This is what we called Disruptive Technology......an evolution....and its all part of the game.
Yes we are killing ourselves.
No, this will benefit the newbies.
Its all part of the game.
This is what we called Disruptive Technology......an evolution....and its all part of the game.
It's all part of the game... in photography or any other trade. In any industry, there will always be people who competes by cutting on price. And more so if the barriel to entry is very low (more supply = lower price). Photography for example, the barriel is low and all you need is a camera to join the trade. For other professions, such as Doctors and Lawyers, the barriel is very high. There are two ways to look at this. We either complaint about it and scream and shout the people undercutting, or deliver more value. Look at the car manufacturing industry, the Korean, Chinese etc makes are hitting the market at very cheap prices. However, people still go for others from Japan or Europe. Why is this so, because there is more value. The point is, it would be a better idea to channel our energy on improving and creating more value (and don't just restrict to photo quality and such... there are many more innovative ways...) and not fighting back on competition. To the pros, I am sure people will be willing to pay for value. Back to the car industry example. Big brands continues to pull away, delivering better and more expensive cars although there are loads of cheaper competitors. Reason... because they focus on making their cars better from all aspect (power, handling, comfort, styling... etc).
Well, what I think is that you pay for what you get.
If your portfolio is amazing, then obviously there will be clients wanting to hire you.
If you suck and offer free services and the client is willing to accept that, then its their loss. I think its as simple as that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
a recent example here
but i do agree that what they pay for (or don't pay for), is what they get. If they're unwilling to pay, they cannot expect too much (at the same time the photographer still has to professional though)
once companies/organisers/institutions get used to free photography, do u think they would ever want to pay a cent in the future?
how low can these companies/organisers/institutions stoop? so very low.
to me having clubsnap isnt killing the freelance industry.. its more of where we can fight for better shots... sometimes only certain people are able to capture a moment that others cant.. but if it is shared but not exposing the secret of it no one will copyright it.. teaching is totally different..
sometimes by seeing newer and better shots never seen before, we actually experiment more and learn more by ourselves...
to me people who post pictures and share their knowledge a little,
help those who aspire to be photographers to find out more.
sometimes courses dunt help much.. but its more of personal perseverance that makes a person take up a hobby and stuff and thus clubsnap is a way to find out..
The shoot for free virus is here again.
Ah, so this question is finally asked...
I say the damage to this profession Freelance or Full Time, are those eager beaver teenies who advertise to offer FREE photography service, JUST BECAUSE they wanna learn.
This pretty much screws the market up real tight.
Undercutting prices/fees is bad enough, offering FREE services is the worst.
I think everyone's got to start from somewhere. I suspect even the top pros didn't charge "market rates" when they did their very first shoot. From time to time, I still do shoot for free, but of course there are many conditions (mentioned clearly beforehand) to this also.
And of course, when you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys. If people insist on getting everything cheap-cheap, then let them be. These should not be your target clientele.
A fair thought and points to note from you. However, I still feel there should be some degree of control in this industry. Singaporeans being what we know they are infamous for, should not be led into believing that there are Free Lunches to be had. The integritry of this trade, Freelance or any otherwise, is hence jeopardized by such FOC desperados.
A good reputation is by no means an easy thing to come by.
A bad reputation is easy if you are not professional in your attitude towards your "customer".
Free services imply no come-back from your customer, which is maybe a reflection on the photographers confidence in his/her own ability.
If you want experience (the catch 22) then you may need to do some work where hosts/guests are offered photos at a set rate... charging for physical items at a realistic price, inclusive of the creative process, transport etc is fair. That way if you only sell 1 photo @S$5 to a gathering of 100 people, you know you need some work. S$0.40 copies can be made from the one guy who buys a set, so you need to get the business on the day.
(Used to be a gofer for a pro in Scotland...)
From a customer's point of view; why should I pay to shoot my occasion when there are plenty offering to do it for free? And customers mostly don't understand the quality of an image, a composition, a portraiture, and so on.
Regulating this industry then, will be too little too late.
Agreed. I once read on another forum about photogs "resting on their superstar status and experience". Photogs provide a service while on the job, and service is an ongoing competition between all competing parties. This is quite a universal law.
For the small events i think most of us don't exactly wish to fork out money to hire a photog either. Some of us don't even need a professional camera body present at the event, we just need someone with a fairly quick shooting PnS camera who is attentive to possible shots & candids throughout the entire event to cover what "normal unempowered mortals" might not see.
And there's the after-event processing where many normal PnS people might not have the time or knowledge to effectively PS the satisfying photos for presentation to the employer. "Exposure" meant "showing skin" to me when i was among the normal PnS bunch.
Same concept like the budget airlines vs high end flying (like SQ?).
The companies can hate all they want on each other but when we stand on the side of the consumers area it all seems insignificant to us what their price wars are about.
Humans were born to be selfish, even if not to a large extent. It would be unfair to discriminate free-photogs for small jobs out there while we are busy lapping up discounts and taking the most budget-friendly route possible. In fact, i think half of this forum's topics are all about equipment and putting as much bang for buck equipment in your arsenal.
And i'd also like to add on that some of the "pros" here or anywhere for that matter, started photography digitally. For many years, digital has been the more cost-friendly route to take, with a lower learning curve as compared to film. Some of us may not be where we are today if the learning curve was higher - we might never have started. So are we going to hate on others for making decisions we may have once made too?
On a sidenote, theres someone hiring a photog for a small kindergarten graduation ceremony for both taking on-stage photos and candids of the event. Seriously, i'm not really into the money they pay, i would consider doing it for free if i was not already booked on that day. I like kids with their bright smiles, many of us do, and they make great subjects in photography. Instead of having to be sneaky-sneaky going around playgrounds photographing kids we have a place to photograph them without worry of being questioned by moms or dads. We have our reasons for offering a "free service" as well as the risks involved. We are just backups () not the real pro-deal. There is no substitute for quality.
Just my $0.02, hope my post doesnt raise too many issues. I just thought that most of us here are experienced enough in life issues to get the point that every trade comes with competition (be it current past or future) and it's your choice to delve into the trade or not. In my honest opinion, i don't ever see myself going as a full time photog, i would really rather do a 9-5. Cover events only for an extra income.
Or at least pick up another skill as a backup plan in the case where the market gets really bad. Nobody to blame if you put all your eggs in one basket.
"Regulating this industry" is somewhat a harsh way to put things. It feels like then any and every photog has to join the "cartel" in order to provide their services at rates which are closely monitored. Clubsnap is certainly a place where cheap help is easier to find, but it also helps the professional freelancers who aren't willing to let agencies take a cut from their pay.
Last edited by xylestesins; 19th November 2008 at 12:48 PM.
it is obviously out of question that a free forum that serves the whole communities sets rules to protect the professionals against the other users of the forums. moreover it is not a question of ethics but a issue of commerical interest. you cannot enforce regulation on members on opposite parties of different interest, simply becos you dun have the rights to do so. the forum may enforce regulation based on their commerical interest within the authorities of the forum too, but that would be their commerical interest and not yours too.
the only way that can be done in best interest for all is education of the customers and the other photographers of what should they expect and what do they deserve. then they will in their own capacity and preference decide on what they want to do.
In this case, a divide will be created in the photography industry. And this cannot be avoided simply because of human nature - especially in SG, wherein almost everything has to be eventually REGULATED.
I do recall that even for property agents, there is no real licensing mechanism involved, despite all the cries for it to be. If I'm wrong, do correct me.