What's your opinion on people who are continuing to do photoshoots during lockdown

Messages
5,111
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I think your confusing the last paragraph with photogrpahers.. the last paragraph is for the customer... the photographer is allowed to work outside home for any photo shoot if its work... as per next to last paragraph
It would seem it is you who is confused.

Clients can not book photography services as per the letter as it is deemed non essential. Clients who book an outdoor family session for example could potentially be fined/prosecuted for travelling to the session as it breaks current regulations. So the photographer cannot perform those services, it's quite simply really.
 
Messages
5,111
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
This isn't about the law. It's about opinions. In my opinion, there's nothing unsafe about doing photography outdoors in a safe way.
No offence but this isn't about your opinion. There has been lots of examples of photographers catching covid while working and spreading it to many other people even when taking extreme precautions. The law is the law regardless anyway.
 

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,729
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
Wasn’t there reports early on of pet cats and dogs catching it ?

I do recall seeing one about a big cat (as in non domestic) but it fizzled out so I presumed its not a problem..... if it was i fear the canal would be full by now :(
 
Messages
398
Name
Julian Elliott
Edit My Images
No
I think the situation with the regards to the UK is too vague and wooly. From what I remember when I was in the UK in December and early January you were given advice to stay at home. To not make unnecessary journeys and to stay in your local area. It's the last part that people have seized on.

What exactly is a local area? To a photographer a local area can encompass quite a wide area that most people would think is far. I was in Salisbury and to me Dorset is local and I could have very easily said to heck with it, hired a car and gone down to Dorset. But there was absolutely no way that I was going to do that.

Over the festive season I commented on a particular vloggers exploits and their travels. Asking if what they did was really "necessary" and what did I get back? From certain subscribers abuse and from the vlogger the response was it was their "work".

Now as a landscape and travel photographer who is doing this full time I could very easily find ways to get out of France. Sweden as far as I remember has no entry conditions. The same also goes for Dubai. Two places that would be awesome to visit. Sweden for the winter and Dubai for the cityscapes. But am I going to find those excuses? Nope, no way and not in a million years.

But what I do have here in central France is a commission to work on which requires me to photograph the Loire Valley from one end to the other in all seasons and all different types of lighting. So that is a legitimate job from a client that needs doing.

Some people may disagree and some may agree but for me this is my 100% full time job. It also doesn't entail me having to meet anyone. In fact, when i'm out and about I never see hardly anyone which is surprising given the stunning locations.

My own personal thoughts on travel right now is that we should just stay in our respective countries and not be trying to justifying every 5 minutes why it is we should be out taking photos.

I did see an earlier comment about things not ever getting back to how they were. I have adopted a more positive attitude throughout all of this. That things are GOING to get better rather than WILL. The human body and immune system is very adaptable. I would hedge my bets that after enough people have been vaccinated that things are going to open up again slowly but surely. That herd immunity is going to kick in at some point.

There are lots of new vaccines around the corner. So folks, let's keep positive. We're nearly there :)
 
Messages
318
Edit My Images
Yes
One of my colleagues recently went to take photos for a planning application in Cornwall (all outdoors). That's work related and cannot be done from home. Kind of nuts that this sort of thing is allowed to continue, but the govt is putting the economy first by allowing work related activities to continue, and unfortunately that means the lockdown is going to be less effective and probably last longer, causing more damage to the economy in the long term most likely.
 
Messages
10,307
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
I wonder what the situation is with what used to be called "stock photographers" - ie those who go out to take images (landscape, say), submit them to stock libraries, and make a decent living from it?

These days that would be people who go out into the landscape at no risk to themselves or others, take the photographs they like for the love of it, and then hope to make a couple of quid now and again in whatever way they can? People like me, in fact, although I haven't been out in the landscape myself during this lockdown or the first one (except on foot or bike).
 
Messages
7
Name
Eva
Edit My Images
No
Honestly, I don't think it's that bad, a lot of photographers in my area continued working, they did "porch" shoots and family photo shoots while also distancing themselves from their models. Lockdown is a hard time for those whose only source of income is photography, so I can see where they were coming from.
 
Messages
6,358
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I think the situation with the regards to the UK is too vague and wooly. From what I remember when I was in the UK in December and early January you were given advice to stay at home. To not make unnecessary journeys and to stay in your local area. It's the last part that people have seized on.

What exactly is a local area? To a photographer a local area can encompass quite a wide area that most people would think is far. I was in Salisbury and to me Dorset is local and I could have very easily said to heck with it, hired a car and gone down to Dorset. But there was absolutely no way that I was going to do that.

Over the festive season I commented on a particular vloggers exploits and their travels. Asking if what they did was really "necessary" and what did I get back? From certain subscribers abuse and from the vlogger the response was it was their "work".

Now as a landscape and travel photographer who is doing this full time I could very easily find ways to get out of France. Sweden as far as I remember has no entry conditions. The same also goes for Dubai. Two places that would be awesome to visit. Sweden for the winter and Dubai for the cityscapes. But am I going to find those excuses? Nope, no way and not in a million years.

But what I do have here in central France is a commission to work on which requires me to photograph the Loire Valley from one end to the other in all seasons and all different types of lighting. So that is a legitimate job from a client that needs doing.

Some people may disagree and some may agree but for me this is my 100% full time job. It also doesn't entail me having to meet anyone. In fact, when i'm out and about I never see hardly anyone which is surprising given the stunning locations.

My own personal thoughts on travel right now is that we should just stay in our respective countries and not be trying to justifying every 5 minutes why it is we should be out taking photos.

I did see an earlier comment about things not ever getting back to how they were. I have adopted a more positive attitude throughout all of this. That things are GOING to get better rather than WILL. The human body and immune system is very adaptable. I would hedge my bets that after enough people have been vaccinated that things are going to open up again slowly but surely. That herd immunity is going to kick in at some point.

There are lots of new vaccines around the corner. So folks, let's keep positive. We're nearly there :)
The point is people can’t differentiate between work and personal leisure. That’s where things are different with this lockdown than the March one.

The problem with problem with photography is that some do it as a living whilst it’s just a hobby for others. Hobby photographers shouldn’t be out at all. Simple as that. Taking a photograph whilst on a walk for exercise is ok but going out on a walk to specially take a photograph isn’t really within the spirit of the rules.

Photographers or who it’s there job is totally different. The problem here is if it’s a landscape photographer going out on their own and not meeting anyone it’s fine. A portrait photographer meeting people in their homes/outdoors probably isn’t.

Local is defined in the UK rules as “ Staying in your local area means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live”. The problem is people have their own idea of local and activities they feel they can do. Just look on here with the recent snowfall how many hobby photographers felt they were able to go out to photograph it. Some even trying to justify it even though the police had spoken to others. Amateur photography did an article on this and it explained the situation well from a hobby photographers point of view.
 
Messages
398
Name
Julian Elliott
Edit My Images
No
Local is defined in the UK rules as “ Staying in your local area means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live”. The problem is people have their own idea of local and activities they feel they can do. Just look on here with the recent snowfall how many hobby photographers felt they were able to go out to photograph it. Some even trying to justify it even though the police had spoken to others. Amateur photography did an article on this and it explained the situation well from a hobby photographers point of view.
And this for me is where it got too wooly and vague. I have seen that however what happens if you live in a BIG village and someone else is in a small village.

Here in France the rules were very specific. If you needed to go out to exercise that it was to be 1 hour; that you had to have paperwork to say why you were out otherwise it was a 135€ fine which can be raised for repeated offences and that you stay 1km from your house. And it's that last part for me which I think is much better. It's clearer.

A part of a city or in your village is not specific enough. But again, this is my own personal opinion.

I did see the AP article and from what I remember it caused yet more people to say "that's it, I' going out"
 
Messages
318
Edit My Images
Yes
I class local as any distance from my house that Boris Johnson could conceivably cycle to within an hour.... (joke)

The rules do contain conflicting information about travel for excercise, saying "but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)"

Just be sensible. No need to be flitting over to the Peaks or the Lakes etc. Keep local.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,444
Name
Garry Edwards
Edit My Images
No
This isn't about the law. It's about opinions. In my opinion, there's nothing unsafe about doing photography outdoors in a safe way.
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion . . .

Personally, I'm ignoring the law on this, and I'm also ignoring the "guidance" and I'm doing my own thing, and that's because I believe that the politicians have, as usual, done far too little far too late and that we all need to do far more to protect ourselves and others than they are telling us to.

Obviously, a lot of people have lost their income - for now at least - and I feel sorry for everyone in that position, but it's a price that individuals need to pay to protect society. Social photography isn't essential, nor are pubs or any of the other businesses that have had to close, the clue is in the term non-essential.

Just imagine what both the government and the public's reaction would be if a large plane crashed and killed 307 people, and that that happened every single day. There would be uproar and all flights would be cancelled immediately and indefinitely, to protect the people. Well, that hasn't happened of course, but what has happened is that in terms of Coronavirus depths there have been the equivalent of 4 of these plane crashes every single day for the last week and yet we have become inured to these terrible figures and there are still some selfish people who feel hard done by and find ways of circumventing or ignoring the inadequate rules.
 
Messages
398
Name
Julian Elliott
Edit My Images
No
@Garry Edwards

The only thing I would say in terms of the plane crash comparison is this. On average about 450 people die from cancer every day in the UK. I went to my Gran's funeral in early December. Her cause of death was cancer. A disease which along with dementia are BIG killers but yet they don't get reported in the same way. However, and we know cancer is a HUGE killer, you don't get a rolling news report on it despite it being extremely serious.

What I found curious when I was in the UK, and again this is only my opinion and curious mind, is that each day they said that xxx number of people have died today within 28 days of testing positive of COVID.

So, does that mean that if a person tested positive 20 days ago and today they die in a car crash that their death is noted a COVID?

My own curious mind asks the question: have people died of COVID or did it have a helping hand? Did they have other underlying conditions which were actually the main cause but because of the pandemic COVID is what is put on the death certificate.
 

Marc

Mucky Rims, Clean Layout, New Camera
Staff member
Messages
34,988
Edit My Images
Yes
Any chance we can keep general Covid discussion to the Virus thread and keep this one to just discussing the photography aspect please.

Thank you
 
Messages
15,422
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'm sure the family looking for a photo shoot aren't going to change anytime soon, can't they wait for restrictions to ease up [possible in March]

It's our daughter's birthday today, I wasn't even allowed to buy a birthday card in Tesco! but was allowed buy a cake ... anyway, I can of course take some photos of her blowing out the candles, what she will not get is the usual photo with her Grandparents. If they can't visit their own granddaughter for a photo I don't see why a photographer would ever risk visiting strangers at their home to take pictures.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,150
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
eeerm they did didn't they?
No not for everyone . I've a friend for example who went full time last year . If he went full time 8 weeks earlier than he did he would have got help . He never received a penny . I was part time 2 years ago so they way they have calculated my payment I'm not even getting enough to cover my mortgage and food bill . Some people got it good , some people got bad and some people got it absolutely terrible .
 
Messages
1,980
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
And this for me is where it got too wooly and vague. I have seen that however what happens if you live in a BIG village and someone else is in a small village.
It's probably being aware that there are no "UK" rules, there are English rules, Scottish rules, Welsh rules and Northern Irish rules.

Generally, the rules and guidance in the devolved nations have been more clear than those in England. For example the rule in Scotland for local travel is to stay within 5 miles of your local authority boundary.

Edit: can I just clarify this a bit as the actual wording is that exercise should start and finish within 5 miles of you local authority boundary.
 
Last edited:

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,729
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
No not for everyone .

I know.. But I was replying to a post saying they need to help.. I am saying they did.. and they did... OK not everyone was eligable but it doesnt alter that they did do something..... saved my bacon for sure hence i will always respond to anyone making out they did nothing .. because that just simply isn't true :)
 
Messages
751
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
'Photoshoots' is a much broader category than most of these replies are considering.
If a photographer is photographing new packaging in their studio for a client that is still a photoshoot!

Portraiture is not generally safe under the pandemic, but could perhaps be done safely outdoors with unusually long focal lengths. A more normal session even if maintaining 2m distance throughout is not IMO acceptable. But if maintaining 5m minimum distance it's likely to be as safe as going to the shops.
Getting the usual range of images while keeping this sort of distance isn't going to happen, but it is possible to get some nice portrait shots with a 500+mm lens...
 
Messages
3,150
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
I know.. But I was replying to a post saying they need to help.. I am saying they did.. and they did... OK not everyone was eligable but it doesnt alter that they did do something..... saved my bacon for sure hence i will always respond to anyone making out they did nothing .. because that just simply isn't true :)
sorry I didn't realise you were answering for your self and own experiences only. im on a Facebook group for photographers needing help and it would frighten you how many got absolutely nothing through no fault of their own.
 
Messages
3
Name
Tuomas Kivioja
Edit My Images
Yes
I do walking outside, street photography. I suppose it might be questionable, but at the same time exercise is allowed and I am walking..question is whether the main purpose of the walk is exercise or to take photos. Sort of a grey area for me.
 
Messages
3,150
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
I do walking outside, street photography. I suppose it might be questionable, but at the same time exercise is allowed and I am walking..question is whether the main purpose of the walk is exercise or to take photos. Sort of a grey area for me.
The question is if you go out for a walk and happen to take pictures are you more likely to spread the virus than if you go out to take pictures by walking or vice versa. its all a load of nonsence
 
Messages
751
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
The question is if you go out for a walk and happen to take pictures are you more likely to spread the virus than if you go out to take pictures by walking or vice versa. its all a load of nonsence
Reminds me of a joke with Two Irishmen arguing if it was OK to combine drinking & praying. Both check with their priest.
Is it OK to drink whilst praying - NO.
Is it OK to pray while drinking - Of course my son!

As far as covid impact goes It very much depends on the area you're in for taking photos/walking. By a country field with no-one else around there no risk of spreading the virus, on a city street near the food shops things could be quite different. Lingering in an area with others around might cause issues.

Sadly the authorities often don't take this into account.

Taking a picture of someone you don't know who you chance upon is apparently fine, but arranging to come in sight of someone you know is somehow dangerous...
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,637
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
Don't get me started on this, but for many (and it's not a small number) the answer is no. If you run your business as a limited company and pay yourself with dividends then no support whatsoever will have been available.

Don't ask me how I know :mad:
Not taking the mickey here, this is an genuine question, it may also be a stupid one, but...

If your company is a limited company of one employee, you, can you not furlough yourself and get 80% of your wages that way?
 

Nod

As good as a wink to a blind horse
Messages
37,252
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
Don't get me started on this, but for many (and it's not a small number) the answer is no. If you run your business as a limited company and pay yourself with dividends then no support whatsoever will have been available.

Don't ask me how I know :mad:

Ain't life a bitch when tax avoidance measures bite you in the ass?
 
Messages
877
Name
Trev
Edit My Images
Yes
Not taking the mickey here, this is an genuine question, it may also be a stupid one, but...

If your company is a limited company of one employee, you, can you not furlough yourself and get 80% of your wages that way?
Generally Limited company salaries are about £723 a month with any further monies being paid through dividends. When I had to furlough earlier in the year I got about £550 a month salary and £54 a month Universal Credit.
 
Messages
2,007
Edit My Images
Yes
Not taking the mickey here, this is an genuine question, it may also be a stupid one, but...

If your company is a limited company of one employee, you, can you not furlough yourself and get 80% of your wages that way?
You could do, up to 80% of the amount that you paid yourself in wages. Which, for a company director following Govt advice form a few years back and paying themselves in Dividends plus a basic salary, not much.

Now - here's the even better news. If you tried to not claim furlough in the original lockdown, you cannot claim it in subsequent lockdowns, because you are not eligible. Thanks Government for rewarding those that tried not to claim money first time round :mad:
 
Messages
13,921
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Ain't life a bitch when tax avoidance measures bite you in the ass?
I think its NI contributions too that are avoided with the dividend instead of wages tactic.
Not illegal, but can't have your cake and eat it, no sympathy either from the majority of those on PAYE
 

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,729
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
sorry I didn't realise you were answering for your self and own experiences

Really? A little childish don't you think....

Lets just skip this bit eh ? "OK not everyone was eligable but it doesnt alter that they did do something "

I mean really ? :)
 
Messages
2,007
Edit My Images
Yes
I think its NI contributions too that are avoided with the dividend instead of wages tactic.
Not illegal, but can't have your cake and eat it, no sympathy either from the majority of those on PAYE
As I said, Govt advice in the past. So I don't really care about your sympathy.
 
Messages
13,921
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
As I said, Govt advice in the past. So I don't really care about your sympathy.
How do you know i'm not in the minority who do have some sympathy?.

Personally couldn't care less one way or the other, you obviously do though.
 
Messages
13,921
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Some pretty stupid and uninformed comments on the subject of dividends, sadly. Not to worry, as long as you're okay...
So, the aim is to set your salary at a level that is above the Lower Earnings Limit to obtain the benefits of qualifying for the state pension, but below the level where you’ll need to pay either employee or employer’s NI. Win, win!

Am I way off with that statement?
 
Messages
6,120
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
So, the aim is to set your salary at a level that is above the Lower Earnings Limit to obtain the benefits of qualifying for the state pension, but below the level where you’ll need to pay either employee or employer’s NI. Win, win!

Am I way off with that statement?
In essence that is right, but 'these days' the dividend taxes make up the employees NI (and are not capped), so you would in effect be saving the employers NI
 
Messages
3,150
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
Really? A little childish don't you think....

Lets just skip this bit eh ? "OK not everyone was eligable but it doesnt alter that they did do something "

I mean really ? :)
I think you picked me up wrong there so I apologise if I choose the wrong wording . But really that is what you were doing as you said you got sorted out financially . Ask someone who didn't and they would say the government did nothing so that's true for them . So the bottom line is did they do anything??? The correct answer is it depends who you ask .
 
Top