Ways to make money

Does distance really work. I might look into the evening courses.
 
These short courses arnt in bristol but bath still might xonsider it
 
my bad - because bath is a really long way from stoke gifford, you couldnt possibly be expected to drive 19 miles down the A4 to do a course - maybe if we try hard enough we can get a pro to come to your house and teach you everything about photography without you even having to get out of bed :shrug:

Also course in bristol ( I should have realised it woul be far too much effort for you to return to the master page)- http://bristol.floodlight.co.uk/bri...g-your-eye/16180339/34257505/course-info.html

Google - use it , because I'm done helping your ungrateful, uncooperative, un motivated (and doubtless numerous other words begining with un ) arse.

To be honest if you can't even get your act together to find your own course, how the hell you think you are going to succesfully run a business is beyond me
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Google - use it , because I'm done helping your ungrateful, uncooperative, un motivated (and doubtless numerous other words begining with un ) arse.

To be honest if you can't even get your act together to find your own course, how the hell you think you are going to succesfully run a business is beyond me
Click to expand...

I'm with Pete on this one. I've kept tabs on this thread and have read all the advice and info the OP has been given (including in some small part by myself).

Not once has the OP thanked anyone, but instead has seen fit to, at best, poo poo it.

Ive been self employed for the past 11 years and feel fairly qualified to know what it takes to run a successful business....... determination, hard work, drive, initiative, common sense, good people skills, and a bit more besides.

From reading the OP's responses to advice and the questions he is asking and the train of thought he is taking, none of the above skills are anywhere near in evidence.

In summary, I dont think the OP deserves any more help until there is a change of approach and furthermore, I dont think the professional photographers in the Bristol area will have anything to worry about until this change happens.

.......... and for the reasons above, I'm out
 
Well by my reckoning these threads have been going on for at least 6 months, all with the same questions.

Those questions are then answered, thanks rarely given, and frankly it's a Herculean task to even understand the OP's posts due to the grammar, spelling and text-speak.

None of the advice given is followed, and the OP can't be arsed to do any legwork himself. I'd expect, and receive, better from my 9 year-old daughter.

So, like Nigel above, I'm out.
 
^^ what Guy said. TBH it strikes me as the best way to for you make money from your photography would be to sell your camera ;)
 
big soft moose said:
really - how hard did you try

http://www.cityofbristol.ac.uk/courses/details/photography-0002?

I found that and the other 8 courses in photography that city of bristol college offers in less than 5 minuites using google.

Strikes me you want everything on a plate - but life isnt like that , get off your arse and apply yourself
Click to expand...

BSM: Yep, those courses are on the college web site but if you ring to get information they'll tell you that they're not running them due to lack of take-up. There is one course running but as Ian has said in his reply to you it's full time Monday - Friday :shrug:
 
Seeing as we've arrived at introductory photography courses and learning the basics, this really doesn't belong in the business section anymore. You may get "nicer" replies if you ask about all this stuff in the basics section.
 
yeah but as i said in my later reply theres also a bunch of short evening courses running at city of bath, and others in bristol (total google time maybe 10 minutes)

my point was that ian hasnt made any effort at all to find a course - what he means when he says he looked but couldnt find any is that he posted a thread asking about them but no one led him to them by the hand.

He says he wants to learn , but makes zero effort to do so - when i was starting out I travelled allover the country to go on courses - Ian can't even be arsed to go to bath.

If you want something in this life you've got to make it happen yourself, sitting back and waiting for fairy godmother to magic it for you doesnt work too well
 
Mustardpics said:
On a separate point, I see from his website that Ian a member of the SWPP - this goes to show what a shallow organisation the SWPP is and how meaningless their logo is. IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

What's the problem with offering training and personal development to aspiring photographers?
 
I also pointed you towards Gloucestershire college offering adult evening courses last time you asked that question, but I guess that was ignored too.. And if Bath is too far for you go go, I'm guessing Gloucester would be way out of the equation also.
 
colintjones said:
What's the problem with offering training and personal development to aspiring photographers?
Click to expand...


nothing at all, but maybe you (as the societies) should consider not allowing 'aspiring photographers' to use your logo to imply some form of professional validation of their work (as many do).

but thats another thread
 
boyfalldown said:
nothing at all, but maybe you (as the societies) should consider not allowing 'aspiring photographers' to use your logo to imply some form of professional validation of their work (as many do).

but thats another thread
Click to expand...

Radiohead said:
Oh I think you know that's the exact opposite of what was meant.....
Click to expand...

Facebook likey type thing!!!!!
 
boyfalldown said:
nothing at all, but maybe you (as the societies) should consider not allowing 'aspiring photographers' to use your logo to imply some form of professional validation of their work (as many do).

but thats another thread
Click to expand...

I'm a member of the RYA (Royal Yachting Association) and can display their logo. I didn't need qualifications (although I have many) or to show competency when I joined.

Many members are very competent photographers, that do not have it within their business plan to gain qualification, though we always try to encourage photographers to go down the qualification route. If members wish to go down the qualifications route, another logo is available displaying that they are a 'qualified member', otherwise they are free to display the standard logo to show they are a member of our organisation.

Hope this helps

Colin :)
 
TCR4x4 said:
I also pointed you towards Gloucestershire college offering adult evening courses last time you asked that question, but I guess that was ignored too.. And if Bath is too far for you go go, I'm guessing Gloucester would be way out of the equation also.
Click to expand...

personally i don't think he's for real - probably a previously banned member back taking the P - but i'm done with him either way
 
colintjones said:
I'm a member of the RYA (Royal Yachting Association) and can display their logo. I didn't need qualifications (although I have many) or to show competency when I joined.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure of the relevance. I'm a member of the BHPA British hang and paragliding association), so what? Are you suggesting now the SWPP is a sporting organisation. A key difference, as far as I know is both the BHPA and the RYA have legal responsibility delegated to them from the relevant government bodies.


colintjones said:
Many members are very competent photographers, that do not have it within their business plan to gain qualification, though we always try to encourage photographers to go down the qualification route. If members wish to go down the qualifications route, another logo is available displaying that they are a 'qualified member', otherwise they are free to display the standard logo to show they are a member of our organisation.
Click to expand...

but many members are also 'aspiring photographers' who, as I'm sure you well know, use your logo to imply some sort of professional qualification the simply don't have. Why not prevent that? with the best will in the world you can hardly describe the member in this thread as competent, but you're happy to lend him some legitimacy and put your name to his work.

colintjones said:
Hope this helps

Colin :)
Click to expand...

not really
 
Last edited:
No not a sporting organisation, my reference was to the fact that all members of the RYA (and BHPA as fair as I can tell) can enjoy the benefits of the association with out prejudice or discrimination.

I personally haven't seen the OP work, but they are free to use the benefits of membership that include use of our logo, seminars, mentoring etc.
 
colintjones said:
I personally haven't seen the OP work, but they are free to use the benefits of membership that include use of our logo, seminars, mentoring etc.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the issue. One I suspect you're aware of and duck often. By using your logo 'aspiring photographers' can imply a degree of legitimacy and competence from an organisation that has,in reality, given neither. Why not do something about that?
 
colintjones said:
No not a sporting organisation, my reference was to the fact that all members of the RYA (and BHPA as fair as I can tell) can enjoy the benefits of the association with out prejudice or discrimination.

I personally haven't seen the OP work, but they are free to use the benefits of membership that include use of our logo, seminars, mentoring etc.
Click to expand...

If a yachtsman advertised their services as a day/costal/offshore etc skipper without qualifications, the RYA would be all over their arse (as might the MCA) whether they had the logo up or not.

If a hobby yachtsman wanted to state their membership of the association there wouldn't be a problem, but then again they aren't using the logo to promote their services.

The difference is that you are trying to pass yourselves off as a professional association and yet you let any old TD&H join and even worse use your logo as a mark of quality.

Time to admit to the world that The Societies is just a self/mutual promotion club at best. At worst, it's a money spinner for a certain family.
 
The point to me is, an average joe will see the logo and think, " oh look this person is a member of a prestigious society, they must be a great photographer and must have worked hard at their craft to gain this award"..

It's quite clear the op is neither and IMO its akin to false advertising.

Most normal people won't realise it actually means nothing, its just a logo you can buy or nick off the Internet.
 
boyfalldown said:
And therein lies the issue. One I suspect you're aware of and duck often. By using your logo 'aspiring photographers' can imply a degree of legitimacy and competence from an organisation that has,in reality, given neither. Why not do something about that?
Click to expand...

This^

It's simple enough to create an organisation that'll train and support, without allowing the 'badge of support' until they're qualified.

Just buying what many percieve to be a badge of qualification when it's nothing of the sort is morally substandard and we all know it is.

What the organisations fail to realise is that they'll never become the 'respected professional body' they seek to be until they can convince genuinely 'professional' photographers that they are on their side.

So how about:
  • Stop allowing any GWC to display your logo - as long as they pay their membership.
  • Only allow 'qualified' status when someone has shown a broad portfolio (not just half a dozen 'favourites') - I'm sick of seeing 'prize winning' and 'qualified' badges attached to frankly crap work
  • Properly mediate between photographers and customers - stop defending charlatans
  • Properly promote professional photography standards at the target customer groups (stop marketing your value to photographers and start marketing it to customers - then we'll believe you have customers interests at heart)

It'd be easy to become the Professional body we'd need to belong to; rather than one seen by photographers outside it as a joke :).
 
Phil V said:
This^
What the organisations fail to realise is that they'll never become the 'respected professional body' they seek to be until they can convince genuinely 'professional' photographers that they are on their side.
Click to expand...

I find that comment unfounded and quite frankly rude, to the many members who are highly respected photographers
 
colintjones said:
I find that comment unfounded and quite frankly rude, to the many members who are highly respected photographers
Click to expand...

Do you? Frankly I find that the way your club is set up is far worse than anything that Phil has implied.

Just remind me why you had to bury the BPPA brand again?
 
DemiLion said:
Just remind me why you had to bury the BPPA brand again?
Click to expand...

:thinking: We didn't "bury" it, there are references all around the website, in our magazine etc. to BPPA :thinking:

We did however split it up in to more specific Societies. We found that whilst wedding and portrait photographers were getting referrals from swpp.co.uk as the site was heavily keyworded to weddings and portraits, photographers that specialise in other categories such as nature, commercial, sports photographers etc. weren't getting as many referrals hence the reason for creating more specific websites in order to reflect our membership and broaden then scope of potential clients for members.
 
colintjones said:
I find that comment unfounded and quite frankly rude, to the many members who are highly respected photographers
Click to expand...

Really?

Its kind of rude to these many highly respected photographers that a GWC can pay his subs and display a logo in the same way as they can, which of course implies, no matter how much you skirt the issue, a large degree of legitamacy and professional oversight. Neither of which is true but the average member of the public doesn't know that.

Why not have either a training badge for the GWC who feels they must display something (I wonder how many would choose to?) or not allow them to display anything until their work has been assessed as of a suitable standard?

I suspect the answer to that question is because the fall in membership, and the associated loss of revenue would be unacceptable to you.
 
Can I just interject with a point of reference - that point being my own perception as someone who is a hobbyist with no affiliation or knowledge of this 'so called' professional body. I don't even know which one is being discussed here - SWPP or RPS.:shake:

I've been watching this thread, and I frankly can't understand why people are bothering to give advice which is plainly being unheeded, and asked by a rank amateur with no intention of learning for himself. A rank amateur who, in fact, makes it perfectly plain that he's only interested in making money - probably by the quickest route possible and by potentially spoiling a lot of peoples dreams in the process.

Then I visit his website and see front page logos which make me immediately think that this guy is a valued pro. A hero of the professional photography world, who is obviously renowned for his abilities. If I were clueless about photography, I'd immediately consider employing this guys services for a wedding or such like based on this sort of thing.

Any 'professional body' which allows you to use their logo commercially simply by payment of a joining fee, without any audit of the persons capability is frankly a joke.

In a wider sense, it's just like the FSB (federation of small businesses) who actively encourage new members to display the FSB logo on business stationary to give credibility. Credibility for who? The new business or the FSB? Truth is that neither are credible just because they can pay/receive a membership fee.

To give a better example, you don't get a Kite mark for a product, or TuV approval in the EU or a EuroNCAP award for vehicle safety just by paying to join a club.
 
FourRingCircus said:
Can I just interject with a point of reference - that point being my own perception as someone who is a hobbyist with no affiliation or knowledge of this 'so called' professional body. I don't even know which one is being discussed here - SWPP or RPS.:shake:

.
Click to expand...

SWPP - the RPS are a legit body and the OP is using their logo is more than a little misleading. Although it doesnt take a great deal to acheive a LRPS (Licenciate the lowest grading , the next too are Associate and fellow) I distinctly doubt that the OP has.
 
The OP asks about 'Ways to make money'. How's this for an answer then:

Start-up a club/society and give pseudo-credence to any useless TDH who will pay you £99 a year.

It's bound to be more profitable than taking crap photos.:LOL:
 
FourRingCircus said:
The OP asks about 'Ways to make money'. How's this for an answer then:

Start-up a club/society and give pseudo-credence to any useless TDH who will pay you £99 a year.

It's bound to be more profitable than taking crap photos.:LOL:
Click to expand...

I'd laugh if it wasn't true
 
He could call it Toggers Without Acceptable Talent - and the slogan could be " proud to be a ... "
 
big soft moose said:
the RPS are a legit body and the OP is using their logo is more than a little misleading. Although it doesnt take a great deal to acheive a LRPS (Licenciate the lowest grading , the next too are Associate and fellow) I distinctly doubt that the OP has.
Click to expand...

By being a member of the RPS, it appears he is well within his right to display their logo.
 
I'm really kind of impressed by the smoke, mirrors and delaying tactics you've used Colin, why not answer some of the legitimate concerns raised by photographers in this thread about the organisation you represent? (Thats the SWPP)
 
I have two points to make on the discussions in this thread

1. I think the OP has shown the talent, either knowingly or unknowingly, for being a thread-starting miscreant. He has displayed very little social etiquette in this thread (and indeed in others he has started) and does not seem to be able to take advice in any form. Until that changes, I would not be surprised if very little further help is offered.

The thread has moved away somewhat to be a discussion on the relative merits or otherwise of the SWPP. This leads me to my second point

2. For any real credibility, the SWPP should consider membership along the lines of what it takes to be Gas Safety Registered (or CORGI registered of old). Being a registered member of the SWPP should be based on the ability to carry out assignments to a consistent and professional level, where competence is inspected and assessed regularly.

This, rather than the ability to pay annual subs, should then set the individual apart and the SWPP would actually mean something.

As an aside, the Gas Safety Register organisation can impose sanctions on its members for failing to deliver the expected standards. That applied to the SWPP would focus the attention somewhat :D
 
Last edited:
nigpd said:
For any real credibility, the SWPP should consider membership along the lines of what it takes to be Gas Safety Registered (or CORGI registered of old).
Click to expand...

The reason for the Gas Safety Register is to show a list of registered gas engineers, this is due to the fact the Gas industry is a regulated market, where as the photography market isn't.
 
colintjones said:
I find that comment unfounded and quite frankly rude, to the many members who are highly respected photographers
Click to expand...

I never said that there aren't many respected photographers attached to your organisation, so let's keep a clear head here Colin.

There are however thousands of photographers who wouldn't join your organisation or any other for precisely the reasons I mentioned.

If you want a sensible discussion, you could answer those points rather than trying to discredit my post with an unfounded hissyfit.

Modern organisations realise that the customer is at the heart of everything they do, and it appears that your 'customers' are photographers. I would only be happy to join an organisation that put photography 'customers' at the heart of their plans. And I'm guessing, from the many threads regarding the current crop of 'professional bodies' I'm not alone. I have no axe to grind, and I'm not singling out your organisation.


Happy to oblige.
 
Phil V said:
So how about:
  • Stop allowing any GWC to display your logo - as long as they pay their membership.
  • Only allow 'qualified' status when someone has shown a broad portfolio (not just half a dozen 'favourites') - I'm sick of seeing 'prize winning' and 'qualified' badges attached to frankly crap work
  • Properly mediate between photographers and customers - stop defending charlatans
  • Properly promote professional photography standards at the target customer groups (stop marketing your value to photographers and start marketing it to customers - then we'll believe you have customers interests at heart)
Click to expand...

1. Again many members do not wish to go down the qualifications route, it is not our intentions to discriminate against these members, so this benefit of membership will be continuing in its current form.
2. To gain a qualification with us, you need to supply 20 images that are assessed by 5 judges. An overall verdict is taken to whether the applicant has passes of failed.
3. We do mediate on a regular basis between photographers and their clients, before we can pass any judgement we always ask to see full contracts and all the images taken on the day.
4. We have been making changes in the ways we promote our Qualified Members to the general public. If you have any specific suggestions please let me know so I can look in to them.

Hope this covers your points. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top