Rant!- Money-Stealing Amatuers!

[eroded]

(Post Removed)

[blackshadow]

Welcome to the world of concert photography and dealing with bands and fans with cameras. It happens all the time.

Don't blame the other guy with the camera. Blame the poorly educated band.

If you can be bothered the only suggestion I have is to educate potential clients who have the attitude of the band above about:
quality vs quantity
the importance of quality images for marketing purposes
quality doesn't just fall from the sky, it takes skill, dedication, equipment, experience etc

your points will probably fall on deaf ears but you do find those in the music industry who once those things are explained change their tune (no pun intended). These are the potential clients.

[tipsy]

Rant continued:

I second that statement.

Pisses me off and it happens all too often with amateur beginners giving away photos for free and putting the more experienced and professional 'togs out of a job.

Pah i say, is the consumer market SLRs really a good thing? There are so many 'wannabees' out there right now who cant take a photo to save their life. yet their parents buy them an SLR for xmas, so they get out and become 'trendy band photographers' littering the market with rubbish and putting the real photographers out of work

(nothing against people using digital rebels properly here though! namely She, This rant does not have any reflection on you.

x

[tipsy]

double post

[shesgotthepic]

Your revenge will come. When the band see images they really like, compare it with what the guy has done and see the difference. Or the guy starts getting good, gets big headed, and demands extortionate rates.

I see this all too often.

[René Damkot]

Don't blame the other guy with the camera. Blame the poorly educated band.

I agree it's the bands loss.
It does make making a living a lot harder though...

Some images on bands websites are, how to put this mildly: Crap.
Heck, I can take better images with decent a P&S...

I figure if I can't take a better image then the average Joe, that's my problem, and I can work to remedy that. If the band has no sense of quality, I can't change that.
(You can hardly mail them to say: The images on your website stink, I can sell you better ones :lol:)

[Curtis N]

I think ya'll are whiners.

So you have something you think has value, you want to sell it, but no one wants to buy it. And someone else is producing a similar product of questionable quality and giving it away.

Welcome to the real world. That's life, get over it. Don't give me any crap about how someone is giving away his work and taking food out of your baby's mouth. If you want to make money selling something, you need to convince people that it's worth buying. It's called marketing, and it's as important to any business as producing the product.

[blackshadow]

Hear hear Curtis!

[shesgotthepic]

Same same but different. I don't know how many bands/artist has said that they have a problem with their webmaster who has been doing their site for free. Then when the band/artist wants something changed (navigation, design, whatever) or disagrees with their webmaster they are ignored by the webmaster who is of the opinion the site is his and he'll do bl00dy well what he wants with it.

Sadly some artists feel they can't put their foot down because the guy is doing it for free. Then there is the odd guy who actually do see the light, fire the webmaster and hire someone who will do what he/she is told.

I'd be rich if there were more bands/artists like the latter.

[bacchanal]

Here's a little anecdote I wanted to share...

I shot a band at a local festival last week, with some good results. As I did with the other bands, I contacted them with my 3 best sample (watermarked) photos, offering to sell them rights for the paltry price of £40 (~$80). These were good shots - I checked on their website, and they had nothing on there that compared - in terms of quality and professionalism. So, email sent, I thought, they must be dying to have such good shots of them. How wrong I was. I got an email, basically saying "sorry mate, someone gave us his pics for free so we have plenty." Gah. "We have plenty"? Implying they have *enough* photos! Since when did people care about quaNtity of photos they have, surely it's all about quaLity? What annoys me more is I saw the guy taking photos who gave them away for free - he was using a dRebel (no offence to those of you who get awesome shots with rebels) with kit lens, and his photos, to be honest, were quite poor in comparison to mine (I'm not being arrogant, anyone could tell you that). I just feel very peeved as if this guy hadn't given them his photos for free, I would've got paid. :(. I'm not against people like him taking shots (he has to build up his experience somehow); but then giving away his work for free is taking money away from proper, hard-working 'togs. Luckily I don't rely on the money I get for food, etc - but I think you need to carefully consider whose toes you're stepping on when giving away free photos.

Rant over.

For one thing, no one is obligated to buy your product. For another, it is kind of a jump in logic to assume they would be buying your photos if they didn't already have free ones. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect every band you shoot to buy images. It also doesn't make sense to analyze his reply. For whatever reason, he didn't want to pay for your photos, and his reply was probably just his way of brushing you off.
If you want to make money selling concert photos, freelancing and selling directly to band members is probably not the most lucrative way to do it. Try submitting to a mag/e-zine, shooting for a venue, or submitting images to a band's management/label etc. If the band isn't on a label or doesn't have management, they probably aren't very likely to have a huge budget for promoting themselves.

And to flip things around, what annoys me is people that try to turn my hobby into a businiess! J/k, but seriously I wouldn't mind if I could just shoot and not have to worry about not stepping on peoples toes (and I do try to be careful). I tend to trade photos for things like merch, passes, shows at my house.
Funny, there aren't a ton of people at my workplace lining up to be a QA tech for free...imagine that.

[skifurthur]

I have an old, dear friend that always says, "The cream always rises to the top."

It seems in my life that I have been involved in any number of business ventures. Often, people have come up to me and said, "Oh, your a professional (insert job description here)?" To which I always respond, "Being a professional just means that you get paid for it. It doesn't mean that you are any good."

In any business I have found that providing the best combination of quality, be it product, customer service, friendly attitude, etc, is the proven way to rise above those who don't take it seriously. If you focus on that and dedicate your marketing to like-minded customers, you will make a go of it. I learned a long time ago that if earn a customer on price, that customer will leave you on price. If you provide the whole package, price/service, the customer will probably only leave you if someone puts together a better package of services. That is not to say that I don't stop marketing to the price-focused individuals. I just focus on letting them know that I provide much more than a simple product. What I provide is unique to me and I expect to be compensated accordingly. For that compensation, I promise to continue to earn their business on an ongoing basis.

Whenever I have lost a job because anyone undercuts me on price, I make it a point of thanking them for their time and periodically reconnect with them to let them know that when they want all that I can offer, I'm ready to deliver it. You would be surprised on how many potential customers have contacted me, somewhere down the line, and said, "Let's do some business!"

Signed,

ski "justoneofthoserebelpeeps" furthur

[Dellboy]

Most bands I know, all the members are on the dole and they're lucky if they can afford to eat and support their musical habits.

£40 while it's a very reasonable price, it probably represents 2 weeks ( or more ) food for the average band member. Their only choice is free photos or no photos.

If money is what you're after the go where the money is.

[Michael1116]

Here's a little anecdote I wanted to share...

I shot a band at a local festival last week, with some good results. As I did with the other bands, I contacted them with my 3 best sample (watermarked) photos, offering to sell them rights for the paltry price of £40 (~$80). These were good shots - I checked on their website, and they had nothing on there that compared - in terms of quality and professionalism........What annoys me more is I saw the guy taking photos who gave them away for free - he was using a dRebel (no offence to those of you who get awesome shots with rebels) with kit lens, and his photos, to be honest, were quite poor in comparison to mine (I'm not being arrogant, anyone could tell you that). I just feel very peeved as if this guy hadn't given them his photos for free, I would've got paid. :(. I'm not against people like him taking shots (he has to build up his experience somehow); but then giving away his work for free is taking money away from proper, hard-working 'togs. Luckily I don't rely on the money I get for food, etc - but I think you need to carefully consider whose toes you're stepping on when giving away free photos.

Rant over.

Well, where does one start?

Why don't you post some of their bad quality website pics and a couple of yours for comparison?

Also post some of the Rebel pics that were so bad. Thank God you "are not against people like him (and me by the way) taking shots" Unless the band or venue stipulates "No Photos" then its a free world, and they are public figures, so fair game.

What do you do for a living? I trust it is not sales. All the posts above put it rather well. In my own words;
It is one thing to be a talented photographer. It is another to go out and market that talent. You cannot second guess why the rebel shooter deceided to give his pics away. Maybe its part of his marketing plan to do that. Maybe he got free tickets, or a CD, or T-shirt or something in return?

Anyway, now I rant. I am offering free photos I took recently of a band, and HOPING in return to get a press pass for a future gig, or for a sig on my vinyl albums, or a setlist, guitar pic, or drumstick. I am sure the professional photographers have nothing to fear.

[Hilandor]

shootin of the cuff like that and then "expecting" a sale is a bit strong i reckon.

[sapearl]

We get similar aggravation in the wedding and event trade. It's not EXACTLY the same situation, but plenty of guests giving the B&G their P&S snapshots really does cut into my reprint business. I still sell wedding album packages and make a profit, but that's because I offer creativity, quality and a level of service that goes way beyond the freebie casual shooter.

As skifurther said, you have to act like the cream and rise to the top. Market yourself, hone your craft and push the product, and if you stay at it people will come around. It's the real world world and it has ALWAYS been this way. Deal with it or quit. I choose to deal..... but I also use my OWN deck ;) . -Stu

[Zeineth]

I was not going to add my two cents but I read through it all again and decided I had to. I have only been at the concert shooting stage for about 9 months. In that 9 months I have given away pictures to almost every band I shoot, those that want them anyway. The big names are not going to buy them directly from you, that is what they have agents, managers and record labels for. The bands I give them to are the opening acts, the ones that are playing to get paid so they can eat and have the gas to get to the next gig. The buyers are going to be the Magazines/Ezines, the Venues(This is a big one) and lastly my favorite the fans. I sell more images to fans then anyone else. I get on the different bands fan forums and let them now I have them where they can view and how to contact me. And there is nothing more satisfying to me any way then to see the face light up of some young kid that just paid me $10 for an 8x10 of his favorite indie band that he can get autographed next time they are in town or at the next show he drives to in the next town over. I have tried the bigger names and I get the same responses, "nice pics we will let you know". Truth be told if they want pics they will hire someone to take them and the band will pose for them so they get the shots they are looking for, but this doesn't stop me from trying I just don't count on it.

There, I said it. phewww, now back to PP work.

[narlus]

the Venues(This is a big one)

do they use the photos for advertising or other publicity? i've found that venues in boston don't give a damn about this...all their advertising $ goes to just plain event listings in the various local newspapers, and there's no images.

btw, does one need a model release to sell photos of a band to a fan? just curious.

[Zeineth]

Actually (this is the big one) belongs with The Fans not the Venues. I guess I should have read that again. I to find the Venues don't really give a damn. Although I do have some of my images on a couple of their web sites I shoot at regularly.

My understanding of the laws is that because there is no restriction on cameras in the venue, and the venues know I am shooting then I have the right. Also a few bands have asked fans where they got the pictures and one thing leads to another and the band and I are talking. So it all works for me and them.

[Steve Parr]

I have to come down on the "deal with it" side of the fence. That said, I don't earn my living with photography. First and foremost, it's an enjoyable hobby. Given that you were looking for a "paltry" amount, I gather you're not earning your living with your camera, either.

I have given photos to bands; many, in fact. I played in a band for ten years and know, all too well, that the one thing a band doesn't have a lot of is expendable cash. What may be "paltry" to you may well be a King's ransom to them.

One band that I shoot regularly, who have benefitted from my free shots, are just about to a point where they'll be able to actually pay for a photographer. That photographer will be me. I'll shoot their live shows, and I'll do the photography for their third CD cover. I will be paid well.

So, the "hobby" aspect of it all has permitted me to work this one relationship into a business relationship, which will realize monetary gain for me. I've probably given them $500.00 worth of free work, but the hobbyist in me doesn't mind, and the businessman in me is happy that it's grown into what will be a paying gig.

I don't concern myself, at all, with what other photographers do. If someone wants to give their stuff away, that's fine. I've done that. If a band wants free photos instead of paying for them, I've done that, too.

At the end of the day, it won't keep me from paying the light bill, so I don't sweat it...

[eroded]

(Post removed).

[johnstoy]

First of all I'd like to see the pics you're talking about...

Lastly, I'd like to say that interrupting the paperwork process of a business, by insisting that they open an account for you, to pay you once, for something they didn't ask for, is really a tall order...

The in between stuff is simple. We can address that image quality issue when you post what you've got...

[skifurthur]

Ask the band if they prefer vynil LPs to digital CDs also because that is the quality difference between an amature's photos and yours.

That's probably a bad analogy to use since vinyl LPs have better greater frequency reproduction range and greater dynamic range than digital CD format. ;)

[johnstoy]

Hey, I like my vinyls... Someday I'll be playing them again... Already bought two of the very best old turntables just of them...

[revaaron]

you can't bleed a stone.

[revaaron]

and this is another thread where the laws are being discussed.

[moemoe6434]

Here's a little anecdote I wanted to share...

I shot a band at a local festival last week, with some good results. As I did with the other bands, I contacted them with my 3 best sample (watermarked) photos, offering to sell them rights for the paltry price of £40 (~$80). These were good shots - I checked on their website, and they had nothing on there that compared - in terms of quality and professionalism. So, email sent, I thought, they must be dying to have such good shots of them. How wrong I was. I got an email, basically saying "sorry mate, someone gave us his pics for free so we have plenty." Gah. "We have plenty"? Implying they have *enough* photos! Since when did people care about quaNtity of photos they have, surely it's all about quaLity? What annoys me more is I saw the guy taking photos who gave them away for free - he was using a dRebel (no offence to those of you who get awesome shots with rebels) with kit lens, and his photos, to be honest, were quite poor in comparison to mine (I'm not being arrogant, anyone could tell you that). I just feel very peeved as if this guy hadn't given them his photos for free, I would've got paid. :(. I'm not against people like him taking shots (he has to build up his experience somehow); but then giving away his work for free is taking money away from proper, hard-working 'togs. Luckily I don't rely on the money I get for food, etc - but I think you need to carefully consider whose toes you're stepping on when giving away free photos.

Rant over.

You come off as they owe you something. I do not relate to your thinking at all.

You should be happy that you got the chance to shoot them not under contract, they provided an interesting subject to shoot, and you got more practice... yet you want to be paid in addition? :/

[narlus]

I don't concern myself, at all, with what other photographers do.

except for when they sneak in gear. :p ;)

[Permagrin]

"What annoys me more is I saw the guy taking photos who gave them away for free - he was using a dRebel (no offence to those of you who get awesome shots with rebels) with kit lens, and his photos, to be honest, were quite poor in comparison to mine (I'm not being arrogant, anyone could tell you that). "

OP, just out of curiosity, did you actually see the photos from the other guy or are you assuming that his photos must be worse than yours because they were shot with the rebel & he gave them away? :rolleyes:

[Michael1116]

Hey, I like my vinyls... Someday I'll be playing them again... Already bought two of the very best old turntables just of them...

Vinyl is awesome. I still have most of what I collected as a kid, and I continue to buy. The bands (at least the old ones I go to see) love to see and sign them. I often will make a shadow box with the signed album, a couple of photos, guitar pic/drumstick, ticket stub, etc.

There is nothing like the sound of vinyl (assuming it is not all scratched up).

[Steve Parr]

except for when they sneak in gear. :p ;)

Hehehehe... yeah, that pisses me off a little.

But, it doesn't affect me in how I conduct my business. I continue on as originally intended...

[Michael1116]

Ask the band if they prefer vynil LPs to digital CDs also because that is the quality difference between an amature's photos and yours.

Will have to respectfully disagree with this assertion. You can't assume all amateur's photos are not as good as professionals. A professional is someone who gets paid, not takes better photos.

For the golfers in the audience, that is like saying Bobby Jones was not a quality golfer because he was amateur?

I prefer the sound from vinyl to that from CD's. I don't know if that means anything other than it is my preference. I guess some of the older bands who recorded on vinyl may think the same way.

[DwightMcCann]

This is the face of technology. Only us extreme Geek computer programmers knew how to use computers 30 years ago and we could demand a ransom for our work. Today every Tom, Dick and POTN user has their own computer ... all rank amateurs who no longer need to pay me as the professional. I have had to continue to grow my skillset and experience. I am now much more prized for my broad experience and ability to evaluate than my ability to do IBM Mainframe Assembler programming. And it is the same with my photography business. Every Tom, Dick and POTN member can do what I do. But very few can do it on demand, week after week, high quality, anticipating the problems, sometimes with less than one song!

As for the bands who don't buy images ... I thought that was the norm! I am always amazed by people who say, "The amateur gave their work to my potential customer and cheated me out of a commission!" The value of your work is what you can get for it, not what you wish it was worth or what you were able to sell to someone else for. And based on what I hear in here quite regularly, Concert Photography isn't worth very much so be happy you get anything. I only made about $25K with part time concert photography last year. This year looks a bit better. But if you other guys would quit shooting I could probably double my income and feed my baby! Take what Curtis said to heart ... read the FAQ ... it is who you know (marketing) not what you know (photography) that makes all the difference!

[dzstudios]

Oh - excuse me, I'm just getting off the floor, where I have been rolling around laughing for the last few minutes. (I don't mean that sarcastically)

If you think its as easy as walking into a gig, taking some brilliant shots and offering your pics for sale - you've got a surprise coming... er oh, yeah. Its' come already!!

Welcome to the world of professional photography.

Your experience is very much part and parcel of being a professional -- take it or leave it! If making a living from music photography was easy - the whole world would be doing it!


Everyone now has the means of taking shots (and dare I say - even the odd good one). And there are hordes of 'point and shoot guerillas' who will do anything for a free pass, or the glory of getting a shot published on a band website.

(check out dontstayin.com TENS of thousands of people who get into gigs for free, because they give their pics away..)


The difference between the 'amateurs' and the 'professionals' is NOT necessarily TALENT or even QUALITY OF WORK... (many amateurs are far, far more talented than some pros AND have better kit)

It is in having to work hard, going the extra mile, sniffing out the good opportunities, networking and yes - even from time to time doing a free favour or two, to get up the next step (I write that costs off to marketing).

I think this goes for many pro's - including weddings, portraits etc.

[sapearl]

Kudo's to you Dwight - I'm impressed; that's quite respectable for part time work. I know a lot of part time wedding photogs who would be happy to net that amount ;) .

...........And based on what I hear in here quite regularly, Concert Photography isn't worth very much so be happy you get anything. I only made about $25K with part time concert photography last year. This year looks a bit better. .........

[Brian Puccio]

If someone is giving away low quality photos for free, sorry but you really have no right to complain. The market will pay what it wants and if it wants lower quality for cheap/free, so be it. If the market is chaning because of the advent of new technology that lowers the bar or otherwise cuts into your revenue stream, thems the brakes. The buggy whip manufacturers cried when the horse-less carriage came about and their demise shortly followed. Granted, they could have said "OK, no one needs buggy whips anymore, lets work on making steering wheels" but instead, they sat around and cried.

If the market changes, adopt your business model or throw in the towel and try something else. That's a lesson the film labs have had to learn.

[DwightMcCann]

Dizzy is exactly right! I worked hard for years, most of them building a reputation without compensation, and finally got a big break because someone I had befriended and worked hard to help out returned the favor ten-fold. It is service, going the extra mile, being 110% dependable, always showing up ahead of time, taking on additional duties as required, etc., that get the paying work. And I LOVE being in a position to tell people who offer a "photocredit only" for my work that they need to find an amateur and that my rates are now $2000 a day! I have actually had people get angry at me because I wouldn't give them images for free! Although I do give all the local media, particularly the Latin/Mexican weeklies, courtesy images.

SA ... yes, I am very lucky! My entire Gear List has been paid for in the past 2-1/2 years by concert photography (and the occasional portrait or event related to my two permanent clients.) My website explains what happened. (I am asked to do wedding quite regularly but set my starting price at $7500 so that I can avoid them.) The casino could tell me tomorrow not to show up any more for no reason at all and I would still be grateful for all they done for me. My deal is a handshake. But they pay well, very quickly, always treat me like a VIP and call me for a fair amount of additional work. Even the Santa Ynez Band of the Chumash (who owns the casino) have come to me for some jobs ... again a handshake/email. These are people of enormous integrity, respect, care and love of the land and the people. And in return I do anything/everything they ask and 10% more: N/C. I work long, hard hours on top of my day job including many of my vacation hours.

I am currently saving/budgeting a 1D Mark III w/WiFi adapter, new laptop, additional backup heads for my Bowens QUADX 3000 studio flash, and a rail system for my little studio for this calendar year. But I never buy anything until I have done the work and received the money and have a little cushion. And this year I am paying for our vacation to Club Med Cancun so the IRS can get their piece of my action. :cool:

[sspellman]

Eroded-

The real problem is a client who does not value quality photography at the cost you have offered.

If you really feel that amateurs are stealing paid work from you-then you should ask yourself- why does the client see no difference in the product?

Trying to sell unsolicited pictures to an unqualified client is simply a bad business model- try commisioned assignments instead.

-Scott

[sapearl]

Well said Scott - which is why I've enjoyed doing wedding and social event work all these years.

THEY come to ME and APPRECIATE what I do. And then they vote with their wallets. The money I make from those gigs then helps finance the things I do for my own pleasure - landscape work, B/W work, my "attempts" :D at fine art printing. All in all they stay happy and I stay happy.

Eroded-

The real problem is a client who does not value quality photography at the cost you have offered.

If you really feel that amateurs are stealing paid work from you-then you should ask yourself- why does the client see no difference in the product?

Trying to sell unsolicited pictures to an unqualified client is simply a bad business model- try commisioned assignments instead.

-Scott

[kmb]

If you really feel that amateurs are stealing paid work from you-then you should ask yourself- why does the client see no difference in the product?

Sometimes the answer is "because the amateur is very good at what (s)he does". There's no guarantee that if somebody does something for free, it is necessarily crap.

Amateurs should be compensated (and request compensation), too. Regardless of whether "clients should be educated", I'd get much more work if every damn festival in this country wouldn't have a bunch of amateurs willing to do it for free (as an example) - that's just a fact.

Anyway, the trick to become a full time music photographer seems to be to learn to share body warmth with the music photographer living in the next cardboard box ;)

[kmb]

It is in having to work hard, going the extra mile, sniffing out the good opportunities, networking and yes - even from time to time doing a free favour or two, to get up the next step (I write that costs off to marketing).

One thing you forgot: wanting to become a professional. I'm sure some people are just happy to be amateurs and give stuff for free to be able to be friends with the band and so on.

[johnstoy]

We'll guys, wish me luck... I just dropped off a CD with 78 photos to the local venue... They own several TV stations, A regional daily newspaper (with several pro photogs on payroll) and... They are the regional TV Cable providers... and also the regional Internet Service providers... Not to mention a free world wide 24/7 radio station...

There is talk of posting my photos at the venue, let's see what happens...

[DwightMcCann]

I still think Scott made the best point, "Trying to sell unsolicited pictures to an unqualified client is simply a bad business model- try commissioned assignments instead." That's where I am now and I really think that's the path to take. But it can take a long time to build the reputation required and almost forever to find the commissioners.

[nicolerork]

It's all in who you know, really.

[sapearl]

Networking - networking - networking....

[Inspired Photography]

I second everything that everyone has said on the "suck it" side of the fence.

My first ever live entertainment gig was for the local Lennon Brother's Circus that toured through my town shortly after i started getting serious into photography and had some good gear in my bag. I called them up and said "Hey buddy, building a portfolio and would like to shoot... will throw you a CD of pics in return for rights to use em in my folio". The short answer was "Sure thing mate, come on down! If we use something for ads then we'll talk". I ran down their when they opened and shot the show twice (to capture everything, being on a learning curve and all).

Shortly after, I did the same for the local theatre company. Similar sort of conversation, similar sort of results.

A few months later, i got a call from the theatre company "We are sacking our current tog as nobody is happy, how much do you charge?". A few negotiations later, i shoot for them regularly.

The theatre stuff eventuated, the circus stuff didn't.

I am in the process of putting together a dozen or so portfolios to send out to live entertainment venues to see what happens.

1. Never expect people to buy photos from a past event when they weren't aware (i mean really aware) that you were taking pics.
2. Never count your chickens before they hatch. There are likely hundreds of photographers shooting the same band/venue/concert who can do the same job as you.
3. There will always be "Uncle Bob" photographers.
4. There will always be cheap-ass clients.
5. I will never care about points 3 & 4.

Rob

[Tee Why]

I think ya'll are whiners.

So you have something you think has value, you want to sell it, but no one wants to buy it. And someone else is producing a similar product of questionable quality and giving it away.

Welcome to the real world. That's life, get over it. Don't give me any crap about how someone is giving away his work and taking food out of your baby's mouth. If you want to make money selling something, you need to convince people that it's worth buying. It's called marketing, and it's as important to any business as producing the product.

A touch on the harsh side, but very true in my view.

[cosworth]

I seem to be better at selling software compared to selling my own shots. I expect to go from full time pro to part time soon. Maybe when the 19 year olds with a DSLR get tired fo working for free and building THEIR portfolio, I can take another crack at full time.

Until then I'm sucking it. My elbow hurts anyway.

If your local market prevents you from making money, either adapt or fail.

[Connor P Price]

I view photography as an outlet for my creativity, a hobby rather than a career, at least for now. I've shot a friend while performing with his band, i trade my pictures of his band for their cds. I recently went with another friend of mine (another photographer) to a track day that he was racing in and in return for his driving me around a track a few times i gave him the photos i took of him driving. There was a profesional photographer at this event as well selling his work, was i stepping on his toes by giving my shots away to my friend? Not at all, my friend wasn't about to pay a dime for any pictures. Although i must admit the profesionals shots were better than mine, in fact i bought a few of his pictures from him.

The bottom line is that my pictures are mine to do what i want with. I will continue to give them away, use them as bargaining chips, and even sell 8x10's every once in a while for 5 dollars that i paid 4.79 to get printed. Im not out to get any profesional photographers, in fact i often purchase the work of pros, in fact many pros that i've met at venues have been more than willing to exchange photos with me.

PS. I'm not looking to offend any of the professional photographers on these forums, it seems that the majority produce fabulous work, much better than mine in fact. This is just my two cents, meant with the utmost of respect.

[gcobb]

There is a local guy with a point and shoot who is being paid to shoot shows that I can't get. I can't fault him, just laugh at him a little. He either uses his flash and it washes everything out, or he has blurry images. And he puts up everything he shoots. Some of the bands are putting his images up over mine and giving him props on his less-than-adequate photography. I've given a few bands some good shots and they've asked if they could put them up but never did. It is equally as much the fault of the bands who don't know a good image when they see one.

[jackies35]

Wow! I heard it all....

The last gig I did I noticed there was a photographer with light stands, strobes, background drop, printer, etc...

I was there (party) to take pictures of everyone and submit all images on a disk (still have rights and full ownership) to the host. However, before I clicked anyone, I was paid in full $ 185.00 (contract signed). I was there for 3 full hours and they received over 70 images (medium resolution/watermark)....

I am quite sure the other photographer images are acceptable (Rebel XTi with kit lens) and good. I met this photographer before in NYC 42th St & Broadway. He usually work from 7:30pm to 3:00am. I used to feel so bad for him because he stands outside in the cold. He stand right in front of the movie theater/restaurants looking for people to take and buy pictures. He is really nice.

Anyway, I wanted to make sure I received my money first before (signed contract) I started anything...

[sspellman]

There are many other aspects of your "Product" than just image quality. You really need to focus on your entire service to get and keep good clients. On the job professionalism, good communication, connections with artists and venues, connections with media, turn around speed, formating images for easy use, web galleries, etc all contribute to the value that you bring to each client-this should always seperate you from any amateur.

A key factor that has helped me is good contacts with local media. Not only do I work for the biggest local magazines, but I can facilitate feature articles and reviews. When someone hires me to cover an event, I can get those pictures published in several outlets.

-Scott

[Clueless163]

Rant continued:

I second that statement.

Pisses me off and it happens all too often with amateur beginners giving away photos for free and putting the more experienced and professional 'togs out of a job.

Pah i say, is the consumer market SLRs really a good thing? There are so many 'wannabees' out there right now who cant take a photo to save their life. yet their parents buy them an SLR for xmas, so they get out and become 'trendy band photographers' littering the market with rubbish and putting the real photographers out of work

(nothing against people using digital rebels properly here though! namely She, This rant does not have any reflection on you.

x


Calling me a "wannabees"? :~(

[kmb]

If you can't out shoot a beginner amateur wannabee maybe you should try a new job. Sorry, but don't blame amateurs for your short comings.

As noted previously in this thread, quality is not always (I'm tempted to say "seldom") a way to compete against free pictures. If it was, I think I would be getting more work than I do right now.

[tipsy]

Calling me a "wannabees"? :~(

Not atall, Im just referancing my anger against people who dont know how to use an SLR, cant take photos, yet go to gigs stick it on auto mode and give away free pictures, meaning more and more bands are unwilling to pay for work- as previously noted- regardless of quality.

x

[skifurthur]

I take a very simple approach to this whole debate. If you feel that amatuers that do not take a decent picture are your competition, they are. If you feel that you provide a superior product and service, then they aren't your competition. Find customers that are willing to pay for that product and service and forget about those that aren't willing to pay. In reality, do you really want poor paying customers in the first place?

All of life is a competition of sorts. If you have the winning attitude and are willing to do the work involved to be a success, chances are you will do just fine.

[Steve Parr]

Not atall, Im just referancing my anger against people who dont know how to use an SLR, cant take photos, yet go to gigs stick it on auto mode and give away free pictures, meaning more and more bands are unwilling to pay for work- as previously noted- regardless of quality.

x

First off, it's absolutely silly to get "angry".

Second, is it your contention that "Auto" mode is incapable of producing excellent images? Think long and hard before you answer that, because I've got in the neighborhood of 5,000 images which will prove that theory wrong.

It seems as though some folks here believe that, because their images might be better than someone else's, the band should be willing to buy the photos. Well, I can tell you, having spent more than a few years in a band, and knowing that there aren't mountains of cash to spend on a lot of things, that if a band is offered excellent images for a price and average images for free, the band will opt for the average images every single time.

There have been some excellent points brought up here, not the least of which is that some people are totally disinterested in getting paid for photos. They're fans of the band, perhaps, and they simply get a rush from seeing their photos on the band's site. To try to find fault with those fans is kinda' ludicrous, in my opinion...

[ironbelle]

Wow! I heard it all....

The last gig I did I noticed there was a photographer with light stands, strobes, background drop, printer, etc...

I was there (party) to take pictures of everyone and submit all images on a disk (still have rights and full ownership) to the host. However, before I clicked anyone, I was paid in full $ 185.00 (contract signed). I was there for 3 full hours and they received over 70 images (medium resolution/watermark)....

I am quite sure the other photographer images are acceptable (Rebel XTi with kit lens) and good. I met this photographer before in NYC 42th St & Broadway. He usually work from 7:30pm to 3:00am. I used to feel so bad for him because he stands outside in the cold. He stand right in front of the movie theater/restaurants looking for people to take and buy pictures. He is really nice.

Anyway, I wanted to make sure I received my money first before (signed contract) I started anything...

Just trying to see how this relates to the original poster's rant.

[macroshooter1970]

I think ya'll are whiners.

So you have something you think has value, you want to sell it, but no one wants to buy it. And someone else is producing a similar product of questionable quality and giving it away.

Welcome to the real world. That's life, get over it. Don't give me any crap about how someone is giving away his work and taking food out of your baby's mouth. If you want to make money selling something, you need to convince people that it's worth buying. It's called marketing, and it's as important to any business as producing the product.

Same here, get over it.

[narlus]

ok, here's a funny situation.

i take photos of band X, for a unpaid assignment for a small mag. i post some jpgs on the band's forum. a month or so later, the guitar maker the artist uses contacts me after seeing them on that site, and is looking to use a shot or two for their website. i quote them my normal price for web usage, they ask if there's an 'abnormal' rate i would charge :lol:

i knock a tenner off the original quoted price. they counter by saying they get X thousand hits a day on their site, ie, the publicity would be worth more to me. at the end of the day, i say thanks but no thanks...usually i couldn't give a damn, but this is a strictly commercial venture, and the price i quoted (and they turned down) would barely cover a tank of gas for most americans. :rolleyes:

[tipsy]

First off, it's absolutely silly to get "angry".

Second, is it your contention that "Auto" mode is incapable of producing excellent images? Think long and hard before you answer that, because I've got in the neighborhood of 5,000 images which will prove that theory wrong.

It seems as though some folks here believe that, because their images might be better than someone else's, the band should be willing to buy the photos. Well, I can tell you, having spent more than a few years in a band, and knowing that there aren't mountains of cash to spend on a lot of things, that if a band is offered excellent images for a price and average images for free, the band will opt for the average images every single time.

There have been some excellent points brought up here, not the least of which is that some people are totally disinterested in getting paid for photos. They're fans of the band, perhaps, and they simply get a rush from seeing their photos on the band's site. To try to find fault with those fans is kinda' ludicrous, in my opinion...

Angry is the wrong word yes. More dissapointed.

Im simply stating that under most circumstances auto mode does not fare well in concert photography (you should agree with this considering you hate flash and almost always auto mode will pop the flash up)

And lastly, it doesnt 'dissapoint' me when bands take free average images over not free good ones. it dissapoints me when bands take free utterly crap images over not free but reasonably priced good ones.

I have also been in a band and have been a music photog for quite a few years now. i know full well this is not simply a recent thing, thats the way of the fact. But it doesnt change the fact that it gets annoying from time to time.

I also beg to differ, if i were in a unsigned band and was being offered for example 4 good photos for £25 ($50) or 30 crap ones for free, i would always pay for the good ones, because music and image go hand in hand, and good photos are an imperitive marketing tool for any band wanting to make it.

x

[ironbelle]

ok, here's a funny situation.

i take photos of band X, for a unpaid assignment for a small mag. i post some jpgs on the band's forum. a month or so later, the guitar maker the artist uses contacts me after seeing them on that site, and is looking to use a shot or two for their website. i quote them my normal price for web usage, they ask if there's an 'abnormal' rate i would charge :lol:

i knock a tenner off the original quoted price. they counter by saying they get X thousand hits a day on their site, ie, the publicity would be worth more to me. at the end of the day, i say thanks but no thanks...usually i couldn't give a damn, but this is a strictly commercial venture, and the price i quoted (and they turned down) would barely cover a tank of gas for most americans. :rolleyes:

That bites narlus. The guitar company wants to use the image for free even though you knocked something off your normal rates. That's being cheap!!

[tipsy]

Also Steve,

I quote from your website:

'When the time comes when someone does stand up and take notice, what do you want that person to see? Professional images provided by someone who's spent 25 years in your shoes, or some low-resolution snapshots taken by the drummer’s girlfriend?

Admit it: You’ve got an image and an attitue that want's to get seen.'

Emphasis is brought upon the bit about low-res snapshots taken by the drummers girfriend, presumably free, compared to your professional quality and presumably not free photos- And the way in which you point out that the not free photos is the sensible way to go...

Image is important, you said it yourself, and this seems to contradict what you said earlier about bands going for the average ones, and you agreeing with it...

x

[Steve Parr]

Also Steve,

I quote from your website:

'When the time comes when someone does stand up and take notice, what do you want that person to see? Professional images provided by someone who's spent 25 years in your shoes, or some low-resolution snapshots taken by the drummer’s girlfriend?

Admit it: You’ve got an image and an attitue that want's to get seen.'

Emphasis is brought upon the bit about low-res snapshots taken by the drummers girfriend, presumably free, compared to your professional quality and presumably not free photos- And the way in which you point out that the not free photos is the sensible way to go...

Image is important, you said it yourself, and this seems to contradict what you said earlier about bands going for the average ones, and you agreeing with it...

x

It's not contradictory at all. My target audience doesn't really consist of bands who are looking for free photos.

Also, the OP mentioned a person using a DSLR. That, to me, suggests a certain resolution. That's quite different than someone using a 1.3MP Olympus or a camera-phone to take band shots.

The entity that determines what's "reasonable" is the band, because they're the ones who are holding the cash. You can call it reasonable all day long. If the band thinks the price is unreasonable, they won't pay it. Now, you might be "reasonable" when compared to other photographers, but the band simply doesn't care about that.

Before I even walk into a venue, a deal has been made with the band. In the rare event that I do shoot a band I haven't contracted with, I'll give them a few (three or four) low-res photos as a resume' of sorts. This approach has worked out okay thus far. Not all of those bands hire me, but some do.

Yes, image is important. However, if a band feels that a photo that you consider "bad" represents them well, there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that mindset.

And, you're right, I shouldn't have said "Auto"; I meant "P". Damn near the same thing, but without the flash popping up...

[tipsy]

It's not contradictory at all. My target audience doesn't really consist of bands who are looking for free photos.

Also, the OP mentioned a person using a DSLR. That, to me, suggests a certain resolution. That's quite different than someone using a 1.3MP Olympus or a camera-phone to take band shots.

The entity that determines what's "reasonable" is the band, because they're the ones who are holding the cash. You can call it reasonable all day long. If the band thinks the price is unreasonable, they won't pay it. Now, you might be "reasonable" when compared to other photographers, but the band simply doesn't care about that.

Before I even walk into a venue, a deal has been made with the band. In the rare event that I do shoot a band I haven't contracted with, I'll give them a few (three or four) low-res photos as a resume' of sorts. This approach has worked out okay thus far. Not all of those bands hire me, but some do.

Yes, image is important. However, if a band feels that a photo that you consider "bad" represents them well, there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that mindset.

And, you're right, I shouldn't have said "Auto"; I meant "P". Damn near the same thing, but without the flash popping up...

I always contact the band first to arrange the shoot, but if possible, i sometimes try and sell some to the support band to make a little extra, it just dissapoints me when they turn me down for that reason. Being told the dont want to buy is fine, dont have a problem with that, being told they dont want to buy because someone gave the some crap photos for free is sucky.

But ah wel, i guess that's the way of the world.

And oooooooooooooh, i finally know what P mode does... :lol:

x

[Steve Parr]

being told they dont want to buy because someone gave the some crap photos for free is sucky.

Have yoou actually been told "We're just going to take this other guys' crap photos for free"?

See, you're not the guy who gets to determine if the other photos are crap or not, the band does that...

[kmb]

Have yoou actually been told "We're just going to take this other guys' crap photos for free"?

Slight OT since the question was not aimed for me, but I took my portfolio to the Finnish Metal Expo and displayed it to the record companies' representatives. I handed it to one guy while I explained who I was and what I was doing. He immedeately began explaining that he (or "they" as a record company) had enough friends who photograph, so unfortunately they weren't going to buy any photos. He handed me the portfolio without opening it.

Now, I can accept that one chooses to have "photographs for free" that may or may not be above average, but I probably don't have to explain myself further why I wasn't exactly happy about that reaction.

[Steve Parr]

Slight OT since the question was not aimed for me, but I took my portfolio to the Finnish Metal Expo and displayed it to the record companies' representatives. I handed it to one guy while I explained who I was and what I was doing. He immedeately began explaining that he (or "they" as a record company) had enough friends who photograph, so unfortunately they weren't going to buy any photos. He handed me the portfolio without opening it.

Now, I can accept that one chooses to have "photographs for free" that may or may not be above average, but I probably don't have to explain myself further why I wasn't exactly happy about that reaction.

And why did you have that reaction?

I could see being a bit peeved that he didn't even open your portfolio, but I can't see getting peeved at the fact that they're willing to take the free photos. The only way you could get pissed at that is if you make the assumption that the free photos are crap.

I've offered photos for free that were far from crap, and which were far better than "paid for" photos on a bands' website...

[narlus]

And why did you have that reaction?

I could see being a bit peeved that he didn't even open your portfolio, but I can't see getting peeved at the fact that they're willing to take the free photos.

The only way you could get pissed at that is if you make the assumption that the free photos are crap.

conversely, since they didn't even bother to open his portfolio, the record guy had no basis for comparison against the free photos.

and let's face it...kalle's the most talented shooter here, at least in my opinion. in all likelihood, i'd reckon that the free photos would not fare well in a direct comparison.

[kmb]

And why did you have that reaction?

I could see being a bit peeved that he didn't even open your portfolio

You answered your own question. I just don't like that I'm given no chance, not even by a commercial regord label, to compete (with quality).

[Steve Parr]

conversely, since they didn't even bother to open his portfolio, the record guy had no basis for comparison against the free photos.

But he doesn't need any.

He's got some photos, that he's seemingly happy with, and he got them for free...

and let's face it...kalle's the most talented shooter here, at least in my opinion. in all likelihood, i'd reckon that the free photos would not fare well in a direct comparison.

Well, just as in it's not possible to draw an informed conclusion without opening a portfolio, so is it not possible to draw an informed conclusion without seeing the photos that they got for free...

[kmb]

and let's face it...kalle's the most talented shooter here

*blush* :o

[Steve Parr]

You answered your own question. I just don't like that I'm given no chance, not even by a commercial regord label, to compete.

My point is that, with the record company being happy with free photos, you were pretty much out of luck before you even left your house that day.

Look, I understand the frustration. I just refuse to let it upset me to the point where I rant and rave about it. That energy is better spent finding paying clients.

There will always be people out there who will give pictures away, and there will always be people out there who will take them. These aren't the people, in my opinion, a photographer who wants to be paid should be going after...

[narlus]

Well, just as in it's not possible to draw an informed conclusion without opening a portfolio, so is it not possible to draw an informed conclusion without seeing the photos that they got for free...

i'd say the odds are stacked highly in my favor...how many photographers of Kalle's caliber are giving away free work? not too many, i'd wager.

[Steve Parr]

*blush* :o

Damn, you are pretty good, aren't you?

I've never looked at your site before. Damn nice stuff...

[kmb]

Well, just as in it's not possible to draw an informed conclusion without opening a portfolio, so is it not possible to draw an informed conclusion without seeing the photos that they got for free...

I didn't make any conclusions (about the quality of the photos they were using). I Just disliked that I did not get a chance to present my work, and to compete against whatever photos or photographers they are using.

[kmb]

My point is that, with the record company being happy with free photos, you were pretty much out of luck before you even left your house that day.

My point is that I wanted the opportunity (still not assuming anything about the photos they're receiving) to make them unhappy about the free photos ;). That was just one anecdote, perhaps not very good for this discussion, since the I was upset because of the attitude of the guy ("you can't possibly be so good that we'd be willing to pay you"). I think we aren't disagreeing that much.

EDIT: damn typos.

[DwightMcCann]

ok, here's a funny situation.

i take photos of band X, for a unpaid assignment for a small mag. i post some jpgs on the band's forum. a month or so later, the guitar maker the artist uses contacts me after seeing them on that site, and is looking to use a shot or two for their website. i quote them my normal price for web usage, they ask if there's an 'abnormal' rate i would charge :lol:

i knock a tenner off the original quoted price. they counter by saying they get X thousand hits a day on their site, ie, the publicity would be worth more to me. at the end of the day, i say thanks but no thanks...usually i couldn't give a damn, but this is a strictly commercial venture, and the price i quoted (and they turned down) would barely cover a tank of gas for most americans. :rolleyes:
I got an email from the Sir Tom Jones organization a couple of years ago saying, "We want to use your photographs taken at the casino on our website but we won't pay you." I said, "No, thank you." They contacted the casino and complained. They still don't have the photographs! :cry: There are just some times when structural organization guarantees a lose-lose situation.

I shoot Taylor Swift (rising country singer/songwriter) from time to time (I am good friends with her manager.) She plays Taylor guitars (name is coincidence.) Steve Parr works for Taylor guitars. When Taylor guitars had some interest in a picture I took, Steve was quick to point out that the Customer Relations guy wouldn't pay to use photographs. I said, "Not a problem ... he just won't be using mine." I turn down a lot of people because they don't want to pay. It doesn't upset me at all ... it is just business and I do very well without giving away my work to folks who should pay for it. OTOH, I have no problem providing courtesy images to media (I am paid by the casino and just make this part of my routine.)

Slight OT since the question was not aimed for me, but I took my portfolio to the Finnish Metal Expo and displayed it to the record companies' representatives. I handed it to one guy while I explained who I was and what I was doing. He immedeately began explaining that he (or "they" as a record company) had enough friends who photograph, so unfortunately they weren't going to buy any photos. He handed me the portfolio without opening it.

Now, I can accept that one chooses to have "photographs for free" that may or may not be above average, but I probably don't have to explain myself further why I wasn't exactly happy about that reaction.

You answered your own question. I just don't like that I'm given no chance, not even by a commercial regord label, to compete (with quality).
This why we keep saying that it is 80% who you know and less than 20% the quality of your work. And I would sugggest that it is rarely about doing the "best work" ... (1) Sometimes people/record companies find things that work for them and don't want to spend more time improving something that works, (2) Sometimes they don't care at all and want their friends to get the glory ... KISS' photographer is a friend of theirs ... he does very good work but he has the job because of who he knows. (3) Sometimes it just takes years and years to get a break ... I got mine at 59-1/2 ... when you are that old and still haven't gotten a break, let us know! ;)

*blush* :o
Well, that's a deserved blush if I ever say one! :lol:

My point is that I wanted the opportunity (still not assuming anything about the photos they're receiving) to make them unhappy about the free photos ;). That was just one anecdote, perhaps not very good for this discussion, since the I was upset because of the attitude of the guy ("you can't possibly be so good that we'd be willing to pay you"). I think we aren't disagreeing that much.

EDIT: damn typos.
Why would they want to allow you to make them feel unhappy? [Perhaps it is your bad karma that got in the way, eh?]

[narlus]

(3) Sometimes it just takes years and years to get a break ... I got mine at 59-1/2 ... when you are that old and still haven't gotten a break, let us know! :wink:

:lol:

[Steve Parr]

I just re-read the title of this thread, and it reminds me of the level of animosity that some people feel regarding "non-pros". Well, we were all "non-pros" at one point, and I think some would do well to consider that...

[shesgotthepic]

and let's face it...kalle's the most talented shooter here, at least in my opinion. in all likelihood, i'd reckon that the free photos would not fare well in a direct comparison.

well said.

[tipsy]

well said.

I second that!

x

[shesgotthepic]

I second that!

x

thirded, ditto, erm - what the other guys said about Kalle.

[tipsy]

So this thread has changed from ramblings about 'money stealing amateurs' to a WE ALL LOVE KALLE AND HIS PHOTOS thread.

How interesting...

I wonder how kalle feels about all this.

x

[narlus]

as you blokes say, well chuffed:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3397387&postcount=73

[livewire-photography.com]

as you blokes say, well chuffed:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3397387&postcount=73

Well Chuffed LOL. :) He is good tho lol.
Cheers

[tipsy]

Well chuffed... Well deserved!

x

[kmb]

Aww, you guys! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks. But I also feel that perhaps you should write the love letters as PM's so as not to anger anyone :). Also, remember that Dwight for instance would probably have same sort of pictures if only he got someting else than just old people to photograph ;)

"Rant! - Thread-Stealing Semi-pros!"

[bacchanal]

Aww, you guys! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks. But I also feel that perhaps you should write the love letters as PM's so as not to anger anyone :). Also, remember that Dwight for instance would probably have same sort of pictures if only he got someting else than just old people to photograph ;)

"Rant! - Thread-Stealing Semi-pros!"

LOL, I'm sure Dragonforce or the like will make it to the casino one of these days! :lol:

[DwightMcCann]

I can tell you that there is nothing "interesting" coming to the casino within the current schedule (which reaches until next year.) I can't tell anyone what is on it but most of you wouldn't even come along to shoot with me ... although Lynrd Skynrd (is that how you spell it) is one of the acts. Hell, I rarely stay beyond the song limit! I have Chayanne in the pipeline but I'll bet most of you never even heard of him ... a one song limit, yet! [Oh, wait, I just found out Pepe Aguilar has been publicly announced ... anybody other than me heard of him? I shot him once before!]

[narlus]

dwight, the casino should talk to Sunn O)))) about a booking date. :D

[bacchanal]

I can tell you that there is nothing "interesting" coming to the casino within the current schedule (which reaches until next year.) I can't tell anyone what is on it but most of you wouldn't even come along to shoot with me ... although Lynrd Skynrd (is that how you spell it) is one of the acts. Hell, I rarely stay beyond the song limit! I have Chayanne in the pipeline but I'll bet most of you never even heard of him ... a one song limit, yet! [Oh, wait, I just found out Pepe Aguilar has been publicly announced ... anybody other than me heard of him? I shot him once before!]

I just looked up Pepe on wikipedia. Check out the reference image...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_Aguilar

[DwightMcCann]

I just looked up Pepe on wikipedia. Check out the reference image...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_Aguilar

Well, that's embarrassing!

[blackshadow]

dwight, the casino should talk to Sunn O)))) about a booking date. :D

Hehe - they might loosen the bowels of the old folks in the casino and the result would be a steaming stinking mess that would take a lot of cleaning up!

[DwightMcCann]

Hehe - they might loosen the bowels of the old folks in the casino and the result would be a steaming stinking mess that would take a lot of cleaning up!

The casino is expert at cleaning up! :-) I'm telling ya', nothing phases them ... mellow, mellow, mellow!

[shesgotthepic]

I can tell you that there is nothing "interesting" coming to the casino within the current schedule (which reaches until next year.) I can't tell anyone what is on it but most of you wouldn't even come along to shoot with me ... although Lynrd Skynrd (is that how you spell it) is one of the acts.

Lynyrd Skynyrd - keep an eye on Rickey Medlocke. He can throw some pretty cool poses on stage and is very photogenic. The entire band do pose a lot but Rickey is the most camera friendly of them all.