Losing business to amateurs

[imagemaker46]

It wasn't a matter of him sitting back and waiting to see what happened, it just happens. I don't know the exact details, but he is always hustling around, making calls and trying to stay ahead or at the very least even with all the other young freelancers in the city. What does happen in our business is that you could do a shoot on a Saturday and Monday they hire someone else, it usually comes as a huge surprise, especially if you're doing a good job for the client. It's tougher on the photojournalist side with newspapers dropping staff, sending out the writers with cameras or accepting cell phone shots.

One of the biggest challenges of most photographers is being able to buy new gear, losing 15k is the difference with being able to buy another camera body, or trying to get another year out of the one you're using. Someone that has a stable bank account, because of a steady pay cheque can afford to just go out and buy what they want. This person that is working for free, is also restoring a family owned villa in France, money isn't an issue for her. She will start to find that it won't be a very friendly place among the other photographers when word gets out that she's a poacher. There is no respect for people like this.

 

[Braineack]

Motorsport is not something you just go out and do successfully. It takes time and patience in order to learn how a race car feels and handles. And playing videos such as Gran Turismo doesn’t count as experience. But Vadim Kogay, a rich Russian businessman, thought he was above it all and could race without a hitch. Instead of starting at a lower level, he went out and bought himself a Ferrari 458 GT3. Yes, GT3 racing. He then enters a race at Monza.

 

[imagemaker46]

I've mentioned on here before that I have changed how I do things when it comes to finding and working with new clients, going back to basics, offering more and charging what they we can both be happy with. I have been shooting for a jr football team for three years now, it's only a matter of four home games, I put them on my web site and the parents and players can download directly from my there. I don't make a lot of money, I enjoy working with the team. I went in knowing that I probably wouldn't make make more than a couple of hundred during the season, but it's relaxing for me to go out and shoot without the usual pressure or stress that goes with shooting the pro games. A few weeks ago I find out that two other people decided to travel to the away games and shoot, he then started posting his pictures on their face book page and that if they wanted a copy to just ask. I had that shut down pretty quick.

They can't shoot as well as I can, not in this lifetime, and especially not football, the president of the club wasn't impressed that they were posting, there is a loyalty that I appreciate from this team, and he had them blocked. I didn't ask him to, he said it wasn't right what they were doing, giving pictures away for free. In fact with them travelling to the away games it was costing them money every time, I don't understand the thinking of some people.

 

[imagemaker46]

Motorsport is not something you just go out and do successfully. It takes time and patience in order to learn how a race car feels and handles. And playing videos such as Gran Turismo doesn’t count as experience. But Vadim Kogay, a rich Russian businessman, thought he was above it all and could race without a hitch. Instead of starting at a lower level, he went out and bought himself a Ferrari 458 GT3. Yes, GT3 racing. He then enters a race at Monza.

This guy was a hazard on the track, I'm surprised he was allowed to continue racing.

 

[slackercruster]

I had to throw this out there. I was talking to a friend of mine the other night, he's been working as full time photographer for 6-7 years. As a photojournalist he shadowed a Reuters photographer for seven months and does a good job. He told me the other day that he lost a client recently, one he has had for a few years, it made him around 15k a year, shooting sports for one of the local universities. He had no idea what happened, so he went to them and asked, another photographer, and to be honest she does a pretty good job, went to them and said she would do it for free, she retired from a six figure job last year and just wants to shoot things.

So he gets screwed out of trying to make a living by someone that has decided to poach clients at a price photographers can't compete with, free, and she doesn't see anything wrong with it. This is what pisses me and so many other photographers off.

If anyone thinks that amateurs with full time jobs, that can afford to buy the best gear and then shoot for free because they can afford to, doesn't affect other people that are just trying to stay in the business. They have no idea what they are talking about. This is just one example.

No law against it. Zillions of people with cams out there. This is how it is. He was very lucky to have made $15k all those years when it could have been had for free. I feel it in other ways with my own work, so I am in a similar boat.

 

[slackercruster]

There are hobbyists who are worlds better than so many pros. The problem as I see it is that most of these hobbyists do not value their own work and give it away....

Very hard to value it when it is almost worthless. Too many photos for free out there. Photogs have an unrealistic value of their photos.

 

[slackercruster]

This is a two edged sword. I do not blame the client at all. I'm a former pro, a photojournalist back in the film-only days. I got out in the '80's. The dSLR re-ignited my passion, but now I'm just a hobbyist. I've been so tempted to hit the theaters around here and volunteer just for the fun of it and to get some exceptional images. (Theatre is like shooting fish in a bucket. You have the lighting, the actors, the staging all there in front of you.) But, I've held back because I wonder who I might be taking paid work from ... for me it just isn't right.

Gary

I did it a few times but they kicked me out for disturbing the play and for copyright violations. I offered them free hi res discs and some 13 x 19 prints but they said they have 2 or 3 photogs that give them free pix from the dress rehearsals already. And I'm in a little dinky town of 30,000 people!

 

[sfaust]

The problem is with digital anyone can use a digital camera I bet the problem was not so bad when you shot film

Back in the 80's, I heard a lot of the same arguments. While it wasn't shooting for free, it was shooting for the cost of film and developing. But basically the same as they are working for free. Mostly this was focused in areas such as model portfolios, portraits, weddings, sports, editorial, travel, etc. Areas that amateurs saw as fun or sexy to shoot, lost cost of entry, and a client base that was easy to market to.

Photography still is a viable career if one stays ahead of the free or low cost amateurs giving away their work. If they move up a rung on the ladder, you move up two. Stay out of the easily accessible areas that people like to shoot, and move into more skilled, demanding, complicated areas, and where clients are harder to find and market to and there is still a barrier to entry for them to overcome. There competition in those areas are mostly between professionals, the industry is still paying good rates, and the cost of entry keeps the freebie amateurs out. While the rates in those areas have stayed somewhat stagnate, you can still make a decent wage by controlling overhead and production costs.

Vadim Kogay in the motorsports example posted is a good example. He was an amateur trying to work at the professionals level, and he failed. There was a cost and skill barrier to entry, and while he could afford the equipment, he didn't have the investment in skills. But this also fits if you flip it around. A professional driver will also be hampered and frustrated if they join races loaded with amateur drivers and try to make it a profession.

If one wants to make a career in photography, the only viable areas left are those with a high cost and skill barrier, as there is a lack of amateurs trying to break in. Sure, its very competitive, but at least you are competing with professionals for professional wages.

 

[The_Traveler]

In medievil times, there were craft guilds that restricted the performance of certain tasks to members of the guilds. The purpose of the guilds was to maintain a monopoly of a particular craft especially against outsiders. They would persist because of two things, they were supported by other guilds or those in power and, by protecting the actual practice of their particular specialty, they would prevent the interested outsider from gaining long experience in the practice and secrets of their profession. The prices were set in common and the public had to pay the prices or go without. Guilds create a sort of "social capital of shared norms, common information, mutual sanctions." This social capital benefited guild members just as it hurt outsiders and hindered any real development of the trade.

The wheel of industrialization rolled over these guilds when the 'secrets' they held fell to modernization of the trade. Eventually many former handicraft workers were forced to seek employment in the emerging manufacturing industries, using not their own specific closely guarded trade secrets but standardized methods controlled by corporations.

Some guilds still persist; one can't practice medicine or law without a state-approved level of competency. At one point professional photography was a sort of craft guild, kept intact by the difficulty of producing good images out of the relatively crude equipment that was extant. One had to be very practiced to focus on fast-moving objects or to judge exposure that couldn't be verified until some time later. And, within certain limits, the public had to pay whatever price was asked,

Industrialization, auto-focus, auto-exposure, digital sensors and the personal computer, changed all that.

 

[Gary A.]

It wasn't a matter of him sitting back and waiting to see what happened, it just happens. I don't know the exact details, but he is always hustling around, making calls and trying to stay ahead or at the very least even with all the other young freelancers in the city. What does happen in our business is that you could do a shoot on a Saturday and Monday they hire someone else, it usually comes as a huge surprise, especially if you're doing a good job for the client. It's tougher on the photojournalist side with newspapers dropping staff, sending out the writers with cameras or accepting cell phone shots.

One of the biggest challenges of most photographers is being able to buy new gear, losing 15k is the difference with being able to buy another camera body, or trying to get another year out of the one you're using. Someone that has a stable bank account, because of a steady pay cheque can afford to just go out and buy what they want. This person that is working for free, is also restoring a family owned villa in France, money isn't an issue for her. She will start to find that it won't be a very friendly place among the other photographers when word gets out that she's a poacher. There is no respect for people like this.

What happened to your friend, I think, is an anomaly or 70% anomaly. How many professional photogs are going to work for free? But it is representative of how tough it is to make a living with photography. What if the ex-photojournalist set up shop ... a website and undercut your friend by 10% or 25% ... then whose fault is it? Or the studio owner across the street can in at 20% less. At least then I guess you have a shot at negotiations. Hard to beat free. (Hence the anomaly.)

In the film only days it was the darkroom which separated the photogs from the wannabes. Now everybody with a digital camera is pretty much on equal footing as a starting point. And ... many people feel that just because he has a camera equal to what the wedding photog has that now they ARE shooting at that level. You see this on every photo forum ... what lens should I use for my first wedding or what's the best settings for football. Photography lasts a lifetime ... why do people toss money on flowers and skimp on memories? (as an example) It is a combo of ignorant customers and ignorant people-with-cameras. (Sure there are those wedding when the money is tight and a non-professional steps up, but those are not what I'm talking about.)

While the digital camera and the internet has been a boom for photography it has been a bust for the professional.

Gary

 

[Gary A.]

This is a two edged sword. I do not blame the client at all. I'm a former pro, a photojournalist back in the film-only days. I got out in the '80's. The dSLR re-ignited my passion, but now I'm just a hobbyist. I've been so tempted to hit the theaters around here and volunteer just for the fun of it and to get some exceptional images. (Theatre is like shooting fish in a bucket. You have the lighting, the actors, the staging all there in front of you.) But, I've held back because I wonder who I might be taking paid work from ... for me it just isn't right.

Gary

I did it a few times but they kicked me out for disturbing the play and for copyright violations. I offered them free hi res discs and some 13 x 19 prints but they said they have 2 or 3 photogs that give them free pix from the dress rehearsals already. And I'm in a little dinky town of 30,000 people!

I shoot the dress rehearsals for a local high school I'm associated with.

 

[runnah]

Photography is just becoming a less and less viable sole source income career. Sucks for those who have dedicated their lives to it but time changes everything.

I've pretty much killed my web site business as No one wants to pay for it anymore. Everyone has a friend or relative who can do it along with all the free services out there. It's shitty but it's just been killed off by the progression of technology always getting cheaper and easier.

 

[Derrel]

In the sports photography segment, a lot of long time shooters have counted upon ownership of a 300/3.8 and a 400/2.8 and a 24-70 and a 70-200 and a couple of pro bodies as the things that keep "amateurs" out of their business. What that leads to is a sameness in the images coming out of the professionals; guys show up to the same events, shoot close to one another, with basically identical gear, and the shots all tend to look the same. Leaf through Sports Illustrated and see if you can tell who shot what: every single SEC football game, every single Pac-12 football game, the images look basically interchangeable. At the smaller market level, there are "pros" who show up to events, shoot for 20 minutes, then move on after they have made an image or two that is good enough for the publication they are stringing for or freelancing for, often NOT capturing the really most-interesting sports action, like say, the GAME-WINNING field goal with 00:07 remaining, or whatever, but being perfectly happy with the check they receive for the 1st quarter action they captured in the short time they were there. Meanwhile, the "football dad" type amateur, free to shoot the entire contest, winds up with complete coverage.

As a life-long University of Oregon football fan, I can also see the value in having longer coverage in sports, from the first second to the LAST second on contests, as well as the value of having three-person teams shooting big events. As the Ducks have grown from Pac 8 laughing stock, to Pac 10 celler-dwellers, to Pac 12 and national powers and top-5 rankings, I've seen a real increase in three- and four-man photo coverage in which having not better shooters but simply MORE GUYS shooting the same game action at the same time is producing the exquisite still photos that The Register Guard and The Oregonian and Sports Illustrated want to run on those games. The old-time idea of sending a single photographer to the games to get something "good enough to run" doesn't cut it any longer. And neither does average work. The bar has been raised.

What I've seen is "the bar" was once just ownership of a couple big teles, two bodies, and two standard pro lenses, and the ability to shoot the same old chit, over and over, at every event. Generic images. Same old stuff. Long tele, blown out background, feet cut off, ultra-tight, boring chit. I'm tired of that being considered "professional" sports photography. And I think a lot of Sports Information Directors are also tired of being ransomed for the same grade of "pro" shoots, week after week, when they can get basically the same, or almost the same stuff, from people who can provide equally usable, or maybe better, images for less, or for free. If a guy cannot compete with a FREE shooter, then his work is obviously NOT that valuable in the economic sense of valuable. If there's a lower-cost or free substitute, then the natural laws of economics will replace the over-priced product with a lower-cost one that fills the need.It's called "economics". Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.

 

[runnah]

Owning a couple of big white lenses is no longer enough to keep charging people $15,000 a year for sports images. Counting on the barriers to entry being a couple white Canon lenses and a couple 1D bodies is no longer enough of a barrier, but it is what a lot of professional sports shooters have been counting on as enough to keep the amateurs out of their field.

I always amazed by the number of "pro" bodies/lenses I see out in the wild. All of which owned by hobbyists. The few "pros" I know all shoot with old battered gear.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well we don't really have the whole story here, so I think it may be a bit premature to be dusting off all these rocks for a good old fashioned stoning. This lady might very well be doing this because she's an alumni or huge fan of the university.

She may have been asked to do this rather than going in and volunteering of her own accord. Truth is we really don't know her motivations nor do we have any idea how this all came about.

Regardless I don't see the whole "you are not in our clique" approach to be productive or professional. It is what it is - obviously this lady can produce high enough quality images to satisfy the University and is willing to donate her time to accomplish that task.

I do feel bad that your friend lost business in all of this, but blaming her seems useless and frankly you'll forgive me but a little silly. To me it just seems a lot like getting mad at the tornado that just destroyed your house. You can shake your fist all you want, but it accomplishes nothing. I think you are better served spending that time rebuilding your house instead.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV