Pixiq

It's all true but you missed one. If you take a photograph anywhere within 50 square kilometres of a fully dressed child you are, by definition, some sort of perverted kiddy fiddler and should be tarred and feathered, flogged, and chemically castrated. And that's for a first offence!

I agree with what you have said here, and have the same rants too
I think one of the main issues with the digital age is, that so many people have a camera and think they can take a picture, I am a pro portrait / wedding photographer so it is my main (only) source of income and charge a resonable amount for my work, I have noticed that people who have a salary from a company come along and charge £20 for an hrs portrait session (for pocket money basically) - how are pro photographers supposed to compete with that?

I read the whole thing (was not TLDR) and it was a great read. I agree with everything. Being new to photography I am amazed at how cheap people are.

Thanks for chiming in people, enjoying all these comments. Ben, to answer your rhetorical question with an actual answer - you compete by using quality, by offering something different and unique that people respect and recognise the quality of. It's about educating the customer and, unfortunately, that sometimes means turning work away.

I'm not saying everyone comes back, because they don't, but the ones that do come back tell others, and those others tell other other others (is that too many "others"es?). Then you're being booked because you're good, not because you're cheap.

I just want to add, although I went on a bit of a employment-themed rant, I'm genuinely curious as to why photography has so much ignorance and disapproval floating around it, not just in the area of getting people to part with their money.

Interesting post which I was agreeing with until you got on to money and charging people. "Do not sell your work for peanuts. Do not let it go for free" - why shouldn't I? I take photo's because I enjoy it as a hobby and I want to learn and become as good as I can be (that's why I read sites like this one) and I don't value my photographs in monetry terms. If someone wants to use them, then I'm happy because there must be something they appreciate about them. If they want to pay me, then great, if they don't then I don't care, if the only thing they appreciate is that they're free I still don't care. I don't value my work any less because of it.

"If you work cheap, it affects all of us." So, photography is your business, does that mean I shouldn't share the results of my hobby? Distinguish yourself with your tallent, professionalisum and creativity. I work in Software Development, but I'm not going to go round telling all software developers contributing to open source (free) projects to stop because they hurt my earning potential and they certainly don't seem to be putting Apple, Microsoft, Oracle etc. out of business.

The key difference here is that Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle are huge corporations that aren't likely to go out of business any time soon. Photographers are usually individuals; you cannot compare a one-man-band with a turn-over of a few thousand a year to multi-million pound companies. And the simple fact is that photographers provide a service for which they deserve to be paid. By offering services for free, you hurt the industry and devalue the genre as a whole. You might not value your work any less because you don't place any monetary value on it, but the people to whom you have just given your work value it less, and they'll value other photographers' work less as a consequence.

Fair point about not comparing major corporations to one man bands, how about comparing the thousands of IT contractors? Would you tell my dad not help me with diy because it takes money away from the trades men?

By refering to photography as an "industry", I assume you're talking about the professional photographers; the economic/comercial side of photography. If Amatuers/Hobbists are hurting the "industry" by not requiring people to pay for there images, it's because the professionals aren't doing enough to distinguish themselves. I think if the professional photography industry has to resort to asking amatures to stop giving away there photos, it's a sign that the profession industry is failing and needs to have a look at itself.

Bushy my dear boy, we can chuck out metaphors all day long, but they don't get to the heart of the problem. Look, here's one from me - if you popped into work one morning and your right honourable employers said to you "I'm sorry, we can't pay you anymore because we found a software developer who is happy to do it for free. I know you're excellent at bug fixing and keeping the code nice and efficient but, y'know, you want money for it and everything", what would you do? Would you say "oh that's fine - my own sense of satisfaction is reward enough for my 35 hours a week"?

Of course, this isn't a fair comparison to make, because we're talking about different industries (yes, photography is an "industry") which is why your DIY and Software Developments comparisons don't work.

To continue on the methapor joyride, I feel like you feel that the pro photographers are having a house party and when you knock on the door, you're met with a look of disdain and "can I help you?" before the door is slammed in your face, leaving you to peek inside through the window angrily whilst everyone dances and laughs, telling hilarious anecdotes about invoices.

This is not the culture I'm trying to promote with this post: it's not "Us VS Them" - if you are a photographer, I include you and stand on your side in this rant, regardless of whether photography is your full time job or your hobby. The door of the party is open, Bushy, and I'm stood at the entrance, smiling and handing you a cool glass of beer. Come inside, we're doing shots soon. Get it? Shots?

I also love photography and the true value of my work is in how good I think it is and how I can improve, our opinions and approaches to photography are one and the same there. I am not a soulless, money making photobot. In fact, I love photography so much and it matters to me so much that, a few years ago, I straight up walked out on a well paid, secure job with prospects so that I could have more time to pursue my passion of photography - so that I could become the best photographer I could possibly be. I sat down with my manager, told them that, although this job is a good one and I'm grateful for the opportunities afforded to me, I'm not happy, because I want to be a photographer. And off I went.

So I may have said goodbye to a secure, steady salary but it means my whole job is photography. My whole, full time job. Which is brilliant. I did it because money really isn't important to me - it's caring about what I do that's important to me. Photography is amazing and I love it and I want to do it forever. But I can't do it forever if I can't make enough money to cover the bills and the mortgage, so yes, it does bother me when I'm undercut by someone giving work away for free, and for no reason. I don't mind being turned down in favour of someone else's work, just so long as they actually charge for it. I would argue that the path I've taken indicates that I put a great deal of worth into the quality of my work and what I do. I'm not asking for money because I don't like photography and I just want money money money - I'm doing it because it's my job, and most people feel it's fair get paid for the job they do.

As for your quality argument, that is a completely untenable standpoint to take. If you let advertising companies and corporations have your work for free, they will take it. At the top is a man who only cares about spreadsheets and numbers. If he can make those numbers go down, he will. If Da Vinci popped up and asked for a few quid for the rights to use the Mona Lisa for an Oil of Olay advertising campaign, if Mr Skin McMoney had an offer of free material to use forever from someone else, regardless of quality, he would tweak Leo's 'tache, pull his silly hat over his eyes and tell him to stuff off out the door.

Man, I wish I could draw, because I'd be drawing that picture right now.

I read your post and totally understand and agree with most of it. I hate to be asked questions like"why are you taking a picture of a rock?". I actually make a point of telling folks that I don't take photos of people, usually right after they start gushing about how nice my shots are. They assume that because you have a collection of fairly nice photos, you must be able to photograph a wedding. I stink at photographing people. I do a much better job with rocks.

Your views on how photographers that sell their services and product for cheap may be undermining others were interesting. I never thought of it from that perspective. Not sure I agree fully but it was good food for thought.

I think several things contribute to the undervaluing of photography these days. First people just take photographs for granted because they are now all around us. Much more a part of everyday life than say a hundred years ago or even in Ansel Adams' time. It is not widely understood that knowledge ,skill and work goes into producing a good photo.

Secondly almost anyone in Western civilisation can now own a camera, take a picture and develop it for little cost, relative to even twenty years ago. Blame the advent of the point-and-shoot digital camera, home photo printers and the mobile phone camera. We have had amateur-type cameras for decades (since the Brownie, if you think about it) but you always had to buy film and then pay someone to develop it. Unless you knew what to do and then you were faced with the cost and logistics of setting up a home lab. Not anymore. Therefore, we think this is easy, anyone can do this.

Thirdly the internet - people take a shot of anything they like and 2 seconds later it is on Facebook for the enjoyment (often dubious) of millions of people. Photo albums used to be on your coffee table or in your purse or wallet. You had to physically show people you came into contact with. Now you still make the decision to share a photo- when you post it Facebook or Flickr or email you entire inbox- but the number people that can access it and the ease with which they do so is much greater. This, together with the ready availability of cameras, leads to another issue- people don't think about what the photo looks like before they put it out there.

So cameras are more accessible, photos are easier to share, if you want to it is much less complicated to print a photo and everyone thinks that any crappy photo can be put into public domain. But the technical aspects of what makes a good photo have not changed (composition, lighting, post-processing) and this knowledge is still as uncommon as ever. The difference is now, people THINK its simple.

So when the professional photographer charges for his services, the potential client thinks to themselves "Why does this chap want so much money? Its not that hard, anyone with a camera can do it and it not that expensive, my brother in Taiwan printed all his Christmas photos at home on his laser printer. This guy is trying to rip me off!"

I love photography and at the end of the day it is good that it is more accessible, that more people can enjoy taking and sharing photos. But its been a something of double-edged sword to the discipline itself.