Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 21 Apr 2014 (Monday) 16:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Large design firms don't "buy" photographs?

 
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
May 06, 2014 14:52 |  #196

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16886208 (external link)
I don't think we are likely to see a common ground in this debate hobby vs. business.
The two are literally 180 degrees apart.
Many of us are simply not business people, period, regardless of how it applies to photography.

We are going to see things exactly opposite on many of these cases where the dollar is concerned.
You won't be able to convince someone with polar opposite viewpoint that yours is more correct if their values are completely different.

You want to talk about hobby spending? Us hobbyists that take 3 weeks in Africa with literally tens of thousands in gear are not looking to make a return on the investment.

I simply could not be forced to face that cost from a business perspective.
100% out of pocket loss, and it was worth every penny.

But you're nuts. That's different. :-D


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,063 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 171
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
May 06, 2014 16:59 |  #197

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16886208 (external link)
I don't think we are likely to see a common ground in this debate hobby vs. business.
The two are literally 180 degrees apart.
Many of us are simply not business people, period, regardless of how it applies to photography.

We are going to see things exactly opposite on many of these cases where the dollar is concerned.
You won't be able to convince someone with polar opposite viewpoint that yours is more correct if their values are completely different.

You want to talk about hobby spending? Us hobbyists that take 3 weeks in Africa with literally tens of thousands in gear are not looking to make a return on the investment.

I simply could not be forced to face that cost from a business perspective.
100% out of pocket loss, and it was worth every penny.

Very well constructed reasoning. Photography as a living, is a dream for many people ( not me ), and as such, many of us are willing to give up our images for free. There's not many businesses I can think of where people compete with you for the love of the job. Now after reading many posts on here I won't give my images away anymore.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
May 06, 2014 18:01 |  #198

It is a race to the bottom led by the greedy, fueled by the aspirations of gullible talent.

They do it because they can, now that they have the internet.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
May 07, 2014 06:55 |  #199

S.Horton wrote in post #16886805 (external link)
It is a race to the bottom led by the greedy, fueled by the aspirations of gullible talent.

They do it because they can, now that they have the internet.

So spaketh the CEOs of dozens of car makers on October 1st, 1908.


Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
May 07, 2014 07:12 |  #200

tickerguy wrote in post #16887847 (external link)
So spaketh the CEOs of dozens of car makers on October 1st, 1908.

Not really. Henry Ford didn't really do anything artistic. He just made cheap basic cars really quickly. He cut a lot of corners and cranked out the same exact product over and over and over. Chopping costs is REALLY easy in those situations.

Can't really do that with custom product. Notice it ddidn't work out for Sears, Walmart, et al. You just can't put photos on a conveyor.

Of course this is also why I never even looked at stock as a way to make money. It's been a crapshoot all along. The odds just keep getting worse.

Shoot corporate/B2B or private individual sessions to make money. Dont throw stuff out there and HOPE someone finds it, loves it, and pays your price for it.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
May 11, 2014 11:48 |  #201

Oh I disagree entirely. The analogy is perfectly-apt.

The car-makers of the time that Ford put out of business employed skilled craftsmen and lots of them. Hand-fitted and finished parts were the order of the day; each vehicle a literal hand-built masterpiece.

They were priced like it too. Just like photography was when you needed to own a few thousand in darkroom gear, it took a half-hour per FRAME to enlarge with dodging and burning + time in the tank, rinse and dry before you could evaluate your work and in addition you could only take 36 shots before you had to reload - never mind the cost of the film, paper and chemicals. You paid attention to exposure, composition and framing in those days because it was expensive to "spray and pray" never mind that your camera would be empty in 6 seconds if you did that (at least mine was) and an EMPTY camera captured nothing. Finally autofocus was a JOKE compared to what we have now; tracking motion was flatly-impossible across multiple exposures in a series -- even the best cameras couldn't manage that. Photography was very crafty back then and I shot a hell of a lot of film and enlarged a lot of prints over the years. It was even more-so when cameras were single-shot devices with plates instead of rolls of film. The limitations of film ISO made things even more-challenging for sports photography, especially indoors.

Ford figured out how to put the frame of the car on a conveyor belt and give a nominally-unskilled person enough training to do one job repetitively and do it correctly, leading ultimately to an assembled product. ("Tighten this bolt to this specification.") They did so. His vehicles were not built as individual masterpieces by skilled craftsmen, but they sold for a tiny fraction of the price of the others.

The others all went out of business almost-instantly because the buyers determined that "something that will go from A -> B is sufficient for my needs; I don't need to drive a masterpiece" was a better bargain overall. Note that even the customers who COULD afford to buy the other maker's cars, and there were enough of those people to keep the other makes in business until Ford came along, decided that they'd rather keep their money and just get from A -> B inexpensively.

Well?


Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,063 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 171
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
May 11, 2014 16:13 |  #202

tickerguy wrote in post #16897081 (external link)
Oh I disagree entirely. The analogy is perfectly-apt.

Not really, today many amateurs are using exactly the same gear as the people who rely on photography for their living. They use the same processing equipment with the same fuel/transport costs. Many have the same websites to promote themselves. No one is cutting corners, amateurs just don't rely on their pics for their income.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
May 11, 2014 16:58 |  #203

h14nha wrote in post #16897498 (external link)
Not really, today many amateurs are using exactly the same gear as the people who rely on photography for their living. They use the same processing equipment with the same fuel/transport costs. Many have the same websites to promote themselves. No one is cutting corners, amateurs just don't rely on their pics for their income.

It's also not the same photo being cranked out over and over and over and over, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ryanshoots
Senior Member
344 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2010
     
May 12, 2014 16:00 |  #204

h14nha wrote in post #16897498 (external link)
Not really, today many amateurs are using exactly the same gear as the people who rely on photography for their living. They use the same processing equipment with the same fuel/transport costs. Many have the same websites to promote themselves. No one is cutting corners, amateurs just don't rely on their pics for their income.

I think the analogy is correct. It's Ford all over again for the transition from film to digital. Now that we're digital, millions are able to replicate Ford as well, so now it's hard for Ford to make a living too.

No one is clamoring to get into the dvd rental business these days. Lots of people don't realize certain areas of photography are just as lucrative as the dvd rental business.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
May 12, 2014 21:32 |  #205

h14nha wrote in post #16883673 (external link)
The thread was about someone who had a business, asking someone else who also had a business, to provide free labour for them. I can't think of any business strategy that can sustain that. If it were to lead to paid work in future then yes, but this was a dead end street.
I then posted that I had been an accomplice to this, no more though. Like I posted earlier today, many people enjoy building/plumbing/pain​ting etc, I suspect none of them would offer to paint McDonalds for the kudos of saying they had.

Well said. To continue the analogy, I too would never paint a McDonalds "for credit/acknowledgement​." I have often, however, done construction work on the homes of disabled veterans, victims of natural disasters, etc. Similarly, I would not give my photos to most for-profit corporations for free unless I believed that the credit I received would yield substantial monetary returns in the future. I have, however, given the right to use photos to friends, informal blogs, churches, and educational institutions. The difference in each latter case is that such actions make me feel that I am giving something of value in exchange for something of value. I think a lot of photogs let their egos get in the way of evaluating the worth of "credit." No one eating at Pizza Hut is going to take the time to write down the name of the photographer who took the photo above their table, look him up on the internet, and pay for his services. But I guess it's cool to be able to point out to your friends that you basically decorated the place...sufficient enticement for some.


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Buchinger
Senior Member
467 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Mar 2010
     
May 13, 2014 23:05 |  #206

I was also contacted by one of these companies. Turned a few photos I'd already been paid to take into a few hundred bucks I never would have made. Everything is a negotiation and trade off. I'd rather make something off images I would never sell than stubbornly sit there and say "IF someone else wanted these, I COULD get $X"... Was I underpaid - yep. Has anyone else wanted to license the photos yet? Nope! Have I used the 430 EXII that was purchased with that cash flow to make money? Yep!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Cream of the Crop
9,929 posts
Likes: 48668
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
     
May 19, 2014 06:08 |  #207

gjl711 wrote in post #16852708 (external link)
Just look at the images being shared here and many other share sites. The quality of work has improved dramatically and much of it is from people who make their living doing something else and photography is done for fun. There will always be a need for professionals but with access to such large libraries of images from folks who would be happy to see them published even for no compensation, the market is going to change and it will become more difficult for those trying to make a living from photography.

So very true. Affordable good gear has changed the landscape for photography business.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Mar 2012
     
May 21, 2014 16:59 |  #208

Shameful for those begging for freebies and for those giving away those freebies. Only real morons would give away their work so that the local franchise can get free merchandise, local marketing firm can get the contract, major brand can spend on helping local franchise on remodeling. Its a win win situation for 3 other entities other than the photographer.


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
May 28, 2014 13:32 |  #209

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16852682 (external link)
Don't take away from the very talented amateurs out there who can turn out professional quality work but don't need the money. ;) That's part of the problem out there right now.

It's the same problem for male porn actors.

If you know there's a lot of amateurs who are willing to do your "job" for free, don't get into the business without having what it takes.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Goldmember
Avatar
1,069 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 152
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
May 28, 2014 13:43 |  #210

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16936201 (external link)
It's the same problem for male porn actors.

If you know there's a lot of amateurs who are willing to do your "job" for free, don't get into the business without having what it takes.

Like a big.....lense?!?;)


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24,649 views & 0 likes for this thread
Large design firms don't "buy" photographs?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is David_Wales
927 guests, 297 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.