When to ask money for photography [Archive] - BirdPhotographers.net

Jerry van Dijk

01-31-2014, 06:48 AM

I’ve been an enthusiastic hobby photographer for a few years now, and over the years (and thanks to BPN!) the quality of my images has started growing. I’ve also started using my photography to document work related things like workshops, conferences and field excursions. This is starting to get noticed, with the result that I’m being asked to contribute my photos for professional purposes and for freelance assignments. I also contribute to online species guides and repositories. I’m quite happy with these developments because it shows that people like what I do, it offers me more exposure and it challenges me to photograph subjects and situations that are new to me.

So far, I haven’t been charging money for this, either because I mainly contribute images that I would have made anyway, because I’m professionally involved in a project or because the images are for subsidy dependent NGO’s or institutions with not a lot of money to spend and working on a good cause (although some of them seem to be able to afford quite a large PR staff).

A recent discussion with a few freelance and hobby photographers and a few recent experiences triggered me to rethink this: By contributing my images for free, I’m possibly taking away income for professional photographers that might otherwise be hired; I contribute images for free to my employer, but I noticed that if they can’t get a suitable image, they would buy a professional stock photo anyway; I spend quite a lot of my free time on image preparation; recently a communication agency we hired to document a project and who had a professional photographer present asked me if they could ‘have’ my images as well.

So maybe it is time to start asking money for my services, but then the question arises in which cases I should ask for money and in which cases not. I guess I’m looking for a sort of moral guideline, because I don't depend on my photography for my income. Many of you probably have been in this situation already, so I would really like to hear your thoughts about this. Thanks for taking the (unpaid :w3) time!

Raybel Robles

01-31-2014, 03:06 PM

Very good question. I'm very much in the same boat as you and would love to know aswell.

John Guastella

01-31-2014, 06:53 PM

I’m possibly taking away income for professional photographers that might otherwise be hired

There's no "possibly" about it -- digital photo technology in the hands of amateurs has decimated the ability of professional photographers to make a living.

John

Gary Kinard

01-31-2014, 08:24 PM

There's no "possibly" about it -- digital photo technology in the hands of amateurs has decimated the ability of professional photographers to make a living.

John

That part of photography is dead and buried long ago. The only reason to take photos is to get noticed, so you can promote your other photo related business interests IMO.

This site is a good example. The real money is selling a service or clicking a link to buy a product.

Two years now small magazines and others have tried to get me to give away or sell my photos. I turn all offers down. Including Getty and others.
If you are looking to make money in the photography industry. It ain't selling pics. And it can ruin a good hobby.
If you want to sell images make sure you have a hook back to your real business. Professional speaking, guiding service, what ever.

My opinion anyway.

www.birdsthatfart.com
www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos

Jerry van Dijk

02-01-2014, 06:40 AM

There's no "possibly" about it -- digital photo technology in the hands of amateurs has decimated the ability of professional photographers to make a living.

John

Thanks John. I agree with you, but I do think that it's not only the availability of the technology, but the fact that there are just so many talented people as well. Just look around here in BPN. I think the majority of the thousands of images presented here could be considered to be of professional quality, while many of their creators would consider themselves amateurs. It's like with any other skill, if there's a lot of people who can do it, it's just not valued anymore. Only those who really stand out (and have commercial talent like Gary points out) can make a living out of it.

The reason why I stated 'possibly' is actually at the core of my dilemma. The big question is whether the organisations I would provide photos to would hire a photographer if I didn't. Some of them just don't have the money, and would simply not buy photos if 'volunteer' photographers wouldn't provide them. Contributing images without charge could then be considered as 'giving to charity' and could support a good cause. But it's a blurred line. Many of these organizations are able to mobilize considerable funds for their core tasks, and while I understand that they want to spend as much of those funds on those core tasks as possible, reaching out to people with the use of images could also be considered a core task for which some money could be reserved. Similarly, by contributing my images to projects that I'm involved in, I'm basically also contributing to the success of my own (non-photography) work. Of course that's something I want, but at the same time I'm taking away income from professional (stock) photographers and I may have been taken advantage of by external PR agencies or the PR department of my own employer (who see that part of their job is being done for free).

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!

Jerry van Dijk

02-01-2014, 06:48 AM

If you are looking to make money in the photography industry. It ain't selling pics. And it can ruin a good hobby.

Thanks Gary. The reason to ask money would not be to earn an income, but forcing the 'buyers' to consider that good photography is not a given, but work that some people try to earn an income with. Second reason for me would be to be able to cover expenses like ink cartridges, photo paper, batteries and the occasional upgrade of my gear. I can afford all of those with my earnings from my 'real' job, but it's a nice idea that my hobby could (partly) pay for itself.
Thanks again for sharing your opinion!

Bryan Munn

02-02-2014, 10:49 AM

I am just returning to bird/wildlife photography after a long (20 year) absence, and I am very curious about this topic. What has happened to the market for freelance wildlife photos?

In the late '80s and early to mid '90s when I did most of my work, it was very easy to get on the submission rosters for a wide variety of publications. While the market was fairly competitive, if your work was reasonably good it was quite doable to make substantial income selling freelance photographs for one time usage. I no longer have any interest in trying to sell work, but I am curious how the freelance market has evolved since the digital revolution. Most of the photographers who were selling work when I was shooting (like Mr. Morris) now seem to be more in the equipment/seminar business.

So now in the digital age, where do publications that need wildlife photos get their images? Many of the annual calendars that used to buy work (like the Audubon series) seem to no longer exist, but there are still a lot of other publications that I am sure need photographs. Do they rely on stock agencies, staff photographers, or (god forbid) are there now so many amateur wildlife photographers that work is donated for free?

I am really curious about this.

Jerry van Dijk

02-02-2014, 11:04 AM

HI Bryan, for what I see here in Holland, conservation magazines get most of their images from stock agencies specialized in nature photography. But many contributors to those agencies are actually amateur photographers and people involved in species monitoring. Also a few pros.

John Guastella

02-02-2014, 02:58 PM

I think the majority of the thousands of images presented here could be considered to be of professional quality

Yes, but without the advantages of current camera technology, it would be much more difficult to capture those images. The time, effort, and skill necessary to do so would frustrate most amateurs. Heck, I get frustrated even with the fantastic modern equipment I'm using. I can't imagine what it would be like to photograph birds in flight (as one example) without autofocus or the ability to instantly check exposure and sharpness of the acquired image.

John

John

Bryan Munn

02-02-2014, 04:22 PM

Yes, but without the advantages of current camera technology, it would be much more difficult to capture those images. The time, effort, and skill necessary to do so would frustrate most amateurs. Heck, I get frustrated even with the fantastic modern equipment I'm using. I can't imagine what it would be like to photograph birds in flight (as one example) without autofocus or the ability to instantly check exposure and sharpness of the acquired image.

John

John

Basically, before the advent of the current technology cameras, those types of images did not really exist. Photographers may have captured soaring eagles or other types of relatively slow "action" shots. But much of the type of action photography that is evident on this forum and other places did not exist more than about 10 years ago.

It wasn't just about autofocus. Nature photographers pretty much lived or died on Kodachrome 64, then later Velvia 50. Try using those ISO settings on even modern gear and see what you can get in the way of action shots.

Daniel Cadieux

02-04-2014, 12:22 PM

Yep, wildlife photography (and photography in general) sure is a different marketplace than 10 years ago, maybe even less! I do not make a living from photography but I have no problem charging anyone or any company/corporation that has a budget for publications or prints (including digital files)...if they want free images they can get it elsewhere than from me. I have trouble giving away images to these that have huge budgets but think photos are a commodity to be given away for a photo "credit". I admit though that at first I found it exciting to give away stuff and see my name beside it, but I have learned how and when to say no thanks.

On the other hand I also have no objection giving my work to non-profit charitable organizations (the ones that I can personally agree with and support anyhow), church, family members and very close friends.