Today's Strobist - Working for Free

[londonblue007]

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


Very very interesting thought process.......

[PhotosGuy]

He makes some good points!

[MJPhotos24]

Vincent added some good points...
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/12/05/work-for-free/

The writer of that blog makes good money with his site, he can work for "free" - record it - post it on the site - and make money off it when people come to view since the more people log in, the more he can charge the advertisers. That's not exactly free. In fact this specific blog post has generated a lot of traffic since it's controversial.

The only problem is that many of the people who read that blog will miss the points that need to be addressed before shooting for free. There's a HUGE difference between shooting at an animal shelter to help get pets adopted where there is no bank behind hiring a photographer and undercutting a professional just because you want to be the team photographer for some local team or similar circumstances that happen too often.


EDIT:
After searching for the local animal shelter I learned about this search site powered by Yahoo.
http://www.goodsearch.com
They donate money for each search to selected organizations. You can choose which you'd like to have your searches go to. So, forget google - why not search and raise money for a good cause instead? Put in our local place, Wyoming County SPCA, and made that my home page since I search a ton.

Not to mention...
http://www.goodsearch.com/goodshop.aspx
- where you use sites you use anyways and they make a donation. See, his blog is helping generate money already! :)

[primoz]

Personally I don't think it's all that interesting. It's typical thinking of someone who has, as he wrote himself, non-shooting daytime job. If you don't need to worry about going to store on evening to get bread and milk, you can easily afford to "develop your projects", and with this helping to destroy market even further.
Sure it's cool thing, but do this for yourself, not that you go around, as he suggests, and give your work for free. One thing is doing something for fun, and if it sells on end it's even better, if not then it doesn't. But it's something completely different, if you go out shoot stuff for free, give your work to them for free, and think how great job you made.
But there's also one more thing behind. Write controversial article, drive 5 times more people then usual to your site, and guess what... you earn a lot more money with it ;) Afterall, he's making money with his blog, not with his shooting ;)

[Picture North Carolina]

I'll agree. Although some "thinkable" points were made, IMHO it's rubbish. I have been a reader of Strobist for a long time and have learned much there. One thing I learned is that David makes a ton of money with it - directly and indirectly (training workshops generated by it).

For him to say work for free is like a retiree saying they will work free at McDonald's while at the same time they receive a $10,000 per month pension.

Not to mention that writing the column itself benefits David! Look at the amount of comments - probably more than anything he has written. It has generated tons of linkbacks and if you know your SEO, linkback are worth bucks.

Easy to say when you have constant revenue coming in from one of the most popular sites on the internet, but as Primoz mentioned, hard to do when you have to put bread and milk on the table for your family.

[Microcosm]

I'll agree. Although some "thinkable" points were made, IMHO it's rubbish. I have been a reader of Strobist for a long time and have learned much there. One thing I learned is that David makes a ton of money with it - directly and indirectly (training workshops generated by it).

For him to say work for free is like a retiree saying they will work free at McDonald's while at the same time they receive a $10,000 per month pension.

Not to mention that writing the column itself benefits David! Look at the amount of comments - probably more than anything he has written. It has generated tons of linkbacks and if you know your SEO, linkback are worth bucks.

Easy to say when you have constant revenue coming in from one of the most popular sites on the internet, but as Primoz mentioned, hard to do when you have to put bread and milk on the table for your family.
I disagree on this point. It's like a retiree who really WANTS to work at McDonald's working there, despite the pay they may receive elsewhere.

[ngray77]

As a tech professional, this is the same advice I give to up-and-comings... give it away... YOUR way! You can't grow into what you're going to become without risking failure in a project, and you can't risk failure when you're taking someone's money (responsibly). Further, you're unlikely to get unfettered creative control in a pay project. It has to be *their* way!

The key is to do this for organizations that would never be able to pay in the first place. Homeless shelters, animal shelters, local red cross chapters, thrift stores. I've told countless teens and twenty-somethings to build an online database for these organizations as a career development experience.

In fact, this dovetails nicely into the Volunteering through photography (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=415622) sticky.

[primoz]

There's another article, written different way then Strobist's. And it's much better in my option.
http://shiftingcareers.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/when-to-work-for-free/
Last paragraph sums it all:
It doesn’t matter if you’re a dog walker, a Web designer or a tax preparer. When you agree to work free, you reinforce people’s misguided ideas that the self-employed are independently wealthy hobbyists. Don’t degrade your profession by letting a cheap client take advantage of you.

[MJPhotos24]

There's another article, written different way then Strobist's. And it's much better in my option.
http://shiftingcareers.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/when-to-work-for-free/
Last paragraph sums it all:
Saw that on SS - Agreed!

[blackshadow]

The way I see it is that shooting for free does have it's place but it has to be on your terms not someone else's and certainly not in a commercial environment where someone is profiting from your work.

There are a couple of publications I supply some free shots for because they took a chance on me and really helped me get established - they don't make any demands on me and the stuff I do for them is occasional and because I choose to.

Last week I did three days volunteer photography work for the Homeless World Cup soccer tournament - I did it because it's a great cause and I wanted to make a contribution - it also gave me a fantastic opportunity to develop my sport photography skills in a fast paced environment and to get a taste of what it's like shooting to very tight deadlines - it also has turned out to be a wonderful networking opportunity.

[brecklundin]

it makes me laugh (not at ya but with you as I hope to explain) when I read these threads and discover how insecure so many who consider themselves 'professional' photographers are when it comes to someone daring to offer services cheaper or undercutting their fee schedule. Getting paid does not mean one is a true professional...it only means you are getting paid. And I do not mean in as an inflammatory way as it sounds...

This protectionist attitude demonstrates the lack of what I call "professional maturity". Professional maturity only comes with experience and confidence in your ability both of which takes a long time to develop. If you are very good at what you do, no matter the line of work, people will pay you well for the work. If they don't want to pay what you want, you do not want them as a client...ever. That is because they cannot afford the project to begin with, let alone do it right. But if you want the low paying jobs, then you simply must learn to live with competing with the sorts you are complaining about because you are equating yourself with them. Trust me one season or project with a low-ball bidder will almost always drive the client back to the quality. And then you can actually increase your fees and if you couch it properly you can enlighten the client that you lost money due to their abrupt switch so you had to find other clients who are paying more, so to fit them into your schedule the old client will need to pay your new rates. If they are a tad balky then suggest in respect for your previous mutually beneficial relationship if they agree to sign a longer term deal then you can reduce the total cost a bit. It will work...and again if it does not, they were not the sort of client you want anyway as they cannot be depended on if you know the money you are making from them is important to your livelihood. This might be difficult to get your head around but it's true for all areas of independent contractor/consultant work.

I am semi-retired from network design and troubleshooting. At first I too worried about low ball bidders for jobs as well as those places where someones "neighbor kid" or son, what-have-you said they could do the job for 1/3 of my bid. I learned to LOVE those people....why? Because 90% of the time I would get calls back to come in and fix their setup and the beauty of this was it was all cost-plus and usually 3-5x more then my original bid. Or I would get calls to come and fix what some low-ball so-called 'consultant' did and no their network worked only when the stars were properly aligned...

Anymore the only jobs I take are true consulting and design work. I will analyze and help troubleshoot when all else fails for them...best work the world. I never work more then 1200 hrs in a year and prefer to keep it around 800hrs. It took years to reach this point and I take advantage of the hard times I went through a couple decades ago when getting started.

As for working free/volunteering...it never ever brought in a single dollar for me, ever...that is because the more you give them free, the more they will take advantage and you end up with more and more on your plate which does not sustain you in any way. I do realize the dynamics of photography as a business are different but the philosophy still applies.

So maybe look at these sorts of folks in a different light and always keep your irons in the fire and options open. When you find a good client, get contracts, use an attorney and do not be bashful about your fees...quality costs.

[primoz]

If you are very good at what you do, no matter the line of work, people will pay you well for the work. If they don't want to pay what you want, you do not want them as a client...ever.

Unfortunately that's not true... at least not in every business. Personally I have helluva lot of networking experience too (as head of support at one ISP being responsible for routing and security), and from this point I can see why you think this way. But since I nowadays know the other side (photography side), I can tell that unfortunately networking is completely different thing as photography. And so are clients. With networking big (or actually even medium and small) companies still rely on professional service rather then "neighbor kid".

In photography on the other side, even biggest newspapers rather take crappy but free photos, then good/better photos for which they would need to pay. I would love to believe these things are different somewhere else, but considering, our agency is working with biggest newspapers and agencies around Europe, I unfortunately know how is situation around Europe too, and based on all complains I can hear from my US friends, I doubt it's much better in USA either. Things are very very slowly starting to change back to normal, and picture quality slowly starts to matter again, but at the moment, price is still biggest thing which matter.
Of course photojournalism and sport photography is just one part of photography, and in other parts (wedding, nature and wildlife, commercial etc.) things might be different. But at least in this what we do, things are unfortunately not like you wrote.

[Picture North Carolina]

Unfortunately that's not true... at least not in every business. Personally I have helluva lot of networking experience too (as head of support at one ISP being responsible for routing and security), and from this point I can see why you think this way. But since I nowadays know the other side (photography side), I can tell that unfortunately networking is completely different thing as photography. And so are clients. With networking big (or actually even medium and small) companies still rely on professional service rather then "neighbor kid".

In photography on the other side, even biggest newspapers rather take crappy but free photos, then good/better photos for which they would need to pay. I would love to believe these things are different somewhere else, but considering, our agency is working with biggest newspapers and agencies around Europe, I unfortunately know how is situation around Europe too, and based on all complains I can hear from my US friends, I doubt it's much better in USA either. Things are very very slowly starting to change back to normal, and picture quality slowly starts to matter again, but at the moment, price is still biggest thing which matter.
Of course photojournalism and sport photography is just one part of photography, and in other parts (wedding, nature and wildlife, commercial etc.) things might be different. But at least in this what we do, things are unfortunately not like you wrote.

Actually, in the U.S. the newspaper and magazine sector is in even worse condition than you can imagine.

[MJPhotos24]

Unfortunately that's not true... at least not in every business. Personally I have helluva lot of networking experience too (as head of support at one ISP being responsible for routing and security), and from this point I can see why you think this way. But since I nowadays know the other side (photography side), I can tell that unfortunately networking is completely different thing as photography. And so are clients. With networking big (or actually even medium and small) companies still rely on professional service rather then "neighbor kid".

In photography on the other side, even biggest newspapers rather take crappy but free photos, then good/better photos for which they would need to pay. I would love to believe these things are different somewhere else, but considering, our agency is working with biggest newspapers and agencies around Europe, I unfortunately know how is situation around Europe too, and based on all complains I can hear from my US friends, I doubt it's much better in USA either. Things are very very slowly starting to change back to normal, and picture quality slowly starts to matter again, but at the moment, price is still biggest thing which matter.
Of course photojournalism and sport photography is just one part of photography, and in other parts (wedding, nature and wildlife, commercial etc.) things might be different. But at least in this what we do, things are unfortunately not like you wrote.
...once again I agree and will say it's not only papers; colleges, teams, organizations, etc. are all doing this and not picking quality over free - and all signs point to it getting worse in my field.

[Ballen Photo]

Actually, in the U.S. the newspaper and magazine sector is in even worse condition than you can imagine.
Here's a link to back that up.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article5309860.ece
-Bruce

[chauncey]

What you have is a lot of folks out there that are discovering photography thanks to the quality and ease of use of the newer cameras and
they are shooting for free to get the practice and to get published, having your name on an image in the paper is important for some.

[MJPhotos24]

What you have is a lot of folks out there that are discovering photography thanks to the quality and ease of use of the newer cameras and they are shooting for free to get the practice and to get published, having your name on an image in the paper is important for some.

Which in my opinion, having made that mistake when starting out is not the right way to go. Practice is one thing, but noone should get your practice shots free when they are going to use it to gain financially. A lot of these people think these same clients will pay when they get better, they won't! They'll move on to the next person willing to do it for free. I know a few guys who give there stuff away or will sign over every right to there images just for access, just to be close to players in pro ball and further there autograph collection - which is against the rules btw for media to get autos - but they do it anyways. There's a time for free, there's a time for spec, there's a time for taking a lower paying gig - the problem is most don't know the difference of reasoning behind it or how to make them benefit them, they just do it to do it and tell there friends they got published thinking it's some big building block, it's not.

[chauncey]

And I would suggest that these folks aren't planning on making photography a career, more of a hobby with 5 minutes of fame here and there.