produce "art".
Not all, but definitely some.
Some photographers need to be taken down a notch or two.
Not all, but definitely some.
Some photographers, on the other hand, are decent, hard working, and caring individuals.
Not all, but hopefully more than those that are "definitely some".
So what's the big deal with being able to "work for free" when it comes to shooting?
Many folks want to be paid; I mean, we all got to eat right? but how many of you here are doing your photography full time? How many are actually making a GOOD living at shooting here? Are you earning what you thought you would be? Are the benefits of being able to be your own boss all that you figured they'd be cracked up to be?
I'm not being cynical or pessimistic here, I'm just being a realist.
For some folks it's worked out great. For others, who may not have as much capital to begin with, it's a tough grind on a daily basis.
It's the latter who probably wouldn't mind doing the "work for free" now and then because it allows them to potentially network with an area that they may not initially have an "in" with.
I, personally, don't mind doing a "work for free" now and then if it's for a good cause. I mean, I have done charity events, some "giving back" to a community and such and, for the most part, it's a good feeling for me and I don't mind the "work". That said, I have a full time job and I earn enough money shooting weddings and portraits on the side that I don't have to worry about food and/or shelter.
Now, am I taking away a paying position from another photographer (whether that person be a full time photographer or a part-timer)? No. Why? Because the organizations can't afford to (or won't) pay anyone in the first place. So does one "hold out" and demand payment? If you do, likely, you lose that opportunity to do something you may not have had a chance to do in the first place AND the organization finds someone else who can fill the void.
I really think that sometimes the photography communities tend to be their own worst enemies. They chastise anyone who would "work for free" but at the same time they can claw each other to death with their conceit to get at the high paying jobs.
hmmm.. maybe I am cynical about this...
Have any of you ever taken on a "work for free" job for any organization?
Are any of you afraid to admit it for fear of reprisals from others in this (or any other) photographic community?
Curious,
Dave
bmattock
Veteran
Sure. I shot a public event for the city I was living in - for pay, and while I was scoping out the venue, they were setting up for a charity awards event, and asked if I'd be willing to shoot that - for free.
I said yes. Why not? I was shooting digital, the expense involved was basically my time. In fact, I invited a friend over, and we both shot it. Gave the event a DVD of the combined photos, told 'em to have fun with them.
It never hurts to get some practice in. I could also take a few chances that I might not otherwise have taken, since I wasn't being paid.
Pfft. As if.
Nh3
Well-known
If people ask you to shoot something for free, that is an insult. lol
No one would even dare to ask a photographer worth his salt to work for free.
No one would even dare to ask a photographer worth his salt to work for free.
bmattock
Veteran
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
From the standpoint of someone who tries to make a living as a photographer - I don't work for free.
Even when I do (rarely) "pro bono" work for a charitable organization includes an invoice for expenses and a tax deduction. More often I work out a generous discount, but I do try to ensure that they understand the "normal" cost of the work they are getting. My past experience has been invariably that the "pro bono" clients demand more of my time than the ones paying full rate. They have more unreasonable expectations. Need more hand holding and explanation. And more often seem to disregard my copyrights after the license periods have expired.
Maybe that's just been my experience. But in general, I won't do it anymore.
I'm not a dick about it. But I do try to make my point, and avoid devaluing what we do in the eyes of the public.
Working in my other life as an art director, we're often asked to do work on spec. Doing so is expressly against the business codes of just about every professional organization I can think of.
I'm sure I end up not working as much as some photographers as a result. But when I do, I'm paid fairly for my time, expertise and ability. That's a nice feeling.
If an organization wants work for free, or for a ridiculously low budget, there are (as has been said) plenty of students, advanced amateurs, etc. who'll accommodate them. I don't need the headache of trying to justify my dayrate to someone who thinks their ad campaign can get away with a $5 iStock download - it's on their heads when their competitor uses the same image.
That's more ranty than I expected it to be.
Simply. I'll do some occasional work for friends and family for free. But otherwise, No.
Even when I do (rarely) "pro bono" work for a charitable organization includes an invoice for expenses and a tax deduction. More often I work out a generous discount, but I do try to ensure that they understand the "normal" cost of the work they are getting. My past experience has been invariably that the "pro bono" clients demand more of my time than the ones paying full rate. They have more unreasonable expectations. Need more hand holding and explanation. And more often seem to disregard my copyrights after the license periods have expired.
Maybe that's just been my experience. But in general, I won't do it anymore.
I'm not a dick about it. But I do try to make my point, and avoid devaluing what we do in the eyes of the public.
Working in my other life as an art director, we're often asked to do work on spec. Doing so is expressly against the business codes of just about every professional organization I can think of.
I'm sure I end up not working as much as some photographers as a result. But when I do, I'm paid fairly for my time, expertise and ability. That's a nice feeling.
If an organization wants work for free, or for a ridiculously low budget, there are (as has been said) plenty of students, advanced amateurs, etc. who'll accommodate them. I don't need the headache of trying to justify my dayrate to someone who thinks their ad campaign can get away with a $5 iStock download - it's on their heads when their competitor uses the same image.
That's more ranty than I expected it to be.
Simply. I'll do some occasional work for friends and family for free. But otherwise, No.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I am strictly an amateur. I shoot for my friends for free. It's not a business for me, and they wouldn't pay someone else to do it anyway. How else could I get to shoot cool off-Broadway shows and network with actors, producers and directors. I may eventually charge, but not my friends.
/T
/T
bmattock
Veteran
Weddings are hard work! I still enjoy doing them, though. Part of the payoff is knowing how happy your photos will make friends and family as well as the happy couple for (hopefully) years to come.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Weddings are hard work! I still enjoy doing them, though. Part of the payoff is knowing how happy your photos will make friends and family as well as the happy couple for (hopefully) years to come.
This is so purple it hurts my eyes!
/T
bmattock
Veteran
I think that is perfectly reasonable if you make your living at it.
I know mechanics - friends are always asking them to fix their cars for free. Doctors can't go to a cocktail party without being asked for a free diagnosis. It's just natural - but I agree, if you draw your living from it, you can't devalue your work.
I also like your attitude about letting amateurs and others do that kind of work if they wish - I've run into a few pros who were quite angry with me for shooting a wedding for $600 (and a family wedding for free). They claimed I was devaluing THEIR work. Well, sorry. I get to place whatever value on my time that I want to - I don't belong to a brotherhood of photographers whose dayrate I have to prop up by toeing the union line. They won't be coming around with money for me to buy food if I can't find work, so I don't think I'll be working to make sure I'm not undercutting anyone, either.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Over the decades I've done a good deal of well paid work, but I've done easily several times as much work which has brought no monetary reward. There's a lot of good will out there just waiting to be earned.
pesphoto
Veteran
My wife, a wedding shooter does do work for charity events from time to time for free. Good KArma I think. Also, one time she got a call from a local hospital and was asked to go shoot a wedding in a hospital room of a termonally ill parent that wasnt going to make it to a wedding. She went and did the photos and the family couldnt have been more thankful. It was the most emotionally draining thing she had ever shot
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
That attitude (that you're devaluing the industry) seems to be especially prevalent in the wedding photography industry.
I've seen that argument used by a whole whack of photographers - luckily a lot of the wedding photographers in these parts tend to be more understanding and realize that there's "lots of weddings to go around for every price point".
Dave
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have done years of free community work photography related or not. I think it is a good chance to improve my skills whatever the task may be and at the same time help some people out.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Thanks Bill - like I said, I try not to make an issue of it.
Also - for better or worse, most of the type of work I do (architecture, and product/still life) doesn't really cross into the realm where I have a lot of competition from the advanced amateur crowd. I don't shoot events, concerts, weddings, etc. So, I think I bump heads with the issue less than some pros. That probably helps.
For what it's worth, I'm shooting christmas pictures of our neighbors (friends) this weekend for free. (well, for drinks anyway)
Also - for better or worse, most of the type of work I do (architecture, and product/still life) doesn't really cross into the realm where I have a lot of competition from the advanced amateur crowd. I don't shoot events, concerts, weddings, etc. So, I think I bump heads with the issue less than some pros. That probably helps.
For what it's worth, I'm shooting christmas pictures of our neighbors (friends) this weekend for free. (well, for drinks anyway)
TEZillman
Well-known
When the idea of trying to earn a living as a photographer enters my head, I look "photographer" up in the US Dept of Labor's Occupational Outlook handbook. The following is a direct quote from it:
Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $26,170 in May 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $18,680 and $38,730. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $15,540, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $56,640. Median annual earnings in the industry employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers were $22,860 in the photographic services industry.
Salaried photographers—more of whom work full time—tend to earn more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves solely through their art.
The handbook further forcasts a total market for professional photographers in the US will grow to 135,000 by 2010. The median income is 60 cents less an hour than the median income for a garbage collector.
This kind of puts the potential for earning a living from photography into perspective. By the way, I generally refuse to take payment for taking pictures as doing so would mean that my homeowner's insurance would no longer cover my equipment and I would need to pay out over $1000 a year for coverage. Of course I only do one or two events a year for church groups and the like.
Median annual earnings of salaried photographers were $26,170 in May 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $18,680 and $38,730. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $15,540, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $56,640. Median annual earnings in the industry employing the largest numbers of salaried photographers were $22,860 in the photographic services industry.
Salaried photographers—more of whom work full time—tend to earn more than those who are self-employed. Because most freelance and portrait photographers purchase their own equipment, they incur considerable expense acquiring and maintaining cameras and accessories. Unlike news and commercial photographers, few fine arts photographers are successful enough to support themselves solely through their art.
The handbook further forcasts a total market for professional photographers in the US will grow to 135,000 by 2010. The median income is 60 cents less an hour than the median income for a garbage collector.
This kind of puts the potential for earning a living from photography into perspective. By the way, I generally refuse to take payment for taking pictures as doing so would mean that my homeowner's insurance would no longer cover my equipment and I would need to pay out over $1000 a year for coverage. Of course I only do one or two events a year for church groups and the like.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
So you just need to take in more than 1k and you're ahead.
Those numbers are a bit depressing. If you can find a niche, they seem to perk up a bit though. It's a different market than it used to be though. I'm still trying to re-find my footing.
bmattock
Veteran
And lots of customers at every price point. I've seen some couples who honestly believe that a $5000 wedding photographer is 'better' than a $2000 wedding photographer, without comparing the quality of the work of the two.
And hey, that's cool. If they've got the money, there are photographers willing to oblige them. I'm not against wedding photographers who charge lots - a lot of people don't stop and think that a wedding photographer can usually only work on Saturdays, and one wedding per week, so what they charge for a wedding is multiplied by 52 (50 if they want a short vacation) and that's their gross income for the year. Makes the number seem more reasonable.
According to Rangefinder magazine, though, high school graduation photos are becoming all the rage, and parents spending crazy money on them. I don't recall that when I was in high school.
bmattock
Veteran
So you just need to take in more than 1k and you're ahead.
Those numbers are a bit depressing. If you can find a niche, they seem to perk up a bit though. It's a different market than it used to be though. I'm still trying to re-find my footing.
One of the ways wedding photography is being restructured (actually demolished) by digital technology is over the issue of reprints. Once upon a time, the photographer kept the negs and sold the reprints - forever. Now, many couples expect and/or demand a CD/DVD of the photos, and of course, they'll take them to Wal-Mart or wherever and get reprints made ad infinitum.
That was a huge source of revenue for wedding photographers, and now it is drying up.
There is also the new need to get heavily invested in daylight darkroom stuff, and learn computer skills, Photoshop, etc. Heavy investment in various software programs, add-ons, plugins, and etc. Turnaround times have dropped to a couple days, from three weeks or more.
Many who get into part-time wedding photography don't bother with things that made pro wedding photographers cringe, like equipment insurance, liability insurance, second shooters, backup bodies, lenses, media, batteries, and the usual stuff like lights and ladders, etc. Even a good car and a great map - a pro photographer can't miss the date, have their car break down, not be able to find the venue, have a camera malfunction, etc, etc. Even with contracts that limit liability, you'll get sued for sure.
And the papers are full of stories of 'pro' wedding photographers being sued left and right for failure to deliver - they show up and take the photos, and then can't be bothered to make the albums, prints, deliver the DVD's, etc. Fortunately, some of them are being sent to jail for fraud.
It's a profession in transition, and no one is yet sure how things will end up.
TEZillman
Well-known
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Fred -
Yes. My accountant loves me. Lots of extra hours to bill trying to sort this for me. I think I financed the last addition to his house.
Yes. My accountant loves me. Lots of extra hours to bill trying to sort this for me. I think I financed the last addition to his house.