what happens to customers who only have one chance to get their photos right? where there won't be a next time to get a "pro" becos their free photog sucked the last time? one good example is a wedding. but not even weddings, say the queen of england came to singapore (she did!!) and a sucky photographer shot her, how to show her the shots if you are the one organising her visit and the photographer? next time she comes u will know better, but when would the next time be?Originally Posted by overdodo
it's not a product where u can claim warranty like a hard disk spoil, next time don't use that brand, but a more reputed brand, and u will have less/no data loss.
i don't have a big problem with customers/consumers going for free/cheap photography. i have a problem about the amount of crying over spilt milk.
as for the market, well, spilt milk feeds no one, so.. yes, it's bad for the industry (both consumer and photographer), contrary to your opinion.
i think we need to remember that while "competition" is generally a good thing, it's not fruits and vegetables that we're dealing with here. that said, an apple is so cheap, yet u wouldn't usually get it free, would you?
the only reason why "free" photography is good, is that it gives a chance for young photographers to experience how it's like in the field. if they don't do it free, they won't, or perhaps, have less chance to build a portfolio. but in no way are these pple helping the industry. once they have their portfolio, they should charge accordingly.
just right now, there's a thread where a cheap ROM photographer got bashed by consumers on another forum because of poor work. u call that good for the industry? (customers dissatisfied, photographer bad named, everyone LOSE). had the consumer paid more for someone more experienced and/or proficient, i'm confident this bashing wouldn't occur. OR, if the consumers understood that if they paid less, a less experienced/qualified photographer would not produce work of extremely high standard.