Working For Free - Have You? Do You?

bmattock said:
... 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....
Click to expand...

Hey, I know photographers who thing a $5K digital camera is better than a $2K digital camera, without comparing the quality of the work of the two! 😀

/T
 
Before I retired...

Before I retired...

I swore I was working for free. The last newspaper to employ me insisted they paid me....seemed like it was just re-embursement of expenses, if even that!
 
Double Negative said:
...So only offer a "resolution-challenged" CD/DVD. Good enough for casual viewing and small prints. If they want larger or higher quality prints, that's when they come back. 😉
Click to expand...

Yes, that is often discussed as a solution - but it isn't, unfortunately. In this world of camera phone photos being seen as 'acceptable quality', an image small enough to only be printed at 4x6 is just fine - often all they want. You know the difference, but they don't, or don't care.

The real problem was that there was a standard - you didn't give away the negs with the package. Period. Now, there is no standard. Bridezilla can demand any old thing she likes, contract be damned. And up to wedding day, she can certainly find some photographer who will give her full-rez RAW output as part of the package.
 
Hmmm, I always 'work' for free. I might have some talent as a photographer, but definitely not as a businessman. Basically I was brought up to be modest and I am a shy person. It's so much easier not to ask for money.

I was educated as an engineer and have a very reasonable income. So it is also a luxury not to ask for money. Photography is just a satisfying hobby.

Another advantage of not asking money is that people cannot demand anything from you. They can ask nicely and I'll think about it.

Yet another advantage is that you can f*ck up once in a while.

To some people this is utterly incomprehensible. Well, they are not me. Photography is a hobby, a thrill, a way to relieve stress, a way to do something I actually enjoy while being reasonably good at it. People even admire me a little bit for what I can do. Give all that up because I want a bit more cash? Hell no.

That leaves the question if I would be good enough to work professionally and not starve. The question probably is no. But I have been published a few times. Artwork, CD's, websites of bands and venues, newsletters and even the biggest free newspaper in my country (which means > 500.000 copies). But would they have bothered paying me while they could easily find another amateur? Nah.

But why am I typing this? The full moon is coming through the clouds and my camera is waiting on a tripod with a whopping big tele on it!
 
Last edited:
I think what many full time professional photographers have an issue with are people who have good paying day jobs, moonlighting as photographers. They don't carry the same overhead and probably don't care what the cost of doing jobs are even though this is crucial for staying alive in the business.

Those who think working for free is fine really need to read this, and make sure you read "Other Perspectives". If I were to work for free, this would be my approach.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/12/four-reasons-to-consider-working-for.html

Like many things, in the end, you usually get what you pay for.
 
newsgrunt said:
I think what many full time professional photographers have an issue with are people who have good paying day jobs, moonlighting as photographers. They don't carry the same overhead and probably don't care what the cost of doing jobs are even though this is crucial for staying alive in the business.
Click to expand...

Then they (the full time professional photographers) have an issue. I don't care. That is their problem, and not mine. When they put food on my table, then they can tell me how to price my services. Until then, too bad, so sad.
 
Every time a photographer works for free or less money than what supposed to be, he/she steals another photographer's bread from the family table... Photographers are raped by photographers in recent years as we all can see how the business practices and copyright infringement became real issues for us...
 
I stopped working for free only after I realized that many times people will just as easily barter with you. No, it's not cash in hand but I get some very valuable services this way. It's about setting expectations. I do make my living shooting but it is a meager living so you have to look beyond conventional payments sometimes, if you can. Then again, I don't have 2.5 kids and a wife to support.
 
Ali Riza Kutlu said:
Every time a photographer works for free or less money than what supposed to be, he/she steals another photographer's bread from the family table... Photographers are raped by photographers in recent years as we all can see how the business practices and copyright infringement became real issues for us...
Click to expand...

I have never taken the food from another person's table. Nor have I infringed any photographer's copyright.

If your statement were true, every person who competes for business with lower prices is a thief. One could only compete at the same prices - a sale would be tantamount to a mugging.

Let me simply say that I do not agree with your assessment of the content of my character. Have a nice evening.
 
What I THINK Ali Riza is trying to say is that people who shoot for free or charge way below ( and personally, I think these shooters tend to have day jobs that subsidize their photographic endeavours) what is sustainable for full time photographers, are basically taking work away from those who are charging what I would consider realistic rates. Of course the costs of doing business will vary but the big picture is, with the economy the way it is now, the last thing working photographers need is to see work slip away to photographers who are asking for much lower, unprofitable rates and in all likelihood, probably losing money.

As for copyright, that may refer to photographers signing away rights and taking work for hire contracts that give them nothing in return except for a small paycheque. For many photographers, the back catalogue is where they derive a steady income over the years. Not necessarily huge bucks but enough. No rights=no payment when photos are resold.
 
I'd be more than happy to do something for free, if someone asked me. I'd be happy that at least one person liked my photos. 🙂


However, I guess I'm not that 'in to' photography that someone would ask me to/I would want to shoot a wedding, or something like that. Nor do I have the skills.

I was asked recently if I would do product photos of gift baskets and various other things (for a hospital volunteer gift shop), which I am kind of excited about.
 
Last edited:
newsgrunt said:
What I THINK Ali Riza is trying to say is that people who shoot for free or charge way below ( and personally, I think these shooters tend to have day jobs that subsidize their photographic endeavours) what is sustainable for full time photographers, are basically taking work away from those who are charging what I would consider realistic rates.
Click to expand...

I agree that's what he is saying, but I disagree that's what I do. If I agree to to a job for $10 and you charge $40, I am not stealing from you, even if it is your 'real job' to do whatever the job is and the 'going rate' is $40. If I can do it for $10 and make a profit, too bad for you. Figure out a way to overcome my advantage - or don't.

Of course the costs of doing business will vary but the big picture is, with the economy the way it is now, the last thing working photographers need is to see work slip away to photographers who are asking for much lower, unprofitable rates and in all likelihood, probably losing money.
Click to expand...

I don't care what they need. Do they care what I need? No.

As for copyright, that may refer to photographers signing away rights and taking work for hire contracts that give them nothing in return except for a small paycheque. For many photographers, the back catalogue is where they derive a steady income over the years. Not necessarily huge bucks but enough. No rights=no payment when photos are resold.
Click to expand...

Again, my photos, I can do with them as I please. If another photographer choose to see that as my taking bread off his table, so sorry Charlie.

You ask me to adhere to some unwritten code of photographers looking out for each other - which is, at the worst, price-fixing and illegal. At the more chummy level, I am asked to look out for some other guy, but he's not looking out for me. So, no. I will do as I wish, and if Joe Photographer doesn't care for that, he needs to figure out a way to compete, or he loses.

I'm sorry, there is no brotherhood of photographers who all hew to a line together and row in sync with each other - if there was, when times were tough for me, someone would have come by with some mortgage money or a few cans of food. They didn't, but I'm supposed to make sure they don't get undercut by my pricing. No thanks.
 
Yes, I remember when a lot of charities insisted on covering expenses, and you and your spouse would be comped for the dinner as well. A few months ago a local politicion that l'd known for years asked me to cover a charity event he was sponsoring. When I arrived early he started bossing me around like I was one of the serving staff, then I found out that there was no place set for me at a table because I wasn't getting dinner. I walked out.

In general though, I've found that covering charity events has been good for making contacts. I hand out lots of cards and make it known that I'm doing the event as a favor and it's not the kind of photography I usually do.
 
I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been paid for my work a few times. I have only shot 1 wedding to date and I got paid 350$ plus a 50$ tip from the brides father. The couple (friends of mine who insisted that I shoot their wedding) paid for film processing and printing of any digital images they wanted. I have never done much running in my life. I was manning 2 cameras (one digital and one film). Everyone was extremely pleased with the results, especially me. I don't think I have ever gotten that many shots that I really liked in a days shooting.

Fast forward 2 years, and I have 2 more friends getting hitched, only this time I get to play best man instead of photographer. The "pro" that they got to shoot the wedding (for more than i would have charged them) shows up with 1 dslr body, and 1 50mm kit lens. I know that the gear doesn't make the photographer, but i did find it odd that she didn't have a backup of any kind. I also found it extremely annoying to have to pile 8 people on top of each other so we could fit in the frame. My first thought was wow, you didn't bring a wide angle? I guess i was just bothered by how ill prepared she was. After that I never really gave it a second thought, until l saw the pictures, they were horribly exposed, most of them under exposed or had the highlights blown out by the flash.

All that being said, I can completely understand where the original poster is coming from with his first few lines. As i said earlier, I am by no means a pro photographer, I don't go out looking for photography gigs, I do it because i enjoy it. Every once in a while i will get offers for paid work, sometimes I take it and sometimes I pass on it. My most recent offer was from a woman I know who is opening a dance studio, she wanted photos of one of her students for advertising. I agreed to do it for a reasonable price, then she called a few days later to cancel due to some unexpected expenses coming up so I said i would do it for free. I'm not taking food off of anyone's table by doing this shoot for free, because she cannot afford to pay for it right now, especially what some people would charge. By doing this shot for free I'm actually helping put some food on her table, and getting a chance to do something i enjoy and potentially get more paid work once her studio gets off the ground.
 
I shoot tons of bands, so I do a lot of free work. These are guys that make $25.00/night. Sometimes they get free drinks and dinner. If I like the music and the people in the band I'll help promote them. Recently I shot a Burlesque Practice for an upcoming show in Boston. I shot it for free, and with my permission it got posted on one of the local entertainment newspaper sites. I'll shoot for free if its going to get seen, or if its challenging me as a photographer.

James
 
I'm feet up, beer in hand, exhausted after a day of shooting 22 portraits of students at Creativity Explored, an art school and gallery in San Francisco for disabled people. I have to go back tomorrow to shoot another 7 or 8, and then next week will spend two whole days at another studio shooting probably 30 more artists.

I'm not being paid. I volunteered to do this project, and in fact the whole thing will cost me north of $500 just in materials and darkroom time.

But working with these people today was one of the more rewarding experiences of my entire life. So I guess I did get paid. Handsomely.
 
bmattock said:
I have never taken the food from another person's table. Nor have I infringed any photographer's copyright.

If your statement were true, every person who competes for business with lower prices is a thief. One could only compete at the same prices - a sale would be tantamount to a mugging.

Let me simply say that I do not agree with your assessment of the content of my character. Have a nice evening.
Click to expand...


I am afraid you understood me correctly... There has to be minimum rates for editorial, wedding, freelance, fashion photographers, and so on... same as minimum wage for workers... There are also standard rates for publications and other media world...

Actually, EP has wonderful source on its website... Let me state this here, if you guys look at the history of rates you will see that how things are getting worst and worst for editorial photographers... I suggest you to read EP's history though...

Every person who work for media, magazine, and foundations get paid every week and has benefits but when it is turned to photographer, ha can you work free for us???? But, the person who asks you this question gets paid, postman gets paid, cleaning person gets paid.... WHY NOT PHOTOGRAPHERS???

There shouldn't be competition between photographers over daily rates; if you support the competition you support to big media bosses and people who are capable of paying $800 instead of $200... You steal my bread because I want to put better bread in my family table rather than rotten bread and potato every day... Some good photographers cannot find job because of amateurs and sloppy photographers as media looks for cheap work not quality work...

Can't a newspaper group in Canada pay $400 to 800 for a day? Let me tell you this, they pay 100 to 200 for a day, and you get no copyright for your own photographs... Can someone explain this to me... Can't this newspaper pay $3000 for two pages story on which you work for months and months....???? They won't pay these rates because there photographers who are willing to publish their photographs for less than half....

Try to get a slice from cake, don't deal with crumbs.... Produce better work, charge more....

Btw, I have no idea what your character is and who you are... I respect your opinions though...

Anyways, I refuse to work for less money for mass media and magazines... I refuse to work within certain rules of media policies...

cheers, A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom