Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
Even worse is when corporations want free photos.

The very same businesses that will often pay $10,000's or even $100,000's advertising in a single monthly publication but will want the photos they use for those advertisement for free.

I know one specific case where a company wanted to use a photo for an add campaign that could have easily resulted in as much as $45,0000+ in a media buyout and they told the photographer "We don't pay for photos."    This same company has, over the years, taken out advertising on no less than 60 monthly covers for as much as $226,850 a pop. That's just cover space.  That doesn't include countless interior ads that were over $100,000 each.   

Now that is sickening.

Man, that's some serious fucking bullshit!!! Ugh!

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

There is a market for them because they exist. It's human nature to be thrifty, and that's all these 'clients' are doing (being thrifty). They have no clue that these amateurs are ruining the trade of photography, nor should they care. It's not their business. They ask, someone responds willing, bingo they're in business. See the weak link? The noob-shooters. I'm not sure how you two/more seem to think cheap/free photography is your self-entitlement, but it's this type of short-sightedness that will sink good photography as sure as it sunk the Titanic.

The gouging-photographer you referenced by the way you relayed his actions in this forum make him sound like a shifty businessman. He is no different from the noob-shooters who undercut and fuck us hard-working shooters with families we support partially with our photography, with the exception that the victim is us not the consumers. Difference is, the consumers have the opportunity to clarify with the shooter by way of a verbal contract with a winess present/in-writing of what hidden fees may be associated. Me, I just fail to get a job then a month later hear from a friend of the referring friend how they were fairly happy with the shooter they hired, if he was only.....better, not just cheaper. And if the images were printable larger than 4x6 and still presentable. And I skip a few meals, etcetera,

And fyi, it's not the cheap gear it's the mentality. My backup is MY old D90. I bought it for $640 in 2010, used. It's still not even half-dead (shutter-life estimated), and I still make a minimum of $300/month using it. As well as use it and leave my D3 at home on freebie-gigs I shoot for family/friends/etc. But my name is not Diana, nor Randy

Thank you for the Biz 101 Ivana, but considering I'm a Psych grad and my half-decade of Biz Management experience is highlighted with managing the largest-volume Ducati Motorcycle Dealership in Canada briefly until I nearly died at work in 2006 I think I'll be alright based on my already being published on 2 continents and my having 1 employee   Perhaps our marketplace works differently over here being that Toronto is a central over here in North America, but I don't honestly believe it differs that drastically.

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

I so love forums and how people can be so presumtious about knowing the writers thoughts that what they read, quote and respond to something that was never written.
I simply said the cheapo photography services have a market, and gave an example of my sister who could only afford a cheapo service or no-one.
And I gave an example of a high end service, which one of my friends could afford but I couldn't. I didn't say anyone was gouging anyone. I simply gave two of my personal experiences of two very different services which fitted two completely different markets, one which my sister was able to be a client, and one which she and I wasn't but a friend of mine was.

Again my suggestion was if you aren't catering to the low/no budget crowd then you probably aren't missing out. If the people doing TF ads don't have the money for a quality photographer (like me and my sister 30 years ago) then the options are to miss out (like I did)  or try to find an alternative (like my sister did).
I wasn't trying to "teach" you anything. Just giving some real life examples from my real life experience.

I do want to clarify that at I do think it's wrong when businesses who have a budget for all other aspects of advertising try to rip photographers off  100%. I'm not anti- photographers or anti paying anyone what they are worth.

Sorry about your difficulties. I have 3 children who all have mental illness/intellectual disabilities and I cannot work at all because I have to care for them. I understand all too well how hard it is to get by paying the bills etc on a limited income.

-Ira wrote:
Tacky.  Guess they feel like it can't hurt to ask.  But don't be surprised when you get what you paid for.

2nd post in thread pretty much sums it up for me. And then they'll probably try to sue when they look like crap. But I don't shoot weddings so more power to 'em.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
Even worse is when corporations want free photos.

The very same businesses that will often pay $10,000's or even $100,000's advertising in a single monthly publication but will want the photos they use for those advertisement for free.

I know one specific case where a company wanted to use a photo for an add campaign that could have easily resulted in as much as $45,0000+ in a media buyout and they told the photographer "We don't pay for photos."    This same company has, over the years, taken out advertising on no less than 60 monthly covers for as much as $226,850 a pop. That's just cover space.  That doesn't include countless interior ads that were over $100,000 each.   

Now that is sickening.

But... but... but... think of the exposure!

I try to avoid exposing myself in public whenever possible. Unfortunately this seems to be where the menatlity is heading and it's not just the photography industry. I don't know if it has always been this way or if I am just noticing it more in my old age, but I see the "Gimme" mentality more and more these days.

-Ira wrote:
Tacky.  Guess they feel like it can't hurt to ask.  But don't be surprised when you get what you paid for.

Edit:  I've also seen TF casting's for businesses.  Simply ridiculous.

It IS Tacky...

I can see that on Craig's list but personally, for a site that is based on networking,   there is no  place for them here.

They aren't jobs. They are someone fishing for freebie work.

Casting, is typically an opportunity to get paid or work on a mutually creative project, that benefits everyone mutually.
It's not find someone to shoot your cheap ass event for free.   

This attitude has been around since services were traded.   The internet has made it easier, so it's more prolific.

I think MM should ban such castings.   They fly in the face of creating a financially viable networking site.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

I got no problem with it.

If I 9you) don't want to do an event for TF*, i (you) don't have to.

What other people agree to do together is none of my (your) business.

^^

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

All Yours Photography wrote:

I clearly stated that they should give their time to a proper wedding studio instead, and no proper studio in the civilized world would send out a noob-shooter alone to be responsible for an entire wedding. Which was my *point: for the noob-shooter to invest their time and efforts while someone is there to oversee that no disasters take place, and no crowd-sourcing is occurring. And photographers in-general aren't getting a bad rap because of this noob who things they can take on the world with their T3i/D7000/etc. A little common sense would be useful while conversing with the adults, please. Thank you; we prefer to stay civilized and coherent

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Condescend much?

Your posting said nothing more than that the noob should donate their time to a commercial enterprise.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

When noobs get hardons for paying work and either shoot free for recognition or shoot cheep for a few bucks to get their next case of beer or baggie, their undercutting all of us badly.

I've gone back to working as a photographer as a 2nd job so I may have a pleasant disposition again. Giving it away free or cheap is like kicking another working photographer square in the nuts. My poor, poor unborn children.....

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
NOT by low-balling the others and forcing us to lose business while shitheads with their T2i's make a quick buck to go score an 8-ball of rock.

So anyone that shoots a wedding for a low price has to be either an alcoholic or doper?  No option for a couple whose budget and expectations are both modest being happy with what they offer?

I haven't looked at your port (nothing in your postings would make me the least bit interested in your work), but assuming that you have the skills in marketing and photography that you claim (although I don't understand how someone running a huge motorcycle dealership can't afford groceries or a car), my best guess at why you couldn't attract enough wedding clients is that many couples wouldn't want to spend the happiest day of their lives with a horse's behind.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

Tacky? I think it's even worse than a gentle "tacky". I think it's absolute horseshit, and if a shooter wants practice or images shot at a wedding s/he should give their time to a wedding photographer/wedding photography studio. Agreeing to shoot it Tee Eff just empowers those casting/asking into believing even stronger that free photography is their entitlement. I think ANY commercial project should never be cast for Tee Eff. I would respond "Tee Eff YOU!" if I were ever asked directly. I have, actually. And I told the person ifthey didn't leave my office I was gonna Tee Eff Pee all-over them  

I get heated talking about it. I realize noob-shooters need the experience to learn, and/or would like to expand their wedding/etc portfolio. But, do it properly! Through a proper wedding-shooter, who can offer the client a lower rate having the unproven shooter at their unforgettable day! I also can appreciate photography not being in the budget, period, and wanting to ask. But, Tee Eff Pee? When I see that, I get insulted. If someone asked me directly if I would shoot their wedding for free? I'd actually consider it, if I could afford the time and could think of a way to turn it into a positive leading towards me making money!

Tee Eff.....sheesh! I refuse to use the term, because online/to noobs to the industry in-general, TF=free

IMHO alone, as always;

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

I understand where you're coming from but it's not as simple as all that. Some of us are struggling to get a chance to do some work where it expected that you already have experience. I am working at doing some business headshots and have done a few TFCD (mostly with people I already knew). I regard it as networking and it's as valid to put TFCD commercial work in my portfolio as it is for a model TFCD shoot.

Plus your suggestion that we would be better to offer ourselves via an established photography business doesn't seem valid either. If I am shooting I want it to be my work, my way (right or wrong). Isn't it somewhat deceitful shooting for a first time under the umbrella of some other business name?

I don't know why people get so angry and seem to want to inhibit other people from making their own choices. Do you really think it somehow cheapens the photography business because people choose to offer or accept TFCD work? What next, no-one should offer big discounts either? I've seen photographers offer professional shoots for $100 (scarecely more than TFCD in the scale of things).

Why not live and let live? Do I tell you how much you should charge or what you should include in your service package?

ChiMo wrote:

Man, that's some serious fucking bullshit!!! Ugh!

Yes it is but that is where vanity publishing had lead us.  Many no longer see the value in photographers nor the photos that we make.

Every time someone allows corporations, or anyone, to use their photos just to "see their name in lights it takes all of down a notch.

It it all to popular for some to say shit like the cream always rises to the top" or if your business is suffering because of the Craig's List photographers you need to up your game. 

Now there is a great deal of truth in that sort of logic but sadly many photographers are so blinded by that statement that they can't see that it really is affecting the industry as a whole.  As time passes and continues to pass we will see more of this kind of crap and those that do "believe" "can't" it will happen to them will be the slapped in the face by it one of these days.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

I clearly stated that they should give their time to a proper wedding studio instead, and no proper studio in the civilized world would send out a noob-shooter alone to be responsible for an entire wedding. Which was my *point: for the noob-shooter to invest their time and efforts while someone is there to oversee that no disasters take place, and no crowd-sourcing is occurring. And photographers in-general aren't getting a bad rap because of this noob who things they can take on the world with their T3i/D7000/etc. A little common sense would be useful while conversing with the adults, please. Thank you; we prefer to stay civilized and coherent

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

All Yours Photography wrote:
Condescend much?

Your posting said nothing more than that the noob should donate their time to a commercial enterprise.

You consider your fellow-photographer trying to eek-out a living a "Commercial Enterprise"? Interesting.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
When noobs get hardons for paying work and either shoot free for recognition or shoot cheep for a few bucks to get their next case of beer or baggie, their undercutting all of us badly.

I've gone back to working as a photographer as a 2nd job so I may have a pleasant disposition again. Giving it away free or cheap is like kicking another working photographer square in the nuts. My poor, poor unborn children.....

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
NOT by low-balling the others and forcing us to lose business while shitheads with their T2i's make a quick buck to go score an 8-ball of rock.

All Yours Photography wrote:
So anyone that shoots a wedding for a low price has to be either an alcoholic or doper?  No option for a couple whose budget and expectations are both modest being happy with what they offer?

I haven't looked at your port (nothing in your postings would make me the least bit interested in your work), but assuming that you have the skills in marketing and photography that you claim (although I don't understand how someone running a huge motorcycle dealership can't afford groceries or a car), my best guess at why you couldn't attract enough wedding clients is that many couples wouldn't want to spend the happiest day of their lives with a horse's behind.

My port-hole is 2-rooms away, thank you for not inspecting it. I wasn't aware your other hobby was plumbing   Please indicate where I claimed I had had "all the skills" in marketing & photography, sir. Thank you. As well, an attention-to-detail required for better-photography as well assists in comprehending written communication clearly on the first pass. I managed at a huge motorcycle dealership, and only one department at it. I've managed a small business of my own in another field, managed 4 people under me at another small business belonging to an employer, and I now have my first employee as a photographer/sole-proprietor. Who said I could not afford groceries or a car? Please stop trying to put words into my mouth; if I wanted things in my mouth, I'd be attracted to men   (NO offense to those who are!) Then, you guess at why I "could not attract enough wedding clients"? How about a simple answer: I've never tried!!! I don't shoot weddings, man! I'm not against them, but they aren't a focus for me. And since I'm inexperienced at shooting weddings specifically, and I'm not fool enough to shoot them free and cause problems for working wedding photographers, guess I won't be shooting any weddings anytime soon!

IMNot-So-HO alone;

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.

imcFOTO wrote:
I understand where you're coming from but it's not as simple as all that. Some of us are struggling to get a chance to do some work where it expected that you already have experience. I am working at doing some business headshots and have done a few TFCD (mostly with people I already knew). I regard it as networking and it's as valid to put TFCD commercial work in my portfolio as it is for a model TFCD shoot.

Plus your suggestion that we would be better to offer ourselves via an established photography business doesn't seem valid either. If I am shooting I want it to be my work, my way (right or wrong). Isn't it somewhat deceitful shooting for a first time under the umbrella of some other business name?

I don't know why people get so angry and seem to want to inhibit other people from making their own choices. Do you really think it somehow cheapens the photography business because people choose to offer or accept TFCD work? What next, no-one should offer big discounts either? I've seen photographers offer professional shoots for $100 (scarecely more than TFCD in the scale of things).

Why not live and let live? Do I tell you how much you should charge or what you should include in your service package?

I understand completely the desire to want complete ownership over what you create. However, at least working under the guidance of an experienced studio/shooter will help you excel faster and keep your name good. Making blunders trying to wing-it on your own has the propencity for disaster and pissed-off clients   (And clients feeling like you've gypped them, regardless of your intentions being true and honest). It is not deceitful shooting under the employ of another businerss entity. It is business, plain and simple. You think I recommend this way because it's the way I took? (Noting I'm not yet "established" at all, and have had to revert back to working a primary job to ensure I could meet my monthly bills!) I have no formal education in photography, so no studio would consider me as a 2nd Shooter until I have such a strong book I wouldn't need them anyhow! I'm saying that shooting under an experienced shooter is the easier and safer way, man!

Yes. I DO believe it hurts every working-shooter when new shooters and hobbyists shoot for free/practically free. It doesn't matter that the client gets what they paid for. It doesn't matter that they flop. It doesn't matter who they are or where they are operating in relation to me (proximity). It matters because the clients have aunts/uncles/friends/etc, who repeat to *their aunts/uncles/friends/etc how they got their wedding shot for free; "Just call it Tee Eff". It drives-down rates clients are willing to pay, regardless of the quality they will receive from Norm The Newshooter vs Eddie Experiencedpro.

Live and let live? Your question is spot-on: why *not live and let live? As in, stop offering cut-rate deals just so y'all can be "paid photographers", while you simultaneously give clients the impression that actual photography is worthless?

Realizing I get a lil hot on this topic, and at times speak a lil condescending (NOT my intention, tbh), reviewing these may help me make the point I'm clearly fumbling to make:

I want to hire a photographer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_HXI4c7i_g

The rules for new (paid!) photographers: http://blogs.photopreneur.com/the-rules … #more-1675 (The focus being on point #1)

The truth about professional photographers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oqHrPQ9 … ture=share

A rant by a writer on a *very similar note (Harlan Ellison): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

El Roi Photography  wrote:
actually, a TF shoot for a wedding could be a good thing, or a wedding like event could be great for a photographer who wants to get into that kind of work but can't get hired without some photos in their portfolio, so that works out for them, if they have the time...

Yes, good for a wedding noob (not necessarily a photography noob) who needs a portfolio.

Not good for the poor couple and in-laws who won't have a clear photo of their wedding to show.

It's not good to ruin someone's wedding for your own benefit. And this applies whether it's a TF wedding or a paid wedding with no experience.

Valent Lau wrote:

Yes, good for a wedding noob (not necessarily a photography noob) who needs a portfolio.

Not good for the poor couple and in-laws who won't have a clear photo of their wedding to show.

It's not good to ruin someone's wedding for your own benefit. And this applies whether it's a TF wedding or a paid wedding with no experience.

if you are getting your wedding shot for free, then you cannot complain when you get what you paid for.

Francisco Castro wrote:
Is is just me, or is anyone else annoyed whenever they see a casting call for a TF shoot for weddings/baptisms/Bar Mitzvahs/Quincinieras/etc.? I appreciate the fact that some people's budget is really tight, but I think that's abusing the system.

It's an insane amount of work to shoot events like weddings, and I think it's just tacky not to even offer a modicum amount.

I know some people will say, "It's their time. If they want to shoot a wedding TF then that's their business.". And I agree. It's their time and effort. Let them deal with it.

But what do you think? Asking a wedding be shot TF--- tacky, or not-tacky?

Asking a photographer to shoot a wedding tfp is tacky.  Even though I know
that there are some photographers that would shoot it .... I've seen the
advertisements on Craigslist ... anyone asking me would get laughed at. 
I actually did have a model ask me ... but I turned her down.  Then I laughed
really hard once I got out of hearing range.   

Long story short, I had dated her, and decided to keep it just at friendship level.
So she had to show me that she could go to Hollywood and bring back some
handsome male actor to rub in my face ... it didn't work!  It only reminded
me of why I didn't want to get any closer to her in the first place.  Tacky?  Yes!