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 28 Oct 2014 (Tuesday) 15:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

ARE YOU FED UP YET?

 
Road ­ Dog
Goldmember
1,203 posts
Gallery: 132 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 646
Joined Jul 2014
Location: St. Augustine, Florida
     
Oct 29, 2014 13:38 |  #31

JeffreyG wrote in post #17239835 (external link)
I gave the political solution in post #14. You just have to get laws passed closing the market to amateurs. That is how medicine, law, dentistry etc work.

And before you scoff, note that hairdressing is a closed market in most US states. No kidding, doing hairstyling without credentials is illegal in a lot of places.

Ah, I see. So you want to legislate art.

That's insane, but okay.

How do you propose doing that?

And, please, keep in mind that photography is hardly the life-impacting endeavor that things like medicine, dental work or the law can be. Even hairstyling is something which should be regulated. After all, every hair stylist I've ever met uses implements which can cause severe injury to a client.

What injury is caused by poor photographs?

No, "licensing" something which is, at its core, an art form is patently ridiculous...


Just shut up and smile...
My Current Line-Up

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,513 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 586
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 29, 2014 13:58 |  #32

Road Dog wrote in post #17240059 (external link)
Ah, I see. So you want to legislate art.

That's insane, but okay.

How do you propose doing that?

And, please, keep in mind that photography is hardly the life-impacting endeavor that things like medicine, dental work or the law can be. Even hairstyling is something which should be regulated. After all, every hair stylist I've ever met uses implements which can cause severe injury to a client.

What injury is caused by poor photographs?

No, "licensing" something which is, at its core, an art form is patently ridiculous...

I don't advocate this. I was just pointing out out professions place barriers to entry in order to establish an effective price floor. There is no such thing as a $400 Craigslist surgeon.

But I think hairdressers and photographers should operate under simple caveat emptor rules. Get a bad haircut or portrait, live and learn.

But people seemed to want practical advice on how to close the market to $400 Craigslist photographers, and so there it is. Get an industry trade group going, buy some legislators and get them to pass a bill closing your profession.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhidbeyHiker
Goldmember
Avatar
1,889 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2622
Joined Dec 2013
     
Oct 29, 2014 15:28 |  #33

JeffreyG wrote in post #17240087 (external link)
I don't advocate this. I was just pointing out out professions place barriers to entry in order to establish an effective price floor. There is no such thing as a $400 Craigslist surgeon.

But I think hairdressers and photographers should operate under simple caveat emptor rules. Get a bad haircut or portrait, live and learn.

But people seemed to want practical advice on how to close the market to $400 Craigslist photographers, and so there it is. Get an industry trade group going, buy some legislators and get them to pass a bill closing your profession.


As two other people have said, hairdressers can cause physical harm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kacebelle
Senior Member
Avatar
305 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Cowtown, TX
     
Oct 29, 2014 16:05 as a reply to  @ WhidbeyHiker's post |  #34

Just to play devil's advocate, given the huge inflow of amatuer newborn photographers, there is huge risk for injury due to inexperienced and untrained photographers.

I come across at least one new photographer on a daily basis who posts photos of their 1st or 2nd newborn session where they are attempting a pose that is meant to be a composite, but because they know jack about photography, they think baby just sits in that froggy pose all by himself.


My Stuff | My flickr (external link) |My Website (external link)| My Blog (external link) | My Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,513 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 586
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 29, 2014 16:18 |  #35

WhidbeyHiker wrote in post #17240220 (external link)
As two other people have said, hairdressers can cause physical harm.

Yeahbut.....as they say.

Getting barrier to entry laws passed is really easy when you are a surgeon or a lawyer because you can make the case that incompetence leads to serious issues like death, disfigurement, prison, loss of assets and things like that. There is generally pretty broad support for these kinds of laws.

The same laws are tougher for sure for someone like a photographer. Nobody dies from getting a bad picture taken just like nobody dies from a bad haircut.

People can and do get hurt by photographers though....sports shooters (for instance) are in some ways a real menace on the sidelines of a football game.

And I guess a hairstylist could injure a customer...but if you look at what they are really taught and how the laws work it's pretty clear that most hair cutting barrier to entry laws are more about protecting the stylists income and less about protecting the customer.

As an example, the vast majority of states have haircutting requirements that pretty much ignore all of the kinds of processes that are common for black women. And if you want to get an injured or poor looking customer due to incompetence, those are probably the processes (straightening, weaves etc) where it is most likely.

But that's all a digression. If you can't get popular support for a barrier to entry law then you need a lot of money to buy a lot of politicians. Or you can improve your product, find clients that have money and interest and just ignore the bottom end of the market. After a good rant, that's what most people who come here to whine about Craigslist photographers do.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the ­ flying ­ moose
Goldmember
1,637 posts
Likes: 76
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 29, 2014 16:58 |  #36

JeffreyG wrote in post #17240304 (external link)
And I guess a hairstylist could injure a customer...but if you look at what they are really taught and how the laws work it's pretty clear that most hair cutting barrier to entry laws are more about protecting the stylists income and less about protecting the customer.

You've obviously never seen the damage and burns caused by a hairdressers not knowing how to deal with the chemicals used to dye and bleach hair properly. Laws are in place to product the customer too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,513 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 586
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 29, 2014 17:12 |  #37

the flying moose wrote in post #17240408 (external link)
You've obviously never seen the damage and burns caused by a hairdressers not knowing how to deal with the chemicals used to dye and bleach hair properly. Laws are in place to product the customer too.

No, I understand that. All of these laws have some practical aspects and some protectionism aspects. It isn't black and white, but I can make a stronger case for surgeons than I can for hairdressers.

Realistically damages from hairdressers can probably be handled by torts as they are for so many other things. But I can argue the other way as well. And it isn't just hairdressers. In Oregon and New Jersey gasoline can only be dispensed by experts. Self-service is not allowed, as they rightly note that gasoline is an incredibly dangerous fluid with a very low flash point. Is this a well reasoned safety measure, or a job protection scheme?

The real point I'm making is to perhaps encourage person making the usual Craigslist whine to actually think about what it takes to legally stop incompetent professionals vs. just letting the market sort them out. After all....customers can and should check a portfolio.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhidbeyHiker
Goldmember
Avatar
1,889 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2622
Joined Dec 2013
     
Oct 29, 2014 17:54 |  #38

I work in a profession that requires a professional license, for very good reasons. I see no compelling reason why anyone should ever have to have a license to use a camera or offer photographic services, other than a business license.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 288
Joined Nov 2010
     
Oct 29, 2014 18:18 |  #39

The only protection licensing the photographic industry would give would be to give protection to those people who have photography businesses who can't handle having a free market and competition. IMHO those people don't need protecting... in fact they need deserve to go out of business. Can't stand the heat... find a new career.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
18,391 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5855
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Oct 29, 2014 19:09 |  #40

JeffreyG wrote in post #17240434 (external link)
Realistically damages from hairdressers can probably be handled by torts as they are for so many other things.

Isn't it better to have requirements in place in advance so that clients' scalps won't get chemical burns? You seem to think hairdressers do nothing but cut hair. I suppose that's a man's point of view, but many female clients use services that involve chemicals and heat. A bad haircut isn't the worst that can happen.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,513 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 586
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 29, 2014 19:48 |  #41

OhLook wrote in post #17240599 (external link)
Isn't it better to have requirements in place in advance so that clients' scalps won't get chemical burns? You seem to think hairdressers do nothing but cut hair. I suppose that's a man's point of view, but many female clients use services that involve chemicals and heat. A bad haircut isn't the worst that can happen.

You don't sue the hairdresser that burns you. That violates the first rule of law school, which is that lawyers never, ever sue people that don't have buckets of money.

You sue the company that recklessly sold the dangerous product to people with no training or knowledge. The threat of this forces companies making and selling dangerous hair care products enforce their own standards for training and professionalism. That's how markets are regulated via torts rather than via regulation.

Note that this is just an example and I'm not making a specific proposal, but there are all kinds of things that work this way. I think you are getting too hung up on the hairstylist example. I was just trying to show that not all barrier to entry requirements are as clear cut as surgeons (for example). If you want to argue about a weak case, take up the professional gasoline dispensing people in Oregon or New Jersey. If gas jockeys can protect a market, then I guess photographers might be able to talk a legislature into the same kind of a deal.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 29, 2014 21:27 |  #42

To the OP: you are whining about new people in photography businesses but it sounds from the background toy provided that you did the same thing 5 years ago when dslrs got to a high level and good prices. Pot and the kettle...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 29, 2014 21:31 |  #43

Luckless wrote in post #17239895 (external link)
Hairdressing also has some risks due to health issues for people who aren't properly trained/certified. And is a little less open than photography or website design.

Requiring people to be state licensed will happen when there is enough history of customers being severely harmed either physically or financially, e.g. doctors, lawyers, engineers, hairdressers, surveyors. Getting fair quality photos won't get the interest of any legislator.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
18,391 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5855
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Oct 29, 2014 21:32 |  #44

JeffreyG wrote in post #17240674 (external link)
You don't sue the hairdresser that burns you. That violates the first rule of law school, which is that lawyers never, ever sue people that don't have buckets of money.

Suits are brought that seek injunctive relief, aren't they?

Anyway, I don't know why suing entered the discussion. By analogy with suing the manufacturers of salon products: If you're stabbed, you don't sue the knife manufacturer. ("Your company's knives are too sharp! You don't keep them out of the hands of violent individuals!") We were talking about safety and licensure, not about going to court.

To the OP: I think local conditions where you live have a large effect on the market for photography. Expecting small-town and rural people to pay big-city prices for wedding pictures may not be realistic.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
njstacker22
Senior Member
Avatar
703 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 93
Joined Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, NJ
     
Oct 30, 2014 09:14 |  #45

JeffreyG wrote in post #17240674 (external link)
You don't sue the hairdresser that burns you. That violates the first rule of law school, which is that lawyers never, ever sue people that don't have buckets of money.

I don't know where you're from but hairdressers around here DO have buckets of money! :lol:


Sony A7ii [Sony FE 16-35mm f/4] [Sony FE 28-70mm] [Rokinon 135mm F2] [Sony 50mm 1.8]
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/djbigley/ (external link)

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

7,106 views & 0 likes for this thread
ARE YOU FED UP YET?
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 Jtg6
865 guests, 303 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.