Perhaps, like many other industries, professional photography is a
declining industry because technology changes have significantly improved
the accessibility of high quality photography, which inevitably pushes down
the value. Business is not charity; generally people don't pay money for
products for the purpose of supporting the business, but because they value
the product. If the product is available at a less to no cost, it's
inevitable that people will choose the cheaper option. The move from film
to digital cameras in particular, makes high quality photography orders of
magnitude cheaper. The other big technological change - the internet -
makes distribution virtually free.
Many industries that are declining due to technology are resisting the
decline by blaming consumers, attacking the improvements and not changing
business plans. This is a strategy that will surely fail. I think it's
inevitable that the cost of high quality photography is going to decline,
the quality is going to increase, and the amount of people willing to
provide free high quality photographs is going increase. Within the next
decade it's probable that smart phone cameras will be able to provide as
high quality images as those currently produced on mid range dSLRS (and you
can already get adapters for using dSLR lenses on some smart phones).
With these trends in place, I don't think individual decisions to give away
or charge for photography will have much impact. I do think it's probably
unfair to say that amateur photographs shouldn't do whatever they want with
the work they produce though. If there is a market for professional
photographers, there will be a market. If there isn't, it shouldn't be the
responsibility of amateurs to artificially create that market (unless they
want to), and it seems like that suggestion merely has financial benefit
for the professionals, while having no benefit for anybody else. If
professionals can provide services of a quality or uniqueness that amateurs
can't, then there'll be a market for professionals.
So to give my opinion on the original question - I think if you're happy
giving away photos to business for free, then you should do that. And if
you feel like you've worked hard to produce the photo, and deserve to paid
for it, you should ask for money instead. I don't think there is a general
right or wrong answer to that question, but rather it's up to the
photographer to make whatever decision they're happy with.
Regards,
Jeremy O'Wheel
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> Is there much evidence that amateurs are giving away their photos to
> commercial organisations?
>
> Peter Shute
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [birding-aus-
> > On Behalf Of inger vandyke
> >Sent: Monday, 23 July 2012 9:28 AM
> >To: ;
> >Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] What value a photo?
> >
> >Professional photography has always been an inherently tough game. In
> >recent years it's been made even tougher by the fact that there is a
> >raft of amateurs willing to do anything to see their name in print.
> >These are people that perhaps have gone out and spent a lot of saved
> >money on some decent gear, then taken great pics with it and given their
> >stuff to a publication for free.
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
>
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
