Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Photographers jobs at risk with sneaky ideas.


keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
24 Jan 2012 12:45PM
You'd be hard pressed to find an artist who HADN'T given something away at some time

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

pabloisme 4 566 England
24 Jan 2012 12:46PM
GOOD POINT

BUT at least they were in a position to actually pay or wanted to pay! (if not much!!) and never gave away
Hi Fi, cameras, country wear or pallet racking! may have done a few cassette tapes though!

I think the FREE bit is a misnomer as YOU SAID POTENTIAL customers*

don't think send in for free or give away yer rights.... is potential customers NO?

*or as we called them prospects!
pabloisme 4 566 England
24 Jan 2012 12:49PM

Quote:You'd be hard pressed to find an artist who HADN'T given something away at some time


dont feel hard pressed it's ME!

and before someone adds the bit **** before artist! that 'aint me!!!!
macroman 11 15.3k England
24 Jan 2012 1:14PM

Quote:as well as people who have no intent of selling a product and who will give endless "free samples".



And post pics on Flickr, EPZ etc ??

Personally, I have only sold a couple of prints in the last ten years, despite having prints in at least three local exhibitions per year, so it's no great loss.

Admittedly, that could be because I don't go out of my way to sell images, as photography is just a hobby and not a money making venture, (or my pics are rubbish Smile).
thewilliam 6 4.8k
24 Jan 2012 1:31PM
Artists make money when they learn to market their work.

Van Gough never managed to sell a painting. Monet was close to starvation for much of his early working life, but he prospered when he learned the secrets of marketing and lived very comfortably indeed in his last years.

Why do you think some of the conceptual artists are able to sell their work for huge sums? I can't believe its because of the artistic content!
pabloisme 4 566 England
24 Jan 2012 1:54PM
well said BUT the operative word is SELL!
ianrobinson e2
5 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2012 7:52PM
The operative word is value your work or not in most cases.
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
24 Jan 2012 9:32PM
Professionals do have to know the value of their work.

However, in most cases, that value will be determined by the market rather than by the professional himself.

Once they know the value, they have to control their costs - write-down of capital equipment, time (especially time), travel, marketing, materials, etc., so that the income they realise from an image shows a surplus over the real cost of producing it.

That is where we amateurs are at a huge advantage. The "value" of our work is simply whatever we think it is worth to us - will we hang it on a wall, send it in to a magazine "Readers Gallery", enter it for a competition, e-mail it to our friends, stick it on Flickr for the world to see .......or whatever?

And, within the confines of our disposable income, we are likely to spend far more on our hobbies than any professional could possibly afford to. We only have to justify our costs to ourselves (or our wives? ). Professionals have to justify them to their accountants.


.
Overread 6 3.9k 18 England
24 Jan 2012 10:46PM

Quote:
And, within the confines of our disposable income, we are likely to spend far more on our hobbies than any professional could possibly afford to. We only have to justify our costs to ourselves (or our wives? ). Professionals have to justify them to their accountants
.



Unless the professional also has photography as a hobby and is thus able to put their hobby (profit) monies into their profession Wink
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
24 Jan 2012 11:18PM
you can price you work as high as you like

just gets a bit tricky selling the stuff the higher you go Sad
strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2012 11:32PM
Whist talking about papers dropping to content for free, they are also selling to a smaller market as fewer people are buying papers etc. Why take a news paper when the BBC web page offers so much news content? So many papers and magazines are struggling to get along as well. Yes photographers are under a squeeze, but then so is everyone in their profession.

Markets come and go, you just have to move along to where you can make some money. after all the best way to make photography more profitable is to have fewer people taking photo's.
Graflex 11 488 United Kingdom
25 Jan 2012 9:36AM
Well said Strawman.

Actually I haven't bought a newspaper in years-the BBC and other sites supply the news.Do I want to read 'in depth' accounts,no I don't,lifes too short to read pages of what some reporter thinks.
And to think I onced worked for the gutter press.

It's true what Strawman said,too many photographers coming out of the woodwork,all looking for the fast buck and 15 minutes of fame.It's a wonder publisher think,well in that case,let's not pay them or pay them less.

Yes,folks,the market has collapsed because of this.I've seen a dramatic change in my lifetime,for the worse.But then,Im out of it so I don't worry anymore.Just have a grumble now and again.
andy_AHG 5 106 6 United Kingdom
27 Jan 2012 3:09PM
The Barnsley Chronicle is doing a similar thing, using a 'community' website called We Are Barnsley and asking for 'volunteer' photographers to cover events. Bloody piss-take it is!
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
27 Jan 2012 3:13PM

Quote:The Barnsley Chronicle is doing a similar thing, using a 'community' website called We Are Barnsley and asking for 'volunteer' photographers to cover events. Bloody piss-take it is!


No it's not. It is a perfectly sensible way to reduce the costs of producing a newspaper and has the huge additional benefit of encouraging many more people to take an interest in photography and perhaps having their efforts published within their local communities.
ianrobinson e2
5 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
28 Jan 2012 12:06AM
No it's not. It is a perfectly sensible way to reduce the costs of producing a newspaper and has the huge additional benefit of encouraging many more people to take an interest in photography and perhaps having their efforts published within their local communities.

Yes and at the cost of many jobs and families to feed, house to pay for from jobless photographers.
Hey lets just get every ones photos for nothing, it's a con, a way of getting free labour and stupid people are fooling for it.
I doubt i could go to Tesco and get free food so why do these papers think it's fair to get free images that people have spent man hours to get themselves and not get paid, it's bull as far as i am concerned.
And any one that supports this kind of thing is either stupid or they are desperate to have there image shown at any cost.

Your better off showing your work on here or sites like this and make your own website, i earn money from my images on my site, i sold an image today from my site, it works, however what does not work is putting your images on paper sites that you won't get paid for.
Good photography takes time and planing, lots of effort, investment and luck so why go to all that effort to put it somewhere where you don't get paid for it???

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.