Photography, hobby or for profit?

When four of us were hiking this very long mountain trail the other day, "Fred" saw me carrying my Canon 20D and saw me shooting a few frames. Then, as kind of a one-upmanship comment, he whipped out the tiny digital camera that he was using. It was some shirtpocket size point and shoot thing with seven megapixels. I could tell by the extreme flatness of the camera that it would have poor aperture control (in fact it had none). Of course, he was going on about how great it was, yada yada.

I asked him if it would shoot RAW files, and of course it did not. Then he was pestering me about why RAW files were superior to JPEG files. I told him that with JPEG, you have to let the camera use just one set of parameters and process the image and compress it all in one saving step. If the parameters that you chose were suboptimal, then you are stuck with it. With RAW, you can tweak and re-tweak and re-tweak all parameters at the time of RAW conversion when you are home at the computer. Further, the algorithms used (e.g. color noise reduction) in the camera are fine, but they are limited since they have to work so quickly and with such a low power usage. In a computer, you have more horsepower and more resources in a programmable processor, so things like color noise reduction can work better. I asked him if his camera could take a polarizing filter, and it could not.

I explained two or three minutes worth, but I was so tired from the trail miles that I had little ability to argue with the man. His mind was made up. I asked him if he understood dynamic range, and he had a basic engineer's understanding until I started describing dynamic range in terms of five stops or eight stops or more. He asked me to define a stop. I told him that a stop was a basic photographic term that he might want to learn. One stop brighter means twice as much light. Anyway, he had a bit of attitude.

So, when I got home, I sent him a link to a good web article that explains all of these terms, how to measure dynamic range, stops, and all of that good stuff that most of us kind of take for granted. Then I sent out a zip file of some shots that I had taken on the special hike. They were reduced for screen viewing and compressed. That went to each of the hike participants.

Then, apparently, Fred started reviewing his own photos. Quickly he discovered that he had accidentally set his camera parameters for Super Vivid Color, so he captured all of the fall colors and views, but with huge exaggeration, and he was not happy about that.

Today, I got an email from him, and he was asking me to send him full resolution files of everything that I had shot. Ha! Fat chance!

I replied that I was not in the habit of releasing full resolution files of anything that I shoot, except for a reasonable price.

I didn't expect to hear anymore from him.

Then he replied that he expected me to send him the files out of the goodness of my heart, yada yada... He had to have something to put in his archives.

I replied that the free screen-size images might work. Otherwise, I can furnish photo prints. Then I named my size options, mounting options, and price for each one.

Now, I really don't expect to hear more.

---Bob Gross---

Good story Bob

P&S's are quite tricky I went out to purchase one the other day , and could not figure out what the different "modes" were. "What the heck is the difference between the box with the mountains and the box with the palm trees?" I asked, and according to the man at Best Buy one is for landscape, and the other is for sceneries aparently...

poor fred, give him some sympathy.
lol

thanks for they story, i enjoy reading these types of threads

I don't get how this story has to do with photography for hobby or proffit..

i'm a point and shoot jedi

Fred doesn't understand that I do photography for profit. He thinks that I do it purely as a hobby. If photographers always give away their stuff, then everybody will learn to expect it for free. If others learn to pay $25 or $50 or $100 for something, they appreciate it more.

---Bob Gross---

I took it that he won't share his originals, even the throw aways, with anyone not paying. Esp. not people he grew to dislike because they didn't recognize the superiority of DSLR or because of a personality clash, sounds like.

I too didn't get the point of the post. But then, my originals (those good enough to post somewhere) are freely downloadable from my unsecured smugmug site - a very hobbiest thing to do. Also; a lot of people still outgun my photos with their P&S due to superior instinct and an excellent knowlege of what they've got.

Well, I've got a 20D and a couple of nice lenses (not the real expensive ones though) and some other gear... but I'm far from a professional. Anyway I also wouldn't give away photos to people I don't know and who are not sympathetic.

I just hope to earn enough money with my stock program to be able to pay for my gear (not only the body, lenses and other stuff in my backpack, but also a computer and lots of hard disk storage). Does that make someone semi-pro? No, I'm still a hobbyist.

PeteR.

Good story Bob.
I do travel and landscape photography, and market my work in local galleries, coffee shops, bookstores, etc. I have a collection I did this year from a photo tour of Italy that I have been marketing. My sister was looking through my proofs binder, and saying "Ooh I want that one, and this one, and . . ."
Then she proceeded to make a list, and ask me to copy all of those to a disk for her so that she can get some prints done for her office. She wanted full-res, original files, that she could walk away with, take to a photo-lab and have some large prints made. People have no concept at all of this business, the value of what they are asking for, or how messed up it is to ask for such things. They wouldn't dream of asking a sculptor to give them a carving, or a painter to give them an original oil for their office, would they? I suppose some would.

I'd have sent him 32-bit files.

PhotosGuy wrote:
I'd have sent him 32-bit files.

Nah, a PDF slideshow, with little bitty pictures that rotate real fast

Most people just don't see these photos as an item to purchase. It is a computer file, and people feel they should just be given them. There are so many people that will simply give away their work, that it becomes difficult to decide when to sell, and when to give. I have never sold any of my work(none really good enough to), but I am going to start being more cautious about releasing photos to others in full-size now because the less free work in circulation, the more valuable the work is. I do not make a living off photography, so every good photo I take, I feel proud of and want to share it with others.

I also think it is just hard to try to sell a photo to someone who sees it and thinks since they've already seen it, that it is theirs to keep. There is still a difficult deciding factor between when you should buy/sell, and when it's just something you wish to share with everyone.

Bob:
Good story.
My wife and I did some shooting for a friend who owns a kayak business. Shots were of customers in the various models of boats he has for sale. Everyone signed a model release to allow their photograps to be used either on the guy's website, flyers or print advertising.
Then we decided we'd see if we could sell some of the customers prints of their experience. (We were shooting for free in exchange for our friend's computer expertise). We did up a flyer, on regular paper stock, which contained several pictures of the kayakers, saying prints were available for purchase.
At one of the demos my friend held, a woman came up to me wielding one of the flyers and said "That's me! I'd like a copy of that picture."
I said sure, what size, etc., etc. She told me size ... I told her price. Her face dropped -- "But I thought I would get it for free," she says.
I said nope .... she says "but you're using my picture on advertisements." I informed her that she had signed a model release allowing this. She maintained she should have a free picture, handing me the flyer and saying she would take a copy at the same size as the flyer.
My next move ... tore up the flyer.
Ah well, one less sale.

cheers,
jim

I think this illustrates very well the pro vs. hobby mentality especailly the part about the free image files.

I am NOT a pro.. however I vlaue my full size images dearly,. and will not part with them.

And .. like the hobbiest,. NO ONE I know understands this.. I am sked for a "CD" of my images all the time ,. from freids,. family,. ex-girlfreinds,. etc.. and no matter how many times I explain it,. they allways seem to ask again.

No conversly,. I will offer free prints to freinds and family etc.. this means that they have to actuially tal\ke the time to look at my gallery and decide...

I'm going OT,. the point being that even as a "hobbiest' some of us do understand the value, and the importancve of maintaining ownership of the image files.

PhotosGuy wrote:
I'd have sent him 32-bit files.

Oh good,. or 16 bit .psd in three or four layers.. like 200MB each

just pic out some tossers from the cull and inflate em anyway,.. maybe even upsacle them to 3 times normal res