Should I work for free?????

simonbarker said:
I would argue entry level kit does a good enough job these days.
Click to expand...

body possibly - lens definitely not (plus if you are working proffesionally you should have back ups etc)
 
big soft moose said:
True but by the time i started out i was reasonably competent and had the kit to do a reasonable job , I wasn't using an entry level body with a kit lens
Click to expand...

I would also consider myself a competent photographer albeit landscape and architecture are my main interests and I can even turn a half decent portrait with time and I suspect my kit levels match your own but that doesn't mean I am ready to launch at least not without stabilisers ;)
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
If I was a professional photographer I would not be relying on persuading others not to work for free, in order to maintain my income and preserve the profession.
Click to expand...

seriously? you think anyones doing that?

sigh :(
 
StephenM said:
I'm a hobbyist, and photography (in general, without the definite article) has a value to me. I've paid money to buy photographs. Likewise, my photography has a value to me (both in intangible and tangible terms) and to others who have paid for my photographs.
Click to expand...
My original quote continued beyond the part you selected....
"To a hobbyist it doesn't have a value, it's a cost (in common the the vast majority of hobbies)".

So what is the "tangible value" of a photograph that publishers reject in favour of one they can use for nothing?

Bob
 
I didn't see anything in the unquoted part relevant to the question of whether a photograph had value. I can't put a figure on the tangible cost of a photograph, because it depends on a number of considerations specific to a photograph, the use it will be put to, and the person using it. All I can say is that if they are prepared to use it, it seems to me to imply that they would rather have it than not, and hence has a value to them. If the sole reason for rejecting one photograph in favour of a free one is the cost, then that to me implies that they saw the other has having a higher value, but, bluntly, were prepared to accept second best if it was free.

I personally don't like to encourage people to accept second best in anything unless they have no choice. People who use photographs are usually using them to make money for themselves, so how does making money from someone else's work without payment to them differ from other kinds of exploitation?
 
Last edited:
I did my first two weddings for free and now have 10 booked this year that aren't free, so, worked for me.

Thing is, the people who didn't pay, wouldn't have paid anyone anyway as they couldn't really afford it. So I didn't even do anyone out of a paid gig.

However, I was recently approached by a parenting magazine who wanted images to use and had "no budget for photography", to which I politely declined.
 
big soft moose said:
body possibly - lens definitely not (plus if you are working proffesionally you should have back ups etc)
Click to expand...

Certainly if you're being professional but for a lot of people as a one off I could see them producing results a client would use for free.

I didn't mean to focus the conversation into such a specific area as a kit lens versus high end gear, my main point simply was I don't believe basic or cheap equipment is technically a serious barrier for several situations.
 
I would think that KIPAX (for example - other purveyors of sporting images exist!) could get a better shot with an entry level body and a kit lens than I could with his current kit as long as the action wasn't too far away. Give him my old D70 and 70-300 and he'd blow me away! However, as his earlier post showed, a club site will use a crap phonetograph that they've got for free rather than the far better shot he took at almost the same time. At a guess, it was Tony who set the shot up only to have his poses nicked over his shoulder. (BTW, a branded tabard could be a good investment - at least they'd have to spend time cloning/cropping him out of the next shot like that...)
 
StephenM said:
I personally don't like to encourage people to accept second best in anything unless they have no choice. People who use photographs are usually using them to make money for themselves, so how does making money from someone else's work without payment to them differ from other kinds of exploitation?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I shouldn't have generalised, Stephen, and stated that I see my photography as a cost and not a tangible asset.

As to the question of exloitation....
Any photos that I put online are not protected or watermarked and are available for download by anyone. I take the photos for my personal pleasure and any that anyone later submits for publication are available free to the user and I don't even ask for a credit so I'm not being exploited there. When I am requested to take photos (as opposed to requests for photos that I've already taken), as in wedding coverage, then it's unlikely that the couple are seeking to make money from the event (albeit they may be seeking to save money). It's symbiotic, I get free subjects and the subjects get free photos. Would anyone suggest that the subjects featured in street candids are being exploited because the photographer isn't paying them for their time?

Bob
 
OK, for you, photography is a cost and not an asset. But if someone uses your work, it suggests to me that they see some value in it, even if you don't. And that's the point I'm trying to get across. We'll have to agree the differ. In my book (but it seems not in yours) if someone makes money out of my work without paying me, I've been exploited.

The subjects in street candids are an entirely different thing, as it is not their work that people are profiting from. But I can see that I won't convince you, and there's no point in trying,
 
StephenM said:
OK, for you, photography is a cost and not an asset. But if someone uses your work, it suggests to me that they see some value in it, even if you don't. And that's the point I'm trying to get across. We'll have to agree the differ. In my book (but it seems not in yours) if someone makes money out of my work without paying me, I've been exploited.

The subjects in street candids are an entirely different thing, as it is not their work that people are profiting from. But I can see that I won't convince you, and there's no point in trying,
Click to expand...
I think the difference between us is that I don't see it as work and have no desire to be paid whether or not someone else can profit from it (good luck to them)....hence, I'm not being exploited (although the user might think that I am).

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
As to the question of exloitation....
Any photos that I put online are not protected or watermarked and are available for download by anyone. I take the photos for my personal pleasure and any that anyone later submits for publication are available free to the user and I don't even ask for a credit so I'm not being exploited there.
Click to expand...

Yes you are.

Even Google thinks so:

exploitation
ɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: exploitation; plural noun: exploitations
  1. 1.
    the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
    "the exploitation of migrant workers"
    synonyms: taking advantage, making use, abuse of, misuse, ill treatment, unfair treatment, bleeding dry, sucking dry, squeezing, wringing;More
    manipulation, cheating, swindling, fleecing, victimization;
    enslavement, slavery, oppression;
    imposing on, preying on, playing on
    "the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy"
  2. 2.
    the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.
    "the Bronze Age saw exploitation of gold deposits"
    synonyms: utilization, utilizing, use, making use of, putting to use, making the most of, capitalization on;

Just because you don't care if someone uses your photos and makes money from them doesn't mean they haven't exploited you.
 
If I give away my photographs, I am not being exploited. re read your definition. You can't be exploited, if you know the facts and you still decide to do something.
 
Anyone reading this thread using Firefox? Chrom(ium)? Mozilla? to name but a few. Taking the bread out of my children's mouths you are - us programmers need to eat too you know. Bunch of evil exploiting bar-stewards you lot are.

:)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Too many people just want to get the kudos of getting something published so they can then post on here saying "Hey.. I got published".. basically saying... I got published... look how great I am. Well... yeah... they thought you were SOOO good they valued your work at £0.00. You're a star.

The only way this will stop is when people like the ones I describe above realise that they're not doing themselves, or anyone else any favours. They're not being published because their work is great, they're being published because people know there's always a chump who will give their work away.

Only ever.. ever... give your work away if it genuinely helps you launch a career. Getting a snap in the local paper for nothing will not do that. Shooting product for a local company for nothing will probably not either. The only winner is the guy who's getting your work for free.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed but if u can only get gigs by doing it for peanuts or free then no choice. It's a buyers market
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's not what were on about though. We're on about being approached by people offering you work, then saying "Unfortunately there is no budget, but it's a GREAT opportunity to get published work in your portfolio" and people falling for it... and doing it, because they're idiots.




Newspapers don't buy images unless it's a celebrity showing her knickers these days... and there's already a well established army of freelance papz that has got that covered. They just crowd source breaking news images. Why pay someone when you have twitter?





What do you do for a living?

Don't bother answering... it's academic. Let's assume you are a plumber.. a great one.. the best. You charge £500 an hour +


Then I set up as a hobby... I'm OK... not as good as you of course... but OK. I then decide to get my name about by working for free... it's my hobby after all, I have another job, so it's fine. You think everyone is going to pay top drawer money for plumbing jobs and repairs where there's a guy who does work that's perfectly fine and safe... just not as meticulous as you... for free? Hmmmm... Free, or £500 an hour... let me think.

So it's not a case of you being better so you're fine. Same with photography. If a company wants shots of their warehouse, offices and staff for a brochure, you think some guy in a suit who knows nothing about photography is going to shell out £750 a day to a local jobbing commercial guy when Mr Facebook will do it for free? Of course not.

However... what really baffles me.. is why you don't even TRY to get some money for your images. Do you not like money? Got too much of it already? What's the deal there.? It could be right there waiting for you for all you know. bet the guy's asking for the work are sometimes thinking... "Christ. what an idiot, I was gonna offer you £50 if we can use it on our site".. Let's not even bother thinking about paying next time... these amateur photographers are a pushover"
Click to expand...
Who does plumbing as a hobby lol
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Whilst I agree with your points about giving stuff away for free. I think that the erosion in the value that people place on photography runs a lot deeper and changes in culture and technology have contributed to the current state of affairs.

If I look back to my childhood, I remember being taught that if you want something of decent quality then you have to pay for it. Alongside this I remember if you wanted photos you first had to part with money to buy the film and then pay again to develop them and at the time, compared to earnings, this wasn't cheap. Photos were then displayed and shared in albums.
Fast forward to today, most people will take photos on a mobile device and never look at them again let alone print them and look at large versions, meaning that the appreciation of quality is reduced. Because there is less appreciation and the improvements to technology and software like instagram, people think that "snaps" taken on a phone are good enough and because people's expectations are lower, editors are content to publish sub standard work.
Unfortunately in society everybody wants the same or similar for less money, in some cases photographers are no different, buying grey import equipment to save on costs, or shopping round for the best UK prices, something that is now easier due to the Internet.
Click to expand...


I agree completely.

Canon Bob said:
But wouldn't charging for the same crap devalue it even further, David?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would. My point in the post you quoted me from was pretty much trying to explain that being better has little to do with it for the low end work. No matter how great your work was, there's be an expectation these days that they try to get your work for free. If Vogue apprached me to shoot a cover story... I'd do it for free.. of course... but a local carpet warehouse? What in god's name would I want to shoot THAT for free for? What would I possibly get out of it?

The issue is that many will, and genuinely think that having a tear sheet from from a local carpet warehouse catalogue will somehow launch their career. It won't.



Canon Bob said:
To a hobbyist it doesn't have a value, it's a cost (in common the the vast majority of hobbies).
Click to expand...

Whether you're a hobbyist or not shouldn't even enter the debate. If you produce work for someone, then you should be remunerated for your time and effort. If someone wants to use something you've already shot.. they should at least offer a token amount at least. It costed you time, and effort, and required skill. Call me old fashioned, but those things should be valued and rewarded, not expected to be given away gratis.

I also think your opinion that hobbyists placing no value in their work is a myth too. No one is more rabidly anal about copyright protection and infringement that amateurs. Looks how many threads there are in here about it. It seems anachronistic therefore that the same hobbyists are prepared to give it away fro free.... then go into meltdown when someone uses their image without asking... LOL


steveo_mcg said:
Like it or not the bread and butter work is gone, its another disrupted industry. Add it to the buggy whip, the record, film photography some vestiges will hang on and people will pay a premium for the very best but the mass market has moved on.
Click to expand...

It hasn't gone.. it's changed.. but not gone. Take social portraiture as an example. People, despite being able to produce better images than in any other time in history with no expertise whatsoever, sill see the value in quality photography. What#'s changed is the temptation to just use things off the internet with impunity (or perceived impunity) making people feel there's no value in commissioning work. When people realise that they can't find what they need on the internet (specific images of their products and services) then they feel it's perfectly fine to approach a photographer and ask for the work for free.

You'd not expect a new taxi driver to take you on a 10 mile trip for free and only promise to say good things about them. That would be unthinkable. However... people think it's OK to approach the creative industries and do just that. The fact is.. if people didn't work for free, this situation wouldn't exist at all. It's the amateurs desire to be seen as "professional" and having "clients" that drives this.

Lots of industries have undergone similar paradigm shifting changes in the digital age, but only the creative arts (Graphics, design, photo and music) seem to targeted by the leaches.

It's the thin end of a wedge. When people stop seeing value in creative endeavour.. then the only result will be a dearth of creativity in society. You wanna live in a world like that?
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yes indeed but if u can only get gigs by doing it for peanuts or free then no choice. It's a buyers market
Click to expand...

Then why do the free gigs? It earns you nothing, and probably actually costs you (travel/fuel.. electricity to run your computer to edit the images etc). What do you get out of it? Why do ANY work for free? Why suggest there's no choice? Of course there's a choice... you say "No... I will not work for free. Goodbye".
 
Furtim said:
Anyone reading this thread using Firefox? Chrom(ium)? Mozilla? to name but a few. Taking the bread out of my children's mouths you are - us programmers need to eat too you know. Bunch of evil exploiting bar-stewards you lot are.

:)
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any browsers I can actually pay for. If there was one... and it was good, I'd happily pay. I'd rather support smaller developers to get a decent product off the ground than use Firefox. Tell you what... develop a browser better than Firefox, that has colour management as good, and allows user customisation and skinning (as in creation.. not just downloading) without any specialist knowledge and I'll actually buy it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not aware of any browsers I can actually pay for. If there was one... and it was good, I'd happily pay. I'd rather support smaller developers to get a decent product off the ground than use Firefox. Tell you what... develop a browser better than Firefox, that has colour management as good, and allows user customisation and skinning (as in creation.. not just downloading) without any specialist knowledge and I'll actually buy it.
Click to expand...

So you're saying I should raise my game and produce something better than the free stuff if I expect to be paid for it...
 
Furtim said:
So you're saying I should raise my game and produce something better than the free stuff if I expect to be paid for it...
Click to expand...

Not raise your game... just make a product that does what I want. After all... the only reason I use firefox is because it's colour management is better than the rest... and I can happen to get a theme for it that matches my Windows theme. Pretty much it really. If there was another browser by a small company that produced something that did that, I'd buy it. It's not about raising your game... it's about producing something I want. Just as companies that want your work for free.. actually want it... they just feel it's OK to expect it for free. I wouldn't expect you to make a browser for free just because Firefox is free, no. I don't use Firefox BECAUSE it's free. I wasn't aware I had a choice.... so far as I know, all browsers are free.
 
Last edited:
Are there any members on here who have never ever ever given a print/image/photograph away for free?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not raise your game... just make a product that does what I want. After all... the only reason I use firefox is because it's colour management is better than the rest... and I can happen to get a theme for it that matches my Windows theme. Pretty much it really. If there was another browser by a small company that produced something that did that, I'd buy it. It's not about raising your game... it's about producing something I want. Just as companies that want your work for free.. actually want it... they just feel it's OK to expect it for free. I wouldn't expect you to make a browser for free just because Firefox is free, no. I don't use Firefox BECAUSE it's free. I wasn't aware I had a choice.... so far as I know, all browsers are free.
Click to expand...

The 'free' products available mean it's no longer economically viable to do so though, and that's rather the point. The number of programmers (photographers) out there willing to develop (photograph) for the love of it alone (free) has changed the dynamics of the market.

There's no point in trying to turn back the clock, just look forward and find different ways to create value that people are prepared to pay for.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Then why do the free gigs? It earns you nothing, and probably actually costs you (travel/fuel.. electricity to run your computer to edit the images etc). What do you get out of it? Why do ANY work for free? Why suggest there's no choice? Of course there's a choice... you say "No... I will not work for free. Goodbye".
Click to expand...

You do it to gain more experience and more work on your portfolio that could help u finally get a paid gig
 
Furtim said:
The 'free' products available mean it's no longer economically viable to do so though, and that's rather the point. The number of programmers (photographers) out there willing to develop (photograph) for the love of it alone (free) has changed the dynamics of the market.

There's no point in trying to turn back the clock, just look forward and find different ways to create value that people are prepared to pay for.
Click to expand...

Of course you can turn back the clock. Just stop doing it. :) No one can MAKE you do it for free. If no one did, they'd either have to pay, or do it themselves... then they'd realise there is some value in it after all... as their work would be s**t. :)

admirable said:
Are there any members on here who have never ever ever given a print/image/photograph away for free?
Click to expand...


Not to a commercial company no. Friends, colleagues, sure. I've done a few jobs for payment in kind.. but that's still payment.
 
jonneymendoza said:
You do it to gain more experience and more work on your portfolio that could help u finally get a paid gig
Click to expand...

No.. you're just being exploited. You don't need to actually do commercial jobs for free to gain experience, and unless your tear sheets are impressive, having them in your book doesn't really do much. The decent clients pay anyway... it's local companies who no one gives a s**t about that don't pay. So having "Trevor's Warehouse" on your client list... right.... bring on the big time... LOL

I could give you a strong argument for developing your own personal work and getting exhibited and published.. and a few high profile competition wins doing a whole lot more to aid you in getting decent clients than a folio of full of grip and grin commercial b******s.
 
Furtim said:
The 'free' products available mean it's no longer economically viable to do so though, and that's rather the point. The number of programmers (photographers) out there willing to develop (photograph) for the love of it alone (free) has changed the dynamics of the market.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works for programmers, people don't just wander into an event and write a program, you don't compete to write the next... Firefox or whatever, companies can ask for people to work for free but generally there aren't many people who are willing to spend hours stuck behind a keyboard solving logic problems for free (although there's some companies in India that almost prove me wrong).

Right or wrong photography is seen as a very attractive field, more so than many other lines of work.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Of course you can turn back the clock. Just stop doing it. :) No one can MAKE you do it for free. If no one did, they'd either have to pay, or do it themselves... then they'd realise there is some value in it after all... as their work would be s**t. :)
Click to expand...

Forgetting photography for a moment, you really believe you can eliminate the freeware software 'market'?

If you can't, you've sod all chance of achieving the same with photography as the barrier to entry is somewhat lower thanks to advances in technology.
 
simonbarker said:
That's not how it works for programmers, people don't just wander into an event and write a program, you don't compete to write the next... Firefox or whatever, companies can ask for people to work for free but generally there aren't many people who are willing to spend hours stuck behind a keyboard solving logic problems for free (although there's some companies in India that almost prove me wrong).

Right or wrong photography is seen as a very attractive field, more so than many other lines of work.
Click to expand...

That's the point though. Programming typically requires more time and commitment than just taking a photograph (typically, not always). Yet there are plenty of people still willing to develop for free.

That being the case, what chance have photographers got.
 
simonbarker said:
That's not how it works for programmers, people don't just wander into an event and write a program, you don't compete to write the next... Firefox or whatever, companies can ask for people to work for free but generally there aren't many people who are willing to spend hours stuck behind a keyboard solving logic problems for free (although there's some companies in India that almost prove me wrong).

Right or wrong photography is seen as a very attractive field, more so than many other lines of work.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
I'm sorry but I haven't been through all three pages of post, it would take me ages. But there is something I'd like to mention (sorry if its already been said) ... Experience.

I did motorcycle mechanics at college. I couldn't get a job so volunteered for my local bike workshop. He got jobs done from sweeping the floor up, I got experience. That led to part time work with him as that's all he could offer, to a part time job with bike shop with more hours as a valeter preping bikes for the showroom which then led to a full time job with them for 6 years. I wanted to be a mechanic but I was bloody good at preping bikes (painting parts eg fork legs, wheels, swinging arms etc. Servicing so the bike can be PDI'd once sold quickly etc,) that I really enjoyed it and didn't want to just do mechanics, but I digress.

What I'm trying to say is that experience helps. If you want an employed job then you are more likely to get it if you have experience. If you can say you have had a photo published at an interview for a photography job that can't be a bad thing.

I have given photos to my kids playgroup that I have taken for them like photos of their carnival float and sponsored dip in the sea at Halloween. This week I went in and photoed all the kids for what will hopefully be my first paid job. While I was there I took staff photos too which I will give them, but then they are a charity. But also they have given me my first break in paid photography. I'm 36 now and work experience was a good thing to do I when I left college, but these days I think its expected.

But if you do keep giving with no reward accept a credit over and over just to tell your mates hoiw good you are, then yes that's bloody stupid.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Then why do the free gigs? It earns you nothing, and probably actually costs you (travel/fuel.. electricity to run your computer to edit the images etc). What do you get out of it? Why do ANY work for free? Why suggest there's no choice? Of course there's a choice... you say "No... I will not work for free. Goodbye".
Click to expand...
At which point they shrug and contact the next person on their list...
 
Pookeyhead said:
Lots of industries have undergone similar paradigm shifting changes in the digital age, but only the creative arts (Graphics, design, photo and music) seem to targeted by the leaches.

It's the thin end of a wedge. When people stop seeing value in creative endeavour.. then the only result will be a dearth of creativity in society. You wanna live in a world like that?
Click to expand...

Not really, no one expects to pay for software any more. People are prepared to sell themselves as products rather than fork out for a mobile operating system for example. When was the last time any one actually bought an encyclopaedia, folk just use wikipaedia.

simonbarker said:
That's not how it works for programmers, people don't just wander into an event and write a program, you don't compete to write the next... Firefox or whatever, companies can ask for people to work for free but generally there aren't many people who are willing to spend hours stuck behind a keyboard solving logic problems for free (although there's some companies in India that almost prove me wrong).

Right or wrong photography is seen as a very attractive field, more so than many other lines of work.
Click to expand...


You're aware of FOSS I presume, your aware of legion of programmers who code for Linux, many of the technologies we take for granted were coded (initially) by small groups of folk for free and put out there. The guys who wrote Apache I expect have done very well out of the approach that is being scorned here, unlike the hypothetical plumber, they did write the basis for most the web as we experience it daily; for free, for experience, they're now paid to write updates and specific work almost like commissions.
 
Furtim said:
Forgetting photography for a moment, you really believe you can eliminate the freeware software 'market'?
Click to expand...

Nope. It's entrenched... plus there are also advantages for Mozilla having a free, ubiquitous platform that countless millions use. There are no advantages for photographers to give there work away for free.

Furtim said:
If you can't, you've sod all chance of achieving the same with photography as the barrier to entry is somewhat lower thanks to advances in technology.
Click to expand...

Really.... ok... so all these people asking for work for free... why not just take their own images? If it's so easy... just get on with it. Why bother asking a photographer to do it for free?

The fact is, if amateurs didn't give their work away, we'd not have the problem. Technology has nothing to do with it when you think about it.
 
steveo_mcg said:
You're aware of FOSS I presume, your aware of legion of programmers who code for Linux, many of the technologies we take for granted were coded (initially) by small groups of folk for free and put out there. The guys who wrote Apache I expect have done very well out of the approach that is being scorned here, unlike the hypothetical plumber, they did write the basis for most the web as we experience it daily; for free, for experience, they're now paid to write updates and specific work almost like commissions.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the open source community but I have never personally considered it a situation where one supplants the other, your requirements and preferences dictate which option is most suited to you and simply because someone is working on linux development it doesn't directly impact on say a .net programmer but then I'm more of the mindset that if someone eats all the pizza slices it doesn't mean the next guy only has the cardboard boxes left to eat.

I'm not sure programming is the best comparison in general as they're two very different disciplines, a poor programmer's work especially so in anything but the smallest of environments will cause problems while a bad photographer's work can still be usable as many people are practically blind when it comes to things like composition or they just don't care about low standards.

Plus I don't think in the programming example we're talking about rank amateurs, I have no first hand of experience of open source but I've always assumed their code revisions needed to be of a high standard to be usable and no one produces good quality code when they start.
 
Raptor Mike said:
What I'm trying to say is that experience helps. If you want an employed job then you are more likely to get it if you have experience. If you can say you have had a photo published at an interview for a photography job that can't be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Your post sounds like a pretty accurate description of an internship and it makes perfect sense to me why you'd do it as even though you weren't being paid as there was clearly a valuable trade occurring for both parties.

I keep thinking (in a very basic sense) if you're being asked to work for no reward it's actually fairly insulting. That reward can come in many forms as it did in your example but the few times I've been asked to work for free (not to do with photography) I've walked away and never considered it a difficult choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top