A sports shooter link that angers me

[timmyquest]

Read about 2/3'ds the way down to heston quan's post.

I guess i'm glad i dont have access to post on the forum because i'd have to tell him what an idiot i think he is :roll:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=11404

8mp at 5fps! Only $1300!?! Thanks Canon for making it harder for a photographer to make a buck when your average mom and pop can afford to buy a 20D! I see enough people now with a 10d, Rebel, Nikon D100 or D70 with a 80-200 2.8 shooting at the sidelines. Technical ability doesn't seem to matter to them as long as they get a picture and don't have to pay for it. Is there going to be a more definitive line between consumer and pro cameras? This camera seems to lean more towards Pro than amateur. I don't think a sturdier construction justifies a camera as being "Pro." I'm frustrated enough being a Nikon owner. What next!

I guess canon should not make good cameras for lower prices because somehow that effects his income. Please...

[robertwgross]

Heston probably has a right to express himself that way. However, the average reader is going to pause and think about it for a second, and then they will disregard his words from being meaningful.

My question is why this angers you.

His words don't affect you, do they? Besides, he is a Nikon guy.

Let's move on to something meaningful!

---Bob Gross---

[Big_B]

I may not agree with him, but I can see his point. I reckon most of us would be equally pissed off if we saw our profession being eroded.

[timmyquest]

How does the 20D erode his profession?

PS. When i say angry, i'm not sitting on my computer pulling my hair out searching for his phone number and address so i can go beat him up. I'm simply shocked that someone would actually say that. The fact that this is seriously what he thinks is almost amusing.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The joke of it is that this tech has allways been affordable.. a LOT more affordable in film bodies..

His only issue is the acceptance of Digital and he just doesn't even know it yet.

The EOS3 is still a more capable body than the 20D.. and yet is cheaper.. and ha been around for what? 5 years? More?

And yet the availability of that awesome body at less than the "pro" units cost has never been "a threat".

His own points by the way also prove his own argument moot.

IE: The high tech equipment does not a photographer make!

We still need the artisan to use the tools to there potential.

A chisel in the hands of a teenager is no threat to the sculpter.

And if the teenager has the skills too?.. he is no longer a threat.. rather ,.. he too is a sculpter.

The only threat, as allways, is falling behind in your own level of skill. And the only solution to that little dilemna lies purely within.

[PacAce]

The joke of it is that this tech has allways been affordable.. a LOT more affordable in film bodies..

His only issue is the acceptance of Digital and he just doesn't even know it yet.

The EOS3 is still a more capable body than the 20D.. and yet is cheaper.. and ha been around for what? 5 years? More?

And yet the availability of that awesome body at less than the "pro" units cost has never been "a threat".

His own points by the way also prove his own argument moot.

IE: The high tech equipment does not a photographer make!

We still need the artisan to use the tools to there potential.

A chisel in the hands of a teenager is no threat to the sculpter.

And if the teenager has the skills too?.. he is no longer a threat.. rather ,.. he too is a sculpter.

The only threat, as allways, is falling behind in your own level of skill. And the only solution to that little dilemna lies purely within.

Have you been watching them old Kung Fu TV shows again, CDS? :P

But you're absolutiely right. I guess Heston is getting worried that, with more people buying the "affordable" cameras, there will be more and more pictures that will compete with his. If that is the case, then the only conclusion I can draw about his pictures is the they must be just average pictures and nothing that will stand out among the many other pictures taken by everybody else. If that IS the case, then he DOES have reason for concern. But, as they say, "c'est la vie!" And that's just too bad for him!

[roanjohn]

He's not mad at the moms and pops on the sidelines.........he's mad because he chose Nikon..........

.........yuk yuk yuk yuk!!!!

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Ro1

[Lamplight]

We still need the artisan to use the tools to there potential.

A chisel in the hands of a teenager is no threat to the sculpter.

And if the teenager has the skills too?.. he is no longer a threat.. rather ,.. he too is a sculpter.

The only threat, as allways, is falling behind in your own level of skill. And the only solution to that little dilemna lies purely within.

Nicely stated. 8)

[blinking8s]

A chisel in the hands of a teenager is no threat to the sculpter...


haha...i like that

[IndyJeff]

But you're absolutiely right. I guess Heston is getting worried that, with more people buying the "affordable" cameras, there will be more and more pictures that will compete with his. If that is the case, then the only conclusion I can draw about his pictures is the they must be just average pictures and nothing that will stand out among the many other pictures taken by everybody else. If that IS the case, then he DOES have reason for concern. But, as they say, "c'est la vie!" And that's just too bad for him!


No it is not that his pictures are less than adequate, it is there are a lot of people who are getting digital and will go to an event and shoot it for a publication just for the credential. You didn't have that happening as much with film because of the film costs.
I know guys who will spend God knows how much money out of their own pocket to go to Indy and shoot 9 days of practice, 3 weekend days of qualifications, carb day and then the race. Someone will print some of these pictures and this poor sap gets absolutely nothing, nada, not one thin dime. Oh he may get a photo credit but, try and buy a pound of butter with a photo credit and see how much dry toast you will be eating over the next week. If thats ok with him then it is his own business but, what it is doing is ruining an industry. Being a sports shooter is harder than ever to get into these days because publications know that they can get someone to do for free what they used to have to pay for, either by day rates or by single use rate.
So ask yourself this, are you part of the killing of an industry by shooting for free just to tell your friends "Yeah I was there, right on the sideline shooting that game."
Imagine if someone thought it would be cool to do your job and were willing to come in one day a week and do it, for free. Now figure that there are enough people who would want to do it so that your boss could have 7 or 8 people who were willing to work say, 3-4 days a month. Now go ask your boss for a raise and tell him about the new house you and the little woman are wanting to buy. Who is he going to keep on the job? You who is costing him money and doing a good job or the 7 or 8 guys who do an adequate job and still produce enough to get him by with what he needs to stay open.

What it is going to come down to is publications/news agencys will one day realise that one day they can charge for the credential. "You wanna shoot ________race/game next month? Ok your equipment is good enough, that will be $75 for a processing fee for the credential." What do they care? If they used to pay 4 guys $250 a piece for shooting that race/game and got shots to use now, they can put 8 guys out there and get paid $600 and get a shots to use. So it may not be as good as it used to be but it is still something they can use.


Me, I refuse to shoot for free. Either you pay me a transmission fee, or a day rate but if you want me out there one way or another you are gonna pay me for anything of mine you use. I could have gone to Kentucky and shot the IRL race but they offer was "we will pick up the hotel room". Sorry but it costs me more than a hotel room to spend a weekend at the track.

[robertwgross]

Indy, we read your rant. Now, what do you propose as a solution?

---Bob Gross---

[IndyJeff]

Indy, we read your rant. Now, what do you propose as a solution?

---Bob Gross---

It is simple, get paid for your work? How many posts have you seen on here where someone is asking about submitting to a newspaper etc and when money comes up it is a "I am not looking to make money off of this, I just want to get published." I have never been published for free. Every photo I have ahd published has been followed with a check. Been working it that way since 1994. And yes I have had people ask for my photos for publication and when I give them my asking price they decline to use it.

If there has been one consitency about my posts here it is "get paid."


Let me put it this way, if you shoot for John Q. Publisher this year 3 times and do it for free, then next year he gives you the good news that he is planning on using you 20 times because he likes your work so much. You figure that each time you go shoot for him it costs you around $300 for the weekend. Now you have to be paid to help offset the costs. When you approach him with the figures for you to get paid just to break even his response is going to be "Well you never wanted paid before. I'll have to get back with you on this because this is a lot of money that we didn't budget for."
Guess what, he lost your number when you walked out of his office or hung up the phone.

I had a guy who emailed me from my website, he found it from a photo credit and was wanting to know if I needed any extra shooters for the Nashville race this year. His price was very firm, $0.00 he just wanted the access, anything I could move of his was fine as long as it had his name under the photo credit. I emailed him back and told him I didn't hire freebies and thanks for the inquiry but I wasn't interested in his services.

I didn't go to Richmond because the publication which was going to pay me $400 for race day photos found someone local. My contact said they found someone local and could save the money they were paying me for other events later this year (read college football). They did send me a check for $35 and thanked me for interest in shooting for them. They also asked for anything I may have from the Brickyard that AP didn't pick up. I did move one photo of Gordon in his victory lap in the pace car. Haven't got a check yet so I don't know if they used it or not. Probably won't get one till mid Sept if they did use it.

I know some guys will shoot for free for some small local weekly to prove themselves. That I don't have a problem with as much because you need to get your foot in the door so you can show John Q. Publisher that he can count on you to bring in a useable image. Besides, the local might pay $15 for a shot if they pay anything, they just don't have the budget for photography.

[robertwgross]

You stated your own personal philosophy about always getting paid.

However, for many other photographers reading this, it is only a concept, and not a solution.

The many others may continue to shoot for free for the local newspaper.

---Bob Gross---

[IndyJeff]

I take that back about not shooting for free. I did it this year, not on purpose. An event company hired me to shoot the Race For The Cure here in Indy. Instead of pay they asked if I would donate my services and in return I would get a "in kind donation receipt" for $1200. Now that works out to an equvilent of about $300 more in my tax return.

As of yet I still haven't seen anything from them. I have emailed the guy several times and only one response, "I will be in touch".


I got ripped, I know but, next year I will go downtown for this event to the same location I was at this yearfir him. Hoping this guy is there again and I will setup and shoot the same event for myself. I will also be wearing a shirt that gives my website address and a sign in the ground. Let people compare what I am charging and about a one week turn around time compared to his 4-6 weeks and higher prices. I'll get my money back.

Vindictive bastard aren't I? LOL

[PacAce]

Jeff, I hear what you're saying but I can't agree with it nor can I sympathize with it.

In my industry (computer programming) one can't afford to stay stagnant. Otherwise all these new kids coming out of school who think they can write programs (just 'cuz they've written a few lines of VB or Pascal code) and are willing to work for peanuts just to get their foot in the door are going to leave you standing in line at the unemployment office. So, we're always trying to stay current with technology and learn the "new" stuff just to stay marketable. I don't see how the photography "industry" is any different from the computer industry. :)

And I may be wrong but I doubt there are that many new photographer out there giving away their work for free. As someone else pointed out earlier there were a lot of cheap film cameras, too. So how come that was't a threat to anybody? I'm sure there were a lot of people out there with EOS Elan type film cameras before the digital cameras really took off. :?

[IndyJeff]

PacAce I know exactly what your saying about the new guys working for peanuts and that happens in every industry, always has and probably always will. However there are not many industries where someone is willing to do the job for free. You have guys who will shoot for a local on spec and take $15-$25 for a shot the paper uses. Thing is they get some experience and a portfolio built up and then they try to move up the ladder to a paper that pays them a salary, day rate or give them compensation they can make a living on.

As someone else pointed out earlier there were a lot of cheap film cameras, too. So how come that was't a threat to anybody? I'm sure there were a lot of people out there with EOS Elan type film cameras before the digital cameras really took off.

This was happening with film too, it just didn't seem to be as much as with digital. With film you still had to spend several hundred bucks to get a decent camera to shoot sports but, you also had film cost to deal with. Some employers would trade a roll of used film for a new one. In some cases you had to shoot a ton of film and send in 2-3 images for consideration. Nobody compensated you for the film you used but didn't get any of those images used. My first year shooting sports, 1994, I used 10-15 rolls of film during the Brickyard and the following year I shot maybe 25 rolls during the month of May for the 500. I was with UPI then and they didn't provide any film. When I moved to AP in 97, if you turned in a roll, they developed it and gave a new roll in return. If you wanted prints you still had to get those done on your own. So the cost was significantly higher shooting film. I don't remember anyone shooting with any Elan series cameras in my turn. Maybe someone did but I can't remember if there were or not.
The last year of shooting film at the Indy 500 I shot one roll during the month, and on race day I used one roll and shot the Kannan crash, which did make the wire. AP sent me back a roll to replace that one and it is still in my freezer. You had to have at least 2 rolls of film on you at all times. SO that month my film cost was about $15 and $13 for development and prints of the two rolls I shot. I got smart and realised I couldn't afford to shoot 20 rolls of film each month. Besides I have a big box of nothing but racing photos and 3 binders full of neg sleeves.

So, we're always trying to stay current with technology and learn the "new" stuff just to stay marketable

Explain to me how the photography market as changed in the last two years? There have been new advances in technology of the equipment but the action of shooting is still the same as it was 15 years ago when digital was just a pipe dream.

And I may be wrong but I doubt there are that many new photographer out there giving away their work for free.

Well now you are showing just how much you really know about the photography industry, not much. Take UPI for example, they have 20 credentialed photographers at Indy. If they use your shot you get credit, no pay, just a name on the photo credit. The only one who gets paid is the manager and that is for his administrative work.
Midwest Racing News, you wanna shoot for them? Guess what they pay you if they use your photo? Nothing.
Speed Sport News, they use your shot and guess how much they pay? Nothing.
And guess what, call them and ask if they need shooters, they will put you on a list because they have a waiting line to shoot for them, for a photo credit.
So tell me just how many programmers you know work on a project for someone and don't receive any compensation? I guess maybe you don't know as much about the photography industry as you thought you did huh?

What do you think Bob Gross and his partner would say about someone who will shoot a wedding for a free meal and a piece of cake? How long do you think they would still be shooting weddings for money?


Let me ask you this, how many national or international interest events have you shot in the last 5 years?

[robertwgross]

What do you think Bob Gross and his partner would say about someone who will shoot a wedding for a free meal and a piece of cake? How long do you think they would still be shooting weddings for money?


You mean <gasp> that people get paid money for shooting a wedding?

I always thought the cake was kind of overrated.

---Bob Gross---

[stopbath]

What do you think Bob Gross and his partner would say about someone who will shoot a wedding for a free meal and a piece of cake? How long do you think they would still be shooting weddings for money?

This happens all the time. Uncle Bob's got a camera, and promises to put a few pictures in a book. All fine and dandy, but to get the 'experienced' wedding photographer and get shots that aren't cropped poorly, or under exposed, you pay the money...

With the advent of digital, a people are shooting more pictures. This is unavoidable. It's a changing world. Soon digital cameras will be ubiquitous. Almost everyone will have them. But will it spell the demise of professional photographers? Not likely. Desktop publishing did not dethrone any major authors, but it did allow some budding authors to get into the fray easier...

[RinkRat]

So tell me just how many programmers you know work on a project for someone and don't receive any compensation?

I just wanted to point out that yes, there are lots of programmers that work for free.

If you search on the internet for FREEWARE or SHAREWARE, you will find quite a few people doing their work for free. Never mind people that develop Linux applications and the like.

How does Adobe stay in buisness when there are free apps that you can edit images with?

Oh, also, many many websites were developed for free, just for the recognition of working on a "Star's" website.

i.e., A few years ago, I was given the "opportunity" to work on an Pro wrestler, and an NHL player's site for free. I told them, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Don't take it the wrong way, I wanted to add another "techie's" perspective.

-RinkRat

[tommykjensen]

If you search on the internet for FREEWARE or SHAREWARE, you will find quite a few people doing their work for free. Never mind people that develop Linux applications and the like.


Not to mention Open Source and maybe the best example - this forum software we are all using is completely free and hundreds of people around the world work on adding functionality and improving existing.

[cmM]

All of you guys have good points. But none of them matter. Canon will not make cameras because of pros; Canon will not make cameras because of what amateurs want. Canon will make cameras to bring proffit. If the "prosumer" world will bring more revenue to Canon than a $5k super-pro DSLR, then that's where Canon is heading.

A lot of pros over there on sports shooter and Fred Mirada's forum are pissed off with the "amateurs" on the sidelines. Well there is no other way to start... only from the sidelines. They're so affraid that people will take away their income. There is only one solution to that: Distinguish youself !

[PacAce]

Jeff,

Your points are well taken but I think we are aguing about different sides of the fence. When I was talking about people going out and buying pro or prosumer cameras and then being a threat to the working photographers, I was thinking more about your average mom and pop going out and taking pictures and then giving them away to newspapers and magazines. After all, isn't that what the person in Timmy's original posting quote was complaining about. I really didn't have these photographers who are in the non-payroll of newspapers and magazines in mind.

As for the those photographers who DO work for free just for the satisfaction of seeing their name in the credits, well, I wouldn't know about that since I'm not in the business (and never claimed to be) like you are. I'm just your average "pop" who likes to take pictures for the simple pleasure it brings me and nothing more. :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

This discussion by the way really has little to do with any specific craft, talent or skill.. it is universal in it's nature.

Be it photography, Porgramming, or sculpting :) the issue is pervasive and consistant.

The issue and solution are in fact twofold.

1. The education of the client/consumer

2. The skill of the artisan

The larger concern is issue 1. The clients understanding of quality.

What Indy jeff fears most (even though he may not have said it quite this way.. if he'll allow me) is a client base that does NOT perceive the difference in skill, and thus quality of work provided by the seasoned pro Vs. the rank amateur.

The fear is that by flooding the market with affordable mediocrity,.. the client base will loose sight of why they pay for higher quality.

This is happening all around us every day in every aspect of American Society at least.. (I assume it is likewise elsewhere)

An esoteric case in point. My Father was a Stone Cutter by trade.. (that chisel I refer to..) He was also a foremest leterrer (no.. we don't ike the term caligrapher ... if your going to put it in stone it behooves you to understand the art of the letter)

In this day and age the level of understanding of this trade, skill, and talent is miniscule. I'll wager that not a single person who reads this thread would know the difference between a peice of junk polished marble monument and real work of skill in carving letters beyond a gut response (which may be accurate, but not likely educated)

Thus... buildings are erected, monuments layed daily by the thousands with crap plaues cast in chinzy bronze,. lettering that could be done by a monky (or worse,. a machine) and it si because so few know or understand or care that there is a better product.

But there is allways someone who does no matter how far and few.

Again in this extreme example... we see that the likes of Harvard University, The National Gallery, The Kennedy Memorial and the very recent WWII memorial in Washingtn.. these jobs don't go to the hacks that everyone else is satisfied with.. they go to the true letteres and stone carvers.

The situation is pervasive.. the same lack of unsderstanding on the part of the consumer/client breeds the frustrations we encounter daily when trying to get the most for our dollars. Whether it be at a restaurant or tech support or Best Buy. The consumer has accepted the pervading lack of skill and talent as the norm.. and thus we get saddled with poor products because the "good stuf" can't compete for our dollars. Gone are the indepedantly owned Video rental stores because WE were satisfied with paying late fees at Blockbuster,.. gone are the real hardware/lumber yards because we don't care if the wood is crap or the service is non existant at the Home Depot,.

What we can do? Three things;

As a craftsmen;
1. Educate your clientel. As a photographer,, strive to communicate what it is that you do that others are not understanding. This is tough,. and many times it will fail,. but it will pay off many times as well.

2. This of course is meaningless if we as providers fall into the same trap by cutting corners to undercut someones costs. Indy spke of this "Don't shoot for free" etc... on a broader scale it is the same thing as simply insisting on doing the best, highest quality work we can provide. And then inisiting on ample compensation.

As a consumer;
3. We have to stop settling for the same dreck that the amauteur with the Rebel leaning over the guardrail is offering in our own daily lives. Stop paying for AOL, stop buying PCs from Compaq,. and don't get them at Best Buy,.. if a restaurant food is yucky.. stop eating there. Insist on quality in your life as well as your work. And reward those that provide quality.

[ilya]

There is a technical term for all this. Its called commoditization.

It happens when the advances in technology, production, distribution etc eliminate much of the unique aspects one product/service may have over another.

Its been happening since the industrial revolution, and before.

Its inevitable, and nothing you can do to prevent it. Boycotting Best Buy will just deprive you of another option of buying stuff cheap with a good warranty.

That's different from insisting on the best price / value propositions. That in and of itself is what forces the commoditization of particular products and services.

Probably most profound is felt in software and technology. That's why you have folks coding for free. Differentiation as a desperate measure means you give stuff away for free in hopes of proving unique value so that you can charge more eventually...

Here is something for you web geeks :) . Agree or disagree - There is just no more money in pure web site design. What could once be sold for $50,000 now goes for $5,000.

However, there is real demand for people who know how to build web-based applications. Business processes on the web are flourishing. Making them work well and fast is a challenge, and customers know it.

Developers solving the web-based applications problem are charging top dollar and working overtime. And they are able to throw in creative design as icing on the cake.

Design has been commoditized.

Photography is on the way. But - its not the same. There is way too much individuality and opportunity to set yourself apart from the next guy for real talent. And definitely enough to differentiate yourself from an amateur with a rebel and kit lens. But I can definitely see stock work for instance as something that is already commoditized.

**

Back to post quote which started this whole thing, where the nikonian complains that a better camera means the "pro" is losing to the soccer mom. That has got to be what's wrong with America (yes I'm going a bit off track). That is why people sue McDonalds for hot coffee. That is why we have so much welfare abuse. That is why kids are on drugs. Because people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions (or inactions).

Idiots. I heard the same argument when the 10D came out over on Galbraith's site. What a load of crap. Has this happened? I'm sure it has to the losers who can't differentiate themselves enough from the soccer mom with a digital rebel.

8) :roll:

[RinkRat]

ilya,

Would have to disagree that web development was a direct result of commoditization (yay, new word for me). From my perspective, it was more akin to supply & demand, with a bunch of ignorance & greed sprinkled in. Irrational exuberance? Maybe.

In the the early "dot-bomb" days, everyone & their brother wanted a website. They weren't quite sure why, but they just had to have one. No business case, no budget. "We need to be on that interweb NOW!". There weren't enough of us geeks available, nobody knew how much work was involved, and how they would make money with a site. So, we could almost charge whatever we wanted. (and we did.) :)

As people learned what that work was really worth, and what it took to design/maintain a site, things started to change. At this point, is where I believe commoditization came into play.

Soccer moms, Janitors, High School dropouts, CFOs, and just about everyone else thought they should become a web developer. Web Dev classes were mobbed with people, "HTML for Dummies" books were flying off the shelves. With this flood of "Talent", it became obvious it was time to sell software to the "Developers" to make their jobs even easier.

Pure software development, which is different from web design, seems to be commoditization exactly as you have defined it.

-----

I agree with you 100%, with respect to "taking responsibility". Most people want to blame everyone else for their plight. "Waaah, THEY are taking our development jobs overseas". "It's THEIR fault for making better cameras, that I can't sell pictures.". "It's not my fault I'm drowning in debt, THEY sent me the applications."

I don't know that design has been commoditized. It would seem CDS is a bit more on the mark.

1. The education of the client/consumer
2. The skill of the artisan

The client/consumer are accepting less for their money, and the artisan only wants to learn enough to "get by".

Just like every boob with a "Dummies" book thought they were a web developer, more & more people with DSLRs think they are Ansel Adams.

Would a CEO know the difference between pictures for thier product catalog done by a "PRO", or thier cousin Marty? Maybe. Would they rather pay $15,000 for the photos, or $1,000 to buy cousin Marty a used DRebel and some Home Depot lights? hmmm...

Sorry for babbling, I find this topic pretty interesting.

-RinkRat

[IndyJeff]

First off my complaints, if you will, are not with the mom and pop shooter on the sidelines. It is with the guy who gets a credential and shoots sporting events for publication and expects no pay for it. The access is his pay. That is what is killing the industry, and by industry I mean shooting sports.

Yes the real pro sets him/herself apart from the amature by capturing images the amature can only hope to get lucky with.


An example of my threat from mom and pop.....last month I was shooting a girls softball tourney. A guy with a decent digital comes up and asks if it is ok for him to shoot some of his daughter during the game. I kind of chuckled and said "Of course, have at it." He asked if he could stand beside me as I was in the optimum position for photographing right handed batters. "Sure, no problem." Actually when his daughter came to bat, I suggested we trade places and he take the closest position.
During the game he asked me questions, "what ISO do you shoot at? What shutter speed are you at? What do you focus on the face, the body, the plate? I answered all his question, no matter how dumb they were. At one time I asked dumb questions but how are you going to learn if you don't ask. Well all this took place on the first day. The second day he was there and again had his camera. He came up and we talked some more. He had gone to my website and saw what I shot and compared it to what he did at the same time. In his words, "After seeing my stuff last night I went to your website. How do you do that? ME: "What" HIM: "Get the action that way, most of the stuff I got was out of focus, especally the fielding shots."
I explained to him that you have to become part of the game in your mind. If your shooting fielding shots you have to anticipate where the batter will hit to, left or right side of the pitcher. Focus in on the SS or the 2nd baseman. Watch what the batter does. Does a foul ball go left, right, straight back that will tell how their swing is, late early or right on time. Next you have to be ready. One thing I pointed out to him was when he was shooting he had his camera down at chest level. You have to have your camera at eye level. By the time he gets his camera up I am already focused on the player fielding the ball. Since you can't see where the ball is thru the view finder when your watching the player, notice when she is bending down. Chances are she will start bending down when she is about to field the ball.
I also explained to him that it takes practice. If he saves his shots from this year and compares them to what he shoots when she is 14, she is now 8, he will see a definate improvement over the years becasue he has practiced and gotten better.
He did purchase prints from my website too, about $40 worth if I remember correctly. The month of July I shot 3 girls softball tourneys, I can't even begin to tell you how many games but I would say it was upwards of 60 games. At each game there was someone else with their camera shooting their kid, not one of them was a threat to me. If they asked me any questions or asked fpr tips, I gave them an answer.

Now off to my PM's I am almost afraid to see what somebody is going to say to me in private on this subject LOL

[IndyJeff]

One more thing, if anyone comes up to me and asks for tips on shooting I would gladly give them any answers to any questions. I rely on my ability with a camera. If there is someone better than me, well then they are better. I am not the best photograher in the world, nor will I ever be. I do my best and that is as good as I get. Yes and sometimes I get lucky and do better than I thought I could.
I do not feel threatened by someone shooting for free but, I do consider it as a threat to the industry. The ability to make money in the sports field has diminished year by year and it will only get worse. I don't have any good answer, just that people shouldn't shoot for free.[/img]

[IndyJeff]

Darn double posts!!!

[RinkRat]

I don't have any good answer, just that people shouldn't shoot for free.

... or double post. :lol: (just kidding)

[ilya]

ilya,

Would have to disagree that web development was a direct result of commoditization (yay, new word for me). From my perspective, it was more akin to supply & demand, with a bunch of ignorance & greed sprinkled in. Irrational exuberance? Maybe.

You may be a bit mistaken about my point. Commoditization at the most basic level means eradication of uniqueness in a product or service. In this instance, web development became a (common) commodity in that design became so widely produced, aided by common code chunks that folks use, aided by vast libraries of reusa-code, that to design a website commanded next to nothing in the marketplace. It has nothing to do with greed or irrationality, just simple economics.

***

Indy got it right. If you got the stuff, you wont' be paranoid about amateurs infringing on your turf with any camera. The only thing I'd say is while giving stuff away is bad, its going to happen. Keep in mind that the worst thing a company or person can do is devalue its brand - or their name. It DOES NOT devalue the industry or profession.


The only thing one needs to do about something like that is nothing. And in some cases, raise your own prices further as a differentiator.

(disclaimer - where this doesn't work is when a Wal-Mart comes to town, but that's not remotely what we're talking about here).

[timmyquest]

As i'll point out with this link, it is the mentality of the person, not the technology of his equipment.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/124265

Looking for a little help. I would like to take my photography to the next level, especially shooting sporting events. What does it take to get media passes to shoot on the sideline of an NFL game? The shots are for my personal improvement and really have no issues w/ signing them over.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Jim


This is the exact type of person that IndyJeff is talking about.

[IndyJeff]

Timmy, that is not quite the same but, I have bad news for old Jim there. He ain't going to be seeing the sidelines in any NFL game except from his TV set or the stands. The NFL is trying to reduce the number of people on the sidelines. Independant publications are being urged to use Getty Images for their game photos.

Now if Jim was looking for a publication that would secure him a credential and in return he was offering anything he shot to them for any shots they wanted at no charge then, that is the guy I am talking about.

[timmyquest]

The shots are for my personal improvement and really have no issues w/ signing them over

To me that says "If someone wants to use my shots i wont charge them". Maybe i'm just reading it wrong.

[IndyJeff]

Yeah your right, that is the kind of clods I am talking about.

[Persian-Rice]

I think I agree with both sides of the spectrum. In my eyes, Jeff hit it on the head several times as well as some others.

The fact is, no, Canon or Nikon are not the threat. Its the user....................

I was reading a post on this forum nearly a month ago about some guy that had lied/snuck his way onto the sidelines of some event and was here posting his results and of how clever he felt. It really upset me, but I thought that it wasn't as bad as some guy offering his services for free and pretty much taking the spot of a guys who rely on photography to pay the bills. There is no arguing it, it has an effect no matter how large or small the problem is.

I think most of us started photography as a hobby. I don't think the hobbyist is that much of a threat as long as boundaries are set and followed. What do I mean by this? Well again about a couple months ago, I read a rant by a photographer on sportsshooter about a couple hobbyists that snuck onto the sideline and obstructed the view of the guys who were there trying to earn their living. It is pretty obvious this is mostly intentional, but I think the "mom" & "pop" he is referring to are the ones who want to get a quick shot but forget they are shooting among people are supposed to be there and are trying to complete a job.

The fact of life is, whatever profession you find yourself in, you are going to start at the bottom of the food chain until you work your way up. The problem I have noticed in photography is that there are some guys who are near the bottom with some quality affordable equipment that got them there, yet they have no intention of moving up, they are just blocking the people below who are trying to climb the ladder and shoot for the top.

cheers.