View Poll Results: Are we being taken advantage off?

Voters
695. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes we are killing ourselves.

    242 34.82%
  • No, this will benefit the newbies.

    142 20.43%
  • I dunno.

    42 6.04%
  • Its all part of the game.

    269 38.71%
Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 345671015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 500

Thread: Has ClubSNAP become a sourcing spot for cheap photographers. Are we being taken adv?

  1. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesecake
    well, u got sponsored for the trip and the 'exclusive' stay in the hospital with beauties surrounding u, hey, not forgetting the helicopter ride!! haha

    what more could you have asked for?
    Haha!

    I did ask for more! After the trip, I managed to get one of the nurses to show me around their town.

    I'm not much of an ang-moh person, but i can say that my nurse-tour-guide is one of the sweetest ladies i met.

    LOL

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    For amateurs, I feel that they can do for free if they want, but should be aware that 1) they distort the market 2) understand that pros have other mouths to feed besides themselves and 3) pros have to pay for equipment, etc while they do not (usually from some other source of income). At least, they should try to understand that the rates are not unreasonable and that every free job they provide, it means that they are denying someone else revenue.
    Agree. As Chaotic points out, and as I have done in the past, amateurs can charge less because they don't have to worry about overheads and making a living; so any profit made is profit in the bank.

    Ultimately nothing can stop amateurs from doing it for free, but I still don't think it's an acceptable practice. Yes you get what you pay for, but that doesn't mean they should be encouraged to charge nothing as amateurs.

    How many of you would take a free, unqualified lawyer or doctor to work for you? You wouldn't because you wouldn't trust them. So why take the unqualified photographer? Shouldn't you not trust him too? Why is there skimping that that area? Because of perception.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston
    Every free job they provide, it means that they are denying someone else revenue???

    I do not agree, everyone has their own budget, just as the pro photographers have their rate.
    Depends Winston. They may not directly deny someone else revenue, but they indirectly do. Look at it this way, if no one did freebies, then the clients would be forced to budget for a photographer. Or they don't get photographs. Simple as that.

    If you wanted to build a building, you budget for architects, builders, electricians, plumbers, etc. You don't say, ooh, right, we can save the budget for the architects and get a freebie instead. Perception perception perception.

    And even if you argue that they wouldn't have employed a photographer otherwise, a freebie photographer is just ruining the perception of photographers and photography in his own way. See how it got to the situation it has in the paragraph above.

    Just as WE should not judge whether the pro photographer's pay is high or low and it's up to him to charge, it is also the customer's right to use the services of someone who meets their asking price.

    Definitely. But where are the free lawyers, doctors, architects, etc. And if you mention social services, then yes they may be free but they still get paid, by tax money.

    So if the pro's price does not meet the customer's budget, and another guy does it for cheaper or free, you cannot accuse the other guy of denying the pro of revenue.

    The accusation is not that he is intentionally denying the pro of revenue. The idea is that he is inadvertantly doing so. What you've described in your little bidding example is a common thing and fair play. But if someone decides to do for free, which you cannot expect a pro to offer his services for, then how can you say that is not denying the pro his job?

    I ask again, where are the free doctors, lawyers, architects? Even those starting out? Surely they'd want to get their work seen, want to establish a client base. Why do they not have freebies floating around? Because they recognise their market position and their skill and expertise. The public should recognise photographers too, and all those people who charge next to nothing because they have a spare Sunday should respect that too.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default Eh which jungle?

    Quote Originally Posted by VincentLin
    Umm.. I got sponsored for an expedition trip in a jungle, got bitten by bugs, hit my head on a log, went to hospital via helicopter, stayed a few days with a few very beautiful nurses, went back to the jungle again... and came back alive.

    I didn't ask for a single cent. I loved the experience.

    Am I spoiling the market?
    Sponsorship? Is another different affair again. Did you get sponsored or are you sponsoring your service to the company? If u r sponsoring, well u shud have your name on the photos. Plus I think you have the copyright to the photos right?

    Just asking which jungle did u go to? Let us know. We want to get bitten by bugs too......... and did you say the nurse were

  5. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneks
    The only way that pros could be recognised (and compensated) fairly, would be to have a professional organisation that ranks each photographer based on their skill sets or on feedback provided by PAYING clients. The pros can then issues cards that classifies them as "Master Photog", "Class 1 Photog", "Class 2 Photog" etc certified by a recognised and respected body, much like MCSE certification by Microsoft. Members in the "Pro" category would then be bound by certain code of conduct (and pricing) or they risk having their certification revoked.

    With this certification, I would then know what I am paying for (or not) and face the consequences if the shoot turns out badly due to not hiring a certified pro.

    just my 2 cents!

    Steven
    It's not the right way to judge by certification.

    These MCSEs, and whatever merely certified the person as having the knowledge of this and that. It does not measure how creative the person is.

    So a certification certifying that Mr ABC is capable of doing Java Programming, does not say much as to HOW GOOD he is in doing it or how creative or appealing is his design. you merely knows he can do it.

    So a certification for Photography, if any, merely informs the client that Mr 123, has taken lessons and knows what the heck a DOF, aperature...blah blah blah....is. or that he can identify parts of a camera? (Reminds me of the A+ certification courses.....)

    It is common knowledge to many of us, that some (or is it "a lot"?) of these certified this and qualified that, are merely exam crampers or book muggers. Who after attaining the cert has not ability to perform the basic tasks just because the task did not appear in his exam question.

    Photography is an art or skill and you cannot rate that Mr Michaelanglo is a 10/10 and Mr ABC is a 7/10 and hence is 70% as good as Mr Michaelanglo.
    Just as a certain photographic style of Photographer A, may appeal to his clients in the modeling industry while it may not appeal to another client in the fashion magazine industry.

    While, past customers sometimes do give comments of who's good in photography, like all reviews, it is very subjective.

    If you really want to judge a photographer, IMHO, one way is to ask to see his/her works in the area of photography that you are interested to hire him/her for. like wedding shoots, product shoots...etc and ask him abt his experiences and perhaps some clients that he has worked with before. (maybe shot for HER WORLD, or GUESS!...etc)

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Talking Yah agree with JED again........

    Yah! What JED say is damn true!

    When u need a lawyer to defend your innocent, u need to pay him. I dun think a laywer wants to work for free. There may be some out there doing it for charity sake but I think if you are fighting whether u go to jail, i think u would rather hire someone with experience. Experience comes with a price too.

    Or a doctor. Have some internal problem with your body. Would you ask someone who is less experience to do the operation for you? Pay him lesser and he will probably take some of your organs out to sell!

    Have a relative who is a lawyer who charges his relatives as well!

    Aiya..........the bottomline. Get paid for what you do. Whether beginner, amatuer, semi-pro, pro and whatever lah!

    Just open your mouth and say.........................

    PAY! PAY! PAY!

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston
    Yes, I agree with Larry that Photography is a skill, however, like doctors and lawyers. There are also GPs who charge $16 and specialists who charge $1000+.
    Like there are professional photographers who charge X and Y.

    Ask yourself the question, why does a GP only charge $16? Either because his work doesn't merit more money and if he charged more his customers would disappear, or because he's earnt his money and he's doing it for charity. As you yourself have been at pains to point out, market forces will dictate what you charge, hence there is a reason your GP is only charging $16. Either that or Government subsidies, but see above.

    No disrespect to that GP. There might well be other reasons but I'm just suiting the example to help my argument!

    I think I should clarify at this point:

    I am not anti-amateur, and I am not pro-professional.

    I'm simply arguing that people who have no capability to do the job, whether amateur or professional, should be responsible enough to not do the job, rather than do the job for free, or for less money.

    That's all. I want fair competition. I'm happy enough for an amateur to come into the market, be able to do the job, charge whatever he likes, and do the job well. That's fine. If he's capable and knowledgeable, he won't sell himself short either and the pricing will take care of itself.

    I stress again, the problem is people who undercut professionals (even amateurs) because they can; because they have a day job that pays their bills so photography is a bonus; because their parents have bought them their camera and their parents are putting them up and feeding them.

    so the couple who spend millons on wedding who go get themselves the best, and the garden party wedding couple can ask a newbie to do it for $50 (or what ever)

    No problem with that. But does the newbie know what he's doing? Is he responsible and a good photographer? If the answer was yes, would he be charging $50? Because clearly that's all he thinks his time is worth, OR that's all he thinks he can get away with charging because there'll be someone else out there, with far less skill, who'll do it for the same amount otherwise. Your example newbie is getting shafted himself by this poor perception of the profession.

    I have seen some couples who look at the shots the newbie photograhers take and say "very good, it's good enough for me" and they may not even be able to identify which photograph was taken by a pro and which was not, so does it warrant him to pay for a pro when he cannot see the difference?

    No it doesn't. As I've pointed out above. Like branded goods, many people can't tell the difference if not for the label. But in as much as anything else, as we've pointed out above, that's if you get a decent, competent amateur. Not necessarily good, just competent. But what if you get a bumbling fool? I know of an instance where someone took on a couple of assignments and he didn't understand the least bit about flash. And because he's in this country rather than aforementioned Singapore, he's using a Pentax MZ-M and a manual flash gun. Oh dear.

    Next point is, that's as much down to the pro's fault, in your little scenario. It's up to the pro to distinguish himself. Do you get people thinking, oh I'll hire this guy off the street to do my operation because I won't be able to distinguish his result from the surgeon next door? No. Back to my whole point about perception, people need to appreciate the photographic skill. I don't mean, *think* a pro photographer is better than a newbie, I mean, be able to see it.

    And it's up to us as photographers, ALL of us, to educate the public into a better appreciation of the photographic art. As well as arts in general. Like it or not, Singaporean society does not accord it its due status, whether performing art or fine art.

    Evian mineral water and the bottled mineral water from indonesia (VIT) taste the same to me, and I also opt for cheaper ones (sometimes, even Free from the taps, since singapore tap water is safe to drink by WHO standards), does it means the cheaper mineral water or the free tap water are depriving Evian of their market share?

    Yes!

    I get what you're trying to say, and I agree with you. Some people will still buy Evian. But look at it my/our way of thinking. If there was no tap water and no VIT, would Evian's market share not be a LOT higher because the options are cut down. Everyone who drank tap water and VIT would have to switch to Evian. Market share goes up.

    I'm not trying to champion a monopoly. That's not good for the market either. But I'm warning against untreated water that is not safe for consumption flooding the market because they promise to *pay* you 2 cents per litre. It just undercut tap water, VIT and Evian all in one. Same with photography, let legitimate professionals and amateurs earn their money, do their jobs. Don't let riff raff who don't know the slightest bit about photography aside from the fact that their camera has 11 megapixels undercut the market.

  8. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pro Image
    Sponsorship? Is another different affair again. Did you get sponsored or are you sponsoring your service to the company? If u r sponsoring, well u shud have your name on the photos. Plus I think you have the copyright to the photos right?
    They sponsor one lar. Where am I going to have the money to sponsor them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pro Image
    Just asking which jungle did u go to? Let us know. We want to get bitten by bugs too......... and did you say the nurse were
    Why? U wanna get bitten by a love bug ah?

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    It's all about technology.

    Next time, when U can buy off-the-shelf diagnostic machines from your local electrical store, the doctors will cry foul too.

    Next time, when U can teleport from place to place, the airline companies will cry foul too.

    Next time, when the law changes to Free-For-All, wedding planners will cry foul.

    Next time, when we've created the ultimate matrix, we all cry foul.
    You are, I'm afraid, completely missing the point.

    And again illustrating my sad perception about the general perception of photography. You're assuming a high tech camera can replace a photographer.

    It can't. Until the first computer with true Artificial Intelligence appears, it's not going to. And even then, it needs to be able to develop creativity.

    I've said it so many times now I'm wondering why I'm going on. If a camera can do the job, then so be it. If all you're hiring a photographer for is to take properly exposed pictures that are sharp, then go ahead and hire a camera to do the job, with a camera operator behind it. You are paying for the photographer's skill and vision, otherwise photography would be a minimum wage occupation, like a factory operator (no offence meant). So the high tech camera is NOT going to replace the photographer.

    BTW, self-diagnosis things are actually very dangerous things. The self-diagnosis book has been around for some time now, and ultimately doctors have the nous and experience to spot things you don't see in the book. Many ailments have common symptoms.

    BTW, I shoiuld also add that high tech cameras are actually very dangerous things. Ultimately photographers have the nous and experience to spot things, see pictures, the camera and his operator wouldn't see.

    Illustration. In movies, how much does a camera operator make? How much does the director make? In photography, photographer is both director and camera operator.

  10. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    I ask again, where are the free doctors, lawyers, architects? Even those starting out? Surely they'd want to get their work seen, want to establish a client base. Why do they not have freebies floating around? Because they recognise their market position and their skill and expertise. The public should recognise photographers too, and all those people who charge next to nothing because they have a spare Sunday should respect that too.
    There are some part-time doctors, who give free medical services or cheap medical services to the public.
    The public only pay for the medicine which is a few dollars.

    But that's not the point.



    Photographers are more like artists, comparing them to dancers, performers, hair stylists....etc will be more appriopate.

    Student hair stylist charge cheaper than the professionals, the public is aware that they are not professional and those who are not too mindful of a Good hairdo, will be willing to let a student hairstylist to do their hair for a cheaper price.

    Just like customers choosing "student photographers" and being prepared to have non-pro level photos and pay less.


    In bid to encourage more people to appericate art, there have been many 'free' performances once in a while in parts of singapore, to encourage art aperication.

    While some people are contented to watch the occasional free juggler on the street or play at the Esplanade, some are willing to pay to watch a very good play or musical.

    I guess some of the consumers are used to these free performances, that if you ask them are they willing to pay to watch them, some will walk away to look for other free performances.

    Which is perhaps why art is so difficult to live by, at least in Singapore.
    Last edited by Winston; 26th November 2003 at 07:55 PM.

  11. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default

    Ya Loh Love bug

  12. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default I think JED can become a.........

    Hey guys............I think JED can become our lawyer for photography purposes! He is defending like mad!

    Anyone going against JED will get

    No lah just kidding!!

    JED! JED! JED!

  13. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pro Image
    Hey guys............I think JED can become our lawyer for photography purposes! He is defending like mad!

    Anyone going against JED will get

    No lah just kidding!!

    JED! JED! JED!
    Oops. Dun flame me.

  14. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneks
    However, the average CSer here could carry an expensive camera, be knowledgeble by reading through the forums, and have enough photos which would look quite professional after attending a couple of "newbie" workshops. How would I know who are the real pros? By the time I find out, it would already be too late!
    Yup. Couldn't agree more. And those non-experienced people should be responsible enough and stay away from trying to pretend to be capable of doing the job.

    The only way that pros could be recognised (and compensated) fairly, would be to have a professional organisation that ranks each photographer based on their skill sets or on feedback provided by PAYING clients. The pros can then issues cards that classifies them as "Master Photog", "Class 1 Photog", "Class 2 Photog" etc certified by a recognised and respected body, much like MCSE certification by Microsoft. Members in the "Pro" category would then be bound by certain code of conduct (and pricing) or they risk having their certification revoked.

    Not quite. The problem you have is that art is a subjective thing. And organisations exist in this day and age already.

  15. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    hear hear

  16. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default Jed........

    JED, you are from UK? Nice too meet you!!!!!!!!!

  17. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston
    Oops. Dun flame me.
    No lah! Already said kidding!

    Must TME but it's good that he opened up! So we know what the rest of the photographers up to!

  18. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston
    There are some part-time doctors, who give free medical services or cheap medical services to the public.
    The public only pay for the medicine which is a few dollars.
    I've already addressed this point above. Why do these doctors do this? Because of charitable situations. If that's the case, then fair enough, but we're not talking about those situations.

    I think there's not one person in this forum who would begrudge anyone, be he pro or amateur, about shooting for free or at cost for a worthy cause.

    Photographers are more like artists, comparing them to dancers, performers, hair stylists....etc will be more appriopate.

    Hang on a minute. I said we are professionals (not in the full time sense of the word, in the profession sense of the word). That doesn't preclude us being artists as well. Perception perception perception. You are not comfortable grouping us with lawyers and doctors. Plumbers are professionals too. Dancers, performers and hair stylists are professionals too.

    And are we just artists? Don't we provide a service too? Like policemen and firemen and lawyers and doctors? Perception! You think photographers are second class citizens, you'll forever think the way you think.

    In bid to encourage more people to appericate art, there have been many 'free' performances once in a while in parts of singapore, to encourage art aperication.

    And honestly, how many of these free photographers are out there to encourage art appreciation?

    Which is perhaps why art is so difficult to live by, at least in Singapore.

    Yup, exactly why, because it's difficult to break out of the commonly held notion that photographers are not on a level with doctors, lawyers, etc.

    Student hair stylist charge cheaper than the professionals, the public is aware that they are not professional and those who are not too mindful of a Good hairdo, will be willing to let a student hairstylist to do their hair for a cheaper price.

    Just like customers choosing "student photographers" and being prepared to have non-pro level photos and pay less.


    You make a good point. But I pose you this question. Would you go to have your hair done by a student stylist on the day you plan to propose to your girlfriend? Would you take her out to a cheap meal that you have never tasted before and have no idea whether would be good or not? Would you take that risk?

    Why take that risk on your wedding day?

    Perhaps I've been approaching this all wrong. Perhaps what needs to change is not the perception of photography, but the perception of love and marriage.

  19. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pro Image
    Hey guys............I think JED can become our lawyer for photography purposes! He is defending like mad!
    I'm defending like mad because I'm a professional photographer. Does that make me biased because I am protecting my kin?

    I'm also legally trained. And I could make a case to argue that a photographer needs as much technical know how as a lawyer, in addition to a helpful dose of creativity and artistic nous. Believe me, with absolutely no intention to insult, if you believe that learning about aperture and shutter speed is all you need to know to understanding photography, then there is a long way to go in your education yet.

    At the same time I could also say the lawyer needs to be able to appreciate plenty of things in addition to just understanding the law.

    Winston,

    Well met mate, nothing to worry about.

  20. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pro Image
    JED, you are from UK? Nice too meet you!!!!!!!!!
    Yup. Likewise.

Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst ... 345671015 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •