Possibly a new way to make money on your existing photo shoots.

[astroNikon]

If you think it's totally viable
Then fund it and make it happen
Then come back in a year and rub the noses of the naysayers if it does good

 

[vintagesnaps]

Maybe I've misunderstood. I don't get the premise of this; seems like if a photographer's on a shoot it would be for a client, and it wouldn't be an option to try to take photos for someone else while on the shoot.

If a photographer's taking photos not for a client but on their own time, then it would be for stock photos, or fine art photography, or whatever other purpose a photographer might have.

Seems like it would work better for the art directors to realize sooner than later they're not easily finding stock photos to suit their purpose and need to contract with a photographer and get the job done.

 

[NickArt]

If you think it's totally viable
Then fund it and make it happen
Then come back in a year and rub the noses of the naysayers if it does good

Thanks for the encouraging words. I already put my money behind the concept and built V1 of the platform. I'm in the process of launching it. I won't put the link in here but If you want to look into it, look at my profile page.

I know there are a lot of naysayers, and many do have a valid point. But that's not going to stop me you know why? Because over the years I came across many photographers who swore they'll never use DSLRs because it'll never be better than film. They swore they'll never upload hi res photos online because people might steal. They swore that they'll never use facebook because they don't want their pro photos appear on the same page with someone's cat pictures or selfies. I can go on and on. But now, the same people are some of the most active in doing exactly what they swore they'll never do.

People point out that there are a lot of legal hurdles, contracts to deal with and it's a hard work. Yes, I'm aware of that. And I'm solving those issues one by one, I don't think it's impossible and it will not stop me.

 

[NickArt]

Seems like it would work better for the art directors to realize sooner than later they're not easily finding stock photos to suit their purpose and need to contract with a photographer and get the job done.

The problem is even if the art director realizes that they'll have a hard time finding stock, contracting a photographer is not always an option.

It's not only the photographer they have to worry about. Besides searching for the right photographer and hiring her, they have to scout locations and get a location, do casting and hire a talent, deal with equipment rental and props, they might need makeup artists, assistants, and someone has to organize and schedule all these things. So it doesn't only cost a lot of money, but also a lot of time (which is also a loss of money).

So usually what happens is they compromise their creativity and still go with the closest stock they can find.

What I'm suggesting is a middle ground between choosing cheap existing photos from stock sites and an expensive photo shoots.

They'll still have to choose from existing photo shoots but they'll have some creative control over it and will pay extra to get that because the alternative is a lot more expensive.

 

[robbins.photo]

I know there are a lot of naysayers, and many do have a valid point. But that's not going to stop me you know why? Because over the years I came across many photographers who swore they'll never use DSLRs because it'll never be better than film. They swore they'll never upload hi res photos online because people might steal. They swore that they'll never use facebook because they don't want their pro photos appear on the same page with someone's cat pictures or selfies. I can go on and on. But now, the same people are some of the most active in doing exactly what they swore they'll never do.

People point out that there are a lot of legal hurdles, contracts to deal with and it's a hard work. Yes, I'm aware of that. And I'm solving those issues one by one, I don't think it's impossible and it will not stop me.

Ok, well I'm more than happy to go on the record and swear that I would never, as a paid professional, take money from a client and shoot pictures I intended to sell to someone else on their dime.

Sorry, but it's just unethical, and no amount of time will change that. I would encourage anyone that does shoot professionally to avoid using a service such as this. You can overcome the legal issues, etc.. but ethically this is just wrong.

That's my 2 cents worth. Sorry but as it turns out I really can't wish you luck in your endeavor, it's simply not ethically viable.

 

[Designer]

How is the pay for being unethical?

How unethical would I have to be?

Are we talking about not sleeping well, or just hiding one's face at the supermarket kind of guilt?

 

[robbins.photo]

How is the pay for being unethical?

How unethical would I have to be?

Are we talking about not sleeping well, or just hiding one's face at the supermarket kind of guilt?

Well if Client A is hiring me and paying me for a job, and I turn around and sell work product from that job to Client B and discount prices because Client A was paying for the location, the setup, the models, etc, etc, etc..

I'd consider that to be extremely unethical. I mean lets be completely honest, it's straight up theft. It may not be technically illegal, but from an ethics point of view you really are just stealing from Client A and using the justification of, "well this isn't something he was going to use anyway" to justify it.

For me that would be in the wander around in sackcloth and ashes level of guilt, because what I had done would really be that horrible.

I dunno, maybe other folks can justify that kind of behavior, but I certainly can't. Just not how I'm wired. I can tell you that if I were the client, if I ever found out about a photographer doing something like this on a shoot I paid for I would not only never work with that photographer again, I'd make darn sure that everyone I could think of would be contacted and informed of the situation and advised never to hire them either.

 

[Designer]

For me that would be in the wander around in sackcloth and ashes level of guilt, because what I had done would really be that horrible.

I was more hoping for the Saville Row and Gucci kind of guilt.

 

[robbins.photo]

For me that would be in the wander around in sackcloth and ashes level of guilt, because what I had done would really be that horrible.

I was more hoping for the Saville Row and Gucci kind of guilt.

Lol.. well mileage may vary I guess. I don't feel guilty when I buy something else that maybe someone else can't afford. I worked for my money, I'm entitled to spend it as I see fit.

Not that I would spend that on a suit, not with so many perfectly good camera lenses out there to choose from - but hey, that's probably just me.

 

[NickArt]

Ok, well I'm more than happy to go on the record and swear that I would never, as a paid professional, take money from a client and shoot pictures I intended to sell to someone else on their dime.

Sorry, but it's just unethical, and no amount of time will change that. I would encourage anyone that does shoot professionally to avoid using a service such as this. You can overcome the legal issues, etc.. but ethically this is just wrong.

That's my 2 cents worth. Sorry but as it turns out I really can't wish you luck in your endeavor, it's simply not ethically viable.

Again, I'm this is not made for every photographer or every client and every photographer. So it's okay if you don't use a service like this. And thank you for giving your feedback. I have a very clear idea on where you stand.


I just want to clarify one thing. in you first post you said this

I'm not a pro photographer mind you,

in your last post you said

as a paid professional, take money from a client and shoot pictures I intended to sell

Please don't take this the wrong way and I don't want to discredit what you said. I just need to know the source of the feedback too that give me a better perspective of things.

Thanks again.

 

[robbins.photo]

Again, I'm this is not made for every photographer or every client and every photographer. So it's okay if you don't use a service like this. And thank you for giving your feedback. I have a very clear idea on where you stand.

Well I guess if you have no ethical problems encouraging such behavior then I'd have to be once again brutally honest in saying I wouldn't want to do business with your service or any service like it.

If your willing to cheat a photographers client in such a fashion, I guess it wouldn't exactly engender a lot of trust on my part that you wouldn't eventually get around to doing the same to me as the photographer.

But frankly if I was willing to go along with cheating my clients, frankly I'd deserve it.

 

[robbins.photo]

I just want to clarify one thing. in you first post you said this

I'm not a pro photographer mind you,

in your last post you said

as a paid professional, take money from a client and shoot pictures I intended to sell

I'm not a paid professional photographer. I have however sold photographs in the past, I just have no intention of doing so for a living in the future.

Either way the statement is quite clear - as a paid professional you should never consider doing something like this, it's ethically wrong.

Whether or not I am currently working as a paid pro or have any intention of doing so anytime in the future, again, simply obfuscates the point. What your suggesting here is a theft of a paying clients resources.

 

[NickArt]

Thanks for those who have shared their thoughts about this.

It would be really cool if other people also shared their point of view about this too.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I'm with the big ape on this one. I guess not everyone has the same standards.

What was described sounds like a commercial/fashion shoot. So if a photographer's doing that, the premise is that he/she would take some photos at the shoot that aren't for the paying client?

But wouldn't the photographer need model releases for other purposes? Would everyone at the shoot, makeup artists etc., go along with this and keep working at the shoot knowing it's no longer for the client who hired them?

I would think it would just be a matter of time that eventually either someone else at the shoot would start questioning what the photographer is doing or a client would happen to see photos that looked like they were shot at the client's shoot and being used by someone else.

And I'm not sure how a photographer is going to contract for two jobs at the same shoot at the same time. This premise seems to be asking photographers to disrespect their clients by using their time and money for another job.

Maybe some others will add their opinions. Maybe I'm completely off track in understanding this premise. I just don't think it seems like it would be worth a photographer risking his/her professional reputation.

 

[vintagesnaps]

OK I'm really confused now after looking at the website... Now that I know it's up and running; some examples on there seem to be just - pictures. Like a bird in a bird house in the snow. That's not doing a photo shoot, any photographer could shoot that and market and license usage for whatever purpose. So now I really don't get what this is going for. To me there's a difference between taking photos like that and setting up a shoot with models and makeup artists etc. for clients.