This photograph is not free

[KeeFy]

Photographers woes.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/#more-44476

[Xenedis]

Amen to that.

He didn't include the cost of his flash card, or his time, which covers:



the drive to and from the scene;
the time he spent processing the image; and, most importantly
the time he took to learn and develop his craft.

[Tom J McDonald]

I coulda taken it for half that...

[fillum]

He doesn't actually state that anyone asked for the image for free...


So if you’re a magazine, website, corporation, sports team, or advertiser who wishes to use this photo, please don’t come and ask to use it for free

Pick a "hot-button" topic, start with an outlandish statement ("It cost me $6,612 to take this photo") and watch the hits roll in...



Cheers.

[Xenedis]

I coulda taken it for half that...

Got a link to your gallery of landscape and seascape images?

[Xenedis]

He doesn't actually state that anyone asked for the image for free...

No, but that's not to say he hasn't been asked for images in exchange for only credit.

It's something I've experienced.

He may have been making a point out of frustration arising from past experiences.

[Tom J McDonald]

Got a link to your gallery of landscape and seascape images?

Nope, can't afford a gallery.

[Xenedis]

Nope, can't afford a gallery.

In that case, it's best not to make unsubstantiated claims.

[Tom J McDonald]

In that case, it's best not to make unsubstantiated claims.

OK big boy, take a chill pill.

[ving]

good luck selling that image for $6.6k i reckon. fact is that every tom, richard and harry has a DSLR these days and therefore has the potential to create something just like this.... in fact I could myself quite easily....


... still he has achieved the notoriety that he wanted in the creation of his statement. sounds a bit up him-self imo. :)

[Tom J McDonald]

good luck selling that image for $6.6k i reckon. fact is that every tom, richard and harry has a DSLR these days and therefore has the potential to create something just like this.... in fact I could myself quite easily....


... still he has achieved the notoriety that he wanted in the creation of his statement. sounds a bit up him-self imo. :)

Yes, pretty much so.
He hasn't even managed to get the whole pic in focus :)

[JM Tran]

I coulda taken it for half that...

make it about 1/3 or 1/4 for me and many others:D

[mikec]

Nope, can't afford a gallery.

There are a lot of free hosting services available like flickr

Back to the topic at hand. It's an interesting statement but why not add his car to the cost? Or his house or office where he processed it? Etc...

At the end of the day people understand a photograph requires an investment in equipment to produce, I think the difficultly is some people don't understand the value of the photograph. But I'm sure those people have always been around and isn't something completely new, perhaps before they were more inclined to just ask for cheap photographs as opposed to free.

[terry.langham]

Bugger me I have been charging for my work all wrong! Sold a boat canopy today for $500, should have added $13k for the sewing machines. :lol:

[sunny6teen]

point taken...even though the article is not specifically about the image - I think that I would've been digging out a better photo before drawing attention to it. :D

[KeeFy]

No, but that's not to say he hasn't been asked for images in exchange for only credit.

It's something I've experienced.

He may have been making a point out of frustration arising from past experiences.

I have as well, one was for a non-profit organisation so i gave the green light for that. The rest i asked for $$ and apparently my photos are good enough if it's free but not good enough if it's not... lol. Way to make a phootgrapher feel good about himself eh?


I reckon essentially the owner of that image is just making a point of not asking for free photos for credit only. I mean who is to say what the photo is worth to different individuals? The recent million dollar photograph that was sold... ermm.... i'm not much of a fan of it.. but it seems there are people who are.

[arthurking83]

.....


... still he has achieved the notoriety that he wanted in the creation of his statement. sounds a bit up him-self imo. :)

Best method of free advertising.

I bet the hit counter on his blog as increased a hundred fold since this story.

Fact is that photography as a commodity has changed forever.
As David already said, every Tom, Dick and Harry are out there taking photos, and many of them are very good to excellent.

The actual cost of producing a photo has reduced to close to zero for some folks .. so for them to give 'em away is a fleeting moment they really don't care about.

if there are 7 billion people in the world, there's a very high chance that there will be about 7 million people in the world at any one time all capturing a photo of some kind.
many of these photos will be useless, but there will be a large enough supply of a high standard to cater to those that ask to borrow them.

Digital cameras have progressed in recent times with some of the intricate features such as HDR and panorama creation built into the camera itself.
All the world really needs is 7000 of those 7 million users of these feature rich cameras, to be in the right time, at the right spot and using the right feature to snap a classic shot, just once.
At this current rate of 1 in 1000, that means there could be 7 super fantastic images being created every second by people that simply don't know better,.
And probably don't really care either, and for them to be asked for their images to be borrowed is probably an honour.


Mass media have realised this and now seem to be on a crusade to devalue photography to a junk status, where the photographer will end up paying for the opportunity to display their images on the world stage.
They make no secret of their desire to use images supplied from the general population to bring you the news, the next step is to supply a service whereby they store your images for a small charge with dubious T&C's attached to the storage of those images and ..... there'ya'haviit!
Them(the media giants) getting paid to use images as they please.


FWIW: The unit cost of a single instance of my landscape images has been in the order of about 8c.
Averaged out on a cost per image basis. If I sell them for $6,612, I'm way ahead of him in terms of profitability! :D

[Xenedis]

I have as well, one was for a non-profit organisation so i gave the green light for that.

Even for non-profit organisations, I don't provide free images.

They may not be profit-making organisations, but they do have operational costs like Web sites and the usual running expenses.

As I see it, paying a photographer for the use of his/her images would be one of those expenses.

If it's good enough to use, it's good enough to cough up some cash.



The rest i asked for $$ and apparently my photos are good enough if it's free but not good enough if it's not... lol. Way to make a phootgrapher feel good about himself eh?

I hear you there. It really grinds my gears to see an expectation amongst the general population that images should be free.

Photography has been devalued, and is continuing to be devalued as digital technology allows just about anyone to publish images with little effort.

Just because anyone can do that doesn't make just anyone a good photographer.

What I suspect is that a combination of "my mate is a photographer; he'll do it free" or "I've got a camera; I can do that myself" attitudes has contributed to the devaluation of photographic images.



I reckon essentially the owner of that image is just making a point of not asking for free photos for credit only. I mean who is to say what the photo is worth to different individuals? The recent million dollar photograph that was sold... ermm.... i'm not much of a fan of it.. but it seems there are people who are.

I totally agree.

My feeling was that the author of that article wasn't egotistical or trying to pass himself off as a photographer who has the capability to sell an image for $6K, but was making a point that there is value in photographic images.

[arthurking83]

....

My feeling was that the author of that article wasn't egotistical or trying to pass himself off as a photographer who has the capability to sell an image for $6K, but was making a point that there is value in photographic images.

Problem is that we've heard it all before . over and over and over again.

A very important point of this is that some people just have to accept that images are given away for free every day, on 'en masse.

Not saying that this guy has to give his away, just accept that a lot of photographers do give them away.
But these photographers aren't of the professional kind, they're of the Joe Average kind, that don't care what John Mueller writes in his blogs.
Basically, he's preaching to the converted. If he want to make noises about it, he needs to reach an audience that is probably causing the issue to begin with.

He can't really blame the folks asking for the images either. They've probably asked many other photographers and had success .. why not ask this guy.
These freeloading customers can't see that this John guy spent $6K on capturing this image. They themselves, have an iPhone that takes terrific snaps and use an app to make these snaps look snazzy .. it cost them nothing!

My counter point is that there is very little value in an image nowadays, unless you are someone of importance. Simple as that!
if you can sell yourself well .. you'll make a squillion bucks.
That 4 million dollar image had nothing to do with the image itself, and everything to do with the person that put their name to it.

if John Mueller wants to break even with this image, he has to sell himself, and not his image(s).

There are literally a million John Muellers out there, on the various forums all over the net and in general every day life.
The world is now flush with photographic images and their value has dropped, unless it has a value of special significance.

[ricktas]

Just wait. give it a few years and your DSLR camera will be linked to the mobile phone network. Take a photo, and upload to Flickr, facebook, or News.com.au etc, right there and then. I concur with AK, that a lot of photography is going to stay free, cause of the huge volumes being shared for free already. Digital photography and connectivity has changed photography forever. But there will still be a market, just a changed one.

We all see newspapers asking for these photos for free all the time. And then we hear about newspapers not making money etc, and how they are going to start charging for online content. I doubt it will be to many years before the actual printed newspaper is no more.

What used to be a good income stream for some photographers, is drying up/dried up. Photographers are often lamenting this, but fighting the system doesn't make them winners. Changing with the times will, looking at markets that are productive and profitable.

Having said all of this, I think the blogger made his point clear!

[Steve Axford]

That is a very silly blog. Imagine if a taxi driver asked you to pay for his car for each trip? Of course you won't pay that. The only reason he can charge for his photo at all is that most amateurs can't take that photo because it needs a tripod and you have to get up early. Wait for a few years and it will have the artistic merit of three ducks on a wall (average ducks at that).

[Dylan & Marianne]

I agree in general principle , though to generalise the costs to that degree sounds a little 'silly' personally.
Agree also with tony that perhaps he should have chosen a better image to draw attention to the point :P
Lastly, I recently had a request for an image of mine to be used for free on a photographer wanting to pimp his own photography tour of iceland ........wait a sec, promote your tour with my image ?????? :confused013:confused013

[Xenedis]

That is a very silly blog. Imagine if a taxi driver asked you to pay for his car for each trip? Of course you won't pay that.

Car and fuel costs might well be incorporated into the tarriff.

Certainly you pay booking fees and motorway tolls.


The only reason he can charge for his photo at all is that most amateurs can't take that photo because it needs a tripod and you have to get up early.

There's more to good imagery than a tripod and alarm clock.

It's entirely possible to take bad photos at 5am with a tripod.

[Steve Axford]

When did you last pay for the full cost of the car in a taxi trip? That would be $30,000 plus for each ride. I suspect the taxi driver wouldn't have the customers queuing to pay that. Nor will a photographer if he charges $6,000 for an ordinary photo. Unless, of course, he is a brilliant marketer.

And I'm surprised that you feel the need to point out that "There's more to good imagery than a tripod and alarm clock." I think we all know that.

[Xenedis]

When did you last pay for the full cost of the car in a taxi trip?

I didn't say that each customer would pay for the full cost of the car; that's patently silly.

The cars of course do cost money, as does fuel and maintenance. Surely the costs are incorporated into the fares.

Taken a taxi lately? It's expensive.

Keeping the cars on the road is expensive. Who do you think pays for that?


And I'm surprised that you feel the need to point out that "There's more to good imagery than a tripod and alarm clock." I think we all know that.

Unfortunately your earlier post implied that any early riser with a tripod can produce that sort of image, and unfortunately I cannot assume that all readers of this site possess a specific level of knowledge and understanding.

[Steve Axford]

I would point out that in the original blog the photographer has itemised all his camera costs in the cost of the photo. This is exactly analogous to a taxi driver charging for the full cost of his car.

I do think that most of the photographers here could produce an image of equal quality to the one being discussed with a little training and the right gear. It is hardly an image that is going to stun an audience by its originality and brilliance. Not that it's a bad image - it's just not a great image, and certainly not worth the price of a camera. etc.

[Xenedis]

I would point out that in the original blog the photographer has itemised all his camera costs in the cost of the photo. This is exactly analogous to a taxi driver charging for the full cost of his car.

Itemising every cost of the equipment he used in the creation of that image wouldn't be the right way to go about it, as he probably didn't buy all of that gear specifically to shoot that image, and if he were in the business of selling images, he'd incorporate the cost over time rather than attributing the cost of, say one lens, to one image.



I do think that most of the photographers here could produce an image of equal quality to the one being discussed with a little training and the right gear. It is hardly an image that is going to stun an audience by its originality and brilliance. Not that it's a bad image - it's just not a great image, and certainly not worth the price of a camera. etc.

I'd agree that achieving an image like that is achievable for many.

I'd also agree that while the image is decent, it's not mind-blowingly stunning.

However, that's not to say that it doesn't have value, but I certainly wouldn't value it at $6K.

[Tom J McDonald]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.

[JM Tran]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.

hahahaha:)

[Steve Axford]

To Xenedis

I think we agree. We just get there by different routes.

I see photography as a means of communication. I don't sell a lot - possibly because I don't try to sell and because of what I take. I see little point in producing lots of images that lots of people produce (like the one in the blog). I far prefer to produce images that help me to say something. These may not sell, but it is a thrill to see the wonder in peoples eyes when they see them. People often walk away knowing a little more about the world - and that makes me feel good.

[KeeFy]

I think what the blogger meant is that 6K will be the initial outlay for the people wanting the images for free if they were have a go at it themselves from scratch.
It's like if you want to get to move around on your own in a taxi equivalent, you'd have to go and buy yourself a car as well which would cost you $30k for a new falcon.

Try not to read too much into the post but just have an idea it's about a photographer whinging about cheap corporate companies.

[Steve Axford]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.

Yep, a bit boring, but that is what the thread is about. Perhaps it can start a more useful discussion.

[KeeFy]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.


Damn... now why did i buy the 16-35L II for again? Oh wait. Just that. :P

[Xenedis]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

I'm not convinced you can.


But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots.

The world doesn't need any more portraits, but that isn't going to stop you.


Please, move on to something else.

People can shoot whatever they like, as you indeed are also free to do.

[Xenedis]

I think we agree. We just get there by different routes.

Seems that way. :-)



I see photography as a means of communication. I don't sell a lot - possibly because I don't try to sell and because of what I take. I see little point in producing lots of images that lots of people produce (like the one in the blog). I far prefer to produce images that help me to say something. These may not sell, but it is a thrill to see the wonder in peoples eyes when they see them. People often walk away knowing a little more about the world - and that makes me feel good.

A completely valid form of photography.

Some people are artists.

Some people are storytellers.

Some people are technicians.

It all comes down to what you like to shoot. Seascapes, sunrises, etc., may not be everyone's cup of tea, but there is a market for them.

Personally I'm not interested in selling images. For me photography isn't about making money, but while money isn't my motivation (nor necessarily that of the blogger), I certainly think there us value in photographic images.

Exactly what value depends on the viewer.

I've seen those stories of some bizarre abstract image commanding six- or seven-figure prices, but in all honesty I cannot make any sense of that; but someone figured those images were worth that money, and were more than happy to part with it to land the image.

[Tom J McDonald]

Xenedis,

'I'm not convinced you can'.

No, I can't afford the 6k in equipment.


'The world doesn't need any more portraits'.

Yes, it does.

'People can shoot whatever they like, as you indeed are also free to do'.

Thanks.

[Xenedis]

No, I can't afford the 6k in equipment.

I wasn't referring to your equipment. You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos.

[ving]

I wasn't referring to your equipment. You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos.
true. takes skills.

with the given shot i reckon anyone with about a years experience in taking landscapes could do that one standing on thier head. its pretty basic really.... but this is not about criticizing that particular shot.

[fillum]

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/this-photograph-is-not-free/#more-44476

676 comments. >5000 "Tweets". >6000 "Likes". Job done.



Cheers.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Xenedis,

'I'm not convinced you can'.

No, I can't afford the 6k in equipment.


'The world doesn't need any more portraits'.

Yes, it does.

'People can shoot whatever they like, as you indeed are also free to do'.

Thanks.

True, this isn't a great example of a seascape so most people could take the shot
What you think the world needs doesn't equate with everyone's opinions so don't try to state your opinion as fact (ps I take plenty of portraits and landscapes)
Agree with John - you don't need 6k of equipment to take that shot - in fact, nowhere near.........
Agree with David, it's off the point of the topic and I've fed the troll.....

He made a point, he got his exposure from a controversial topic , his image and his maths were dodgy - not sure what else to say that's relevant really?

[Tom J McDonald]

I wasn't referring to your equipment. You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos.

Oh yeah, you must have noticed I don't live on the coast. Very observant.

[Xenedis]

Oh yeah, you must have noticed I don't live on the coast. Very observant.

What I've noticed is that in this thread you've made some asinine comments about a genre of photography about which you clearly know very little, and as someone who does know about this genre and has a lot of experience with it, I find such comments frankly quite irritating.

You say anyone can take a shot like that, so I challenge you to actually prove it rather than making unsubstantiated claims.

I'm not for a moment expecting that you actually will, and given that my tin of troll food is empty, we're done here.

[Tom J McDonald]

I'm rather hurt.

[Tommo224]

I didn't read the thread "TLDR". But, I like the post :)

[sunny6teen]

yes indeed. the market has dried up so much that we can barely afford our internet connections to download pirated copies of photoshop.

[ApolloLXII]

Having read all of the comments thus far, I have to say that I agree with most of them. In my opinion, I can see the bloggers point in that such a photo can incur a lot of hidden costs in it's production however, as the photo stands, it's just a landscape which is becoming altogether quite common. If the blogger had used a photo that was more creative in style or type then I'm sure his point about photography incurring expenditure beyond just pressing the shutter would have been far more effective. Unfortunately, I've seen lots of similar shots on the covers of photography magazines. Rocks in the foreground, almost milky like sea and a sunset. It's becoming such a standardised type of shot that it runs the risk of making shots of this kind of genre rather passé.

Photographers have the right to attach some degree of monetary renumeration to any image that they create but I think the kernel of the point that the blogger is trying to make is that, when it comes to a good image (no matter what type of photographic genre), it should not be expected that the image is for free and can be used without permission or reference to the person who created it.

[arthurking83]

I wasn't referring to your equipment. You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos.

And for this reason he(the blogger) should have used the lowest common denominator, not one of the highest, in proposing an argument of this sort.

Take one cheap and easy to use P&S(~ $200 used) that has many supercool features that allow all manner of in camera image enhancing/tweaking ability, plus image stabilisation.

ie. no need for tripod(as 99.9% of the worlds photographers do, no need for expensive($200) filters, as 99.999% of the worlds photographers don't use, no expensive L or ED lenses to have to also purchase either .. and no need for a $1500 copy of CS, picasa or iApp on an iPhone seems to be all you need.

Hell! ....... you don't even need the camera or the cost of travel any longer!

Taking all of this into consideration the bloggers issues seem to be even more ridiculous!

The 'SMART' (http://www.petapixel.com/2011/11/21/fine-art-photographs-shot-by-googles-street-view-cars/) photographer will look at the business side of photography differently to how the more technically competent photographer does.

[Dylan & Marianne]

It's interesting how part of the discussion has become a bashing of a 'generic seascape' shot.
The milky white look has largely lost its appeal to me - for me it's either got to have some streaming form or a true misty look from a long exposure from really wild seas ( contrary to seemingly popular belief - this look is NOT easy to get due to techinical reasons like protecting yourself and camera)- so again, I say this was a bad example to use but the genre bashing is getting a little tiresome. I personally think it has become a bit of a knee jerk reaction to bash seascapes just because there are many bad ones out there that once people see ANY seascape , one automatically thinks - yea that was 'easy mode' photography.
I wonder if he had posted an image of a car or a well lit portrait , would the same discussion have ensued? Maybe it would have if the image was similarly poorly executed.

Anyway, I'm straying beyond the point but I think I've already said all I wanted to say about the original article.

[Stingray]

<my 5 cents>
To make that "So this was the first sunset I captured in 2012. It cost me $6,612 to take this photo....." etc etc valid.. he would need to have just purchased the camera and lens etc ... each picture taken cannot be valued to replace the equipment used to take it.
Realistically, standard business practice would have you "estimating" how much work will cover the cost of equipment plus allow some profit along the way.
I doubt even a lawyer would get you the cost of ALL your equipment used to take an image, just a percentage (probably based on previous amount of sales)
I agree that images shouldn't just be "given" away for free just because "everyone with a camera can take one" ..
I get this in the IT industry, people expect to pay $20/hr or less because their friends son will do it for that,
and my standard reply is, "Well get him over",
- I charge what I charge because of over a decade and a half of experience and continuous study.
I like the old adage "you get what you pay for"
</my 5 cents>