Saddled With Extra Work
Sometimes you don't have to go looking for a shoot. Sometimes you get volunteered to do it by your wife. While on vacation.
Which is what happened to me while we were in the cloud forest community of Santa Elena a couple of weeks ago.
More on this after the jump. But if your name is John Harrington, do not click on the "more" tag. (Click here instead...)
__________
In Santa Elena, we stayed at the Arco Iris Lodge, a wonderful little enclave that is just a block from the center of town, but feels like you are miles from nowhere. Arco Iris is Spanish for rainbow, and sure enough, they get one like you see above on every sunny afternoon.
That's because there is this crazy, ultra-fine mist that hangs in the air in the cloud forest community of Santa Elena. Just like walking through one of those cooling misters at the county fair on a sunny day. It's very refreshing, actually.
Susan and Em immediately hit it off with Susanna, the proprietor of the hotel. Among other things, they are all horse people. Susanna keeps horses on the property but does not rent them out. (They are pretty high-octane models.) Susan and Em had wanted to ride while we were on the trip, so Susanna hooked them up with Sabine's Smiling Horses, where the horses are
Em and Susan rode all afternoon and hung out before and after with Sabine and her young daugher, Tara. It didn't hurt that the day was perfectly clear. They could even see the Pacific Ocean from the mountain ridges on the ride. We could not wipe the grin off of Em's face all day.As it happens, Susan was so happy with the recommendation she volunteered me to shoot a couple of much-needed interiors of the rooms for Susanna. (John, if you are still here, I warned you.)
And you know what? I am totally cool with that. Sure, I may grumble a little at first at the idea of having my (nonexistent) schedule twisted around a little bit. But it really is nothing for me to spend a few minutes doing a couple of interiors that will make a big difference to the folks at Arco Iris. The place is not exactly dripping with photographers and Susanna does not even own a camera.
The place is beautiful in a cool, eco way. And we were patting ourselves on the back the entire time for choosing to stay there. BTW, we got a great two-room, two-bath cabin for $140/night there.
(Just like London! Not really!)
It's very laid back, with exotic plants everywhere, monkeys hanging out in the trees and the occasional scorpion to keep you on your toes (or give you an awesome story to bring home to your soccer team.)But with the bag I packed, I did not include a very wide lens. The 24-70 gets me about a 36mm equivalent on the small-chip D300. So for the rainbow shot above, I just shot a series of photos and stitched them together in Photoshop CS3's automatic panorama feature. (I love that little trick.)
For interiors, it's much harder to do panoramas because of having to keep the lines straight. So I decided to do a couple of interior detail shots that I could handle with my modest wideangle lens.
Second problem: I only have one light stand, and no white ceiling to use for bounce. The rooms are beautifully paneled in rich, dark wood -- including the ceilings. It's very nice, but a little nightmarish with just a couple of hard speedlights. I had one stand and one umbrella, but that would not get me very far. And in the end, I wound up not even using either.
The bathrooms (God love 'em for including a kids' bathroom) were clean and bright, and very easy to light with just one SB-800. Any bathroom that has a shower with a neutral curtain has a built-in soft box, so that's exactly what I did here.Sounding like a broken record here after the MVI shoot, but I used a Bogen 175F "Justin" clamp to mount an SB-800 to the soap holder in the shower. The doors were frosted plexi, so I just closed them and used them as a diffuser.
You can see how simple this is, although I did open the door a little here for clarity. I set the flash on 1/4 power for a little oomph, set the camera on 1/250th, and just adjusted my aperture until the bathroom looked good.Then, I opened up the shutter speed (which controls the ambient) until the light coming through the window in the mirror looked right. Piece of cake.
Total elapsed time? Maybe 5 minutes. Woulda been faster, but I had been in Pura Vida mode (Costa Rica's national slogan) for a full week now. Just cruising at a relaxing pace.
But the room wasn't gonna be so easy. Given my gear and the dark tones, it would be a series of compromises. No ceiling bounce -- my go-to technique for fill, normally. Just underexpose the room by two to three stops with that soft, mushy ceiling fill and accent light the interesting stuff. Not this time.
No large modifiers -- and no tripod, either.
So, I decided to use the two windows as diffusers. They had white curtains, and one had a porch railing outside. I could fire flashes though them and get reasonably big sources to paint the room and get the speculars to be as small as possible in the wood panels. (They were still pretty bright.)
How to mount them? You guessed it -- Justin clamps again. They are named after some guy McNally knows, but to me it means "Justin case you ain't got nothin' else" to mount a flash with.That window is right by the front door (camera right) so it gave me frontal soft light which I like -- and a specular that I would have to live with. It's not so bad, really, as it also shows the texture and finish of the wood. C'mon, rationalize along with me.
I thought about sculpting it with snooted strobes, but that room ate up so much ambient that I had to flood it with as soft a light as possible.
Light two was the side window, on camera right out of the frame. I opened the curtains, JC'd another SB-800 in there and closed the curtains. Not as soft, but clean -- and fine for side fill.It is only as I sit here writing this that I get a Homer Simpson moment:
D'Oh! Sheets!
It's a hotel, you idiot. They have extra sheets out the wazoo.
I could have taped them to every non-visible wall in the photo and bounced flashes off of them. Oh, well. I'm just gonna have to go back to Arco Iris and fix that next winter. And I am pretty sure Susanna will hook me up with a room, too.
So, here is the way it looked with my Architectural-Digest-On-The-Cheap setup. I am no Scott Hargis, but I am happy with it, all things considered. Shutter was dragged to bring in the three lamps, so the whole thing glows warm and woody.For ten minutes of head scratching and minimal gear, I am cool with it.
That is Now, This was Then
Okay, at 43 years old and traveling with kids, you want the wood ceilings, tiled bathrooms, monkeys and other niceties if you can swing it. And I am not making every decision based on price now, so the $140/night is doable. But twenty years ago if I were traveling through I would have stayed a block away at the way cool Pension Santa Elena, where the rooms start at **$6.00** a night and max out under $50 for doubles with private baths.
The pension was the place to be come nightfall, with beverages and conversation flowing well into the evening. The wifi from across the street is free and open, and backpackers meet, make friends and share experiences. I have seen a lot of hostels and pensions in my day, and this place is maybe the coolest one I have visited -- and cheap to boot.Great people (thanks for the wifi, Ran) and totally recommended if you are shoe-stringing it through Costa Rica. And the taco stand next door rocks, too. Depending on your price point, you cannot go wrong with either hotel when visiting Santa Elena / Monteverde in Costa Rica.
If you end up at either place, tell Ran or Susanna that David from Strobist says hi.
How Far do I Have to Go to Get Away From You People?
We were walking back to our cabin one night at Arco Iris, when I see what appears to be a real photographer walking past us. He has a 1D-Mark-Something, pro glass and a carbon tripod. I generally introduce myself as another shooter and at that point I recognize the guy as Paul Souders, a friend from way back in the '80's.
Paul bypassed the whole newspaper thing altogether (smart guy in retrospect) and has spent the last 20 years on an amazing path as a travel/adventure photographer. Better yet, he is blogging from the road and is very much worth a slot in your RSS reader, if only to see where he will turn up next.
He's as good a writer as he is a shooter, which is saying something. Main site is here, and his blog is here.
Check him out if you are into, you know, the whole world and stuff.
__________
New to Strobist, or lighting? Start here.
Now shipping, in DVD box set or download: Lighting in Layers
Connect: Discussion Threads | Reader Photos | Twitter
Posted at 12:00 AM.
49 Comments:
Hey David nice pics, the place looks fantastic.
I took a look at John Harrington's site and while I agree that people shooting for free can have an adverse impact on the work pros get -- or perhaps that should be NOT get -- the pro photographer has been under threat for years. When I started working on newspapers almost 40 years ago photographers had an aura about them that came from hiding behind technical terms like "aperture", "depth of field", "hyper focal distance" et al. We were held in awe because we knew the "secrets" but that all started to fade when in-camera exposure meters came along. That meant most of the time picture-takers got acceptable exposures and soon they were getting professional-looking shots with point-and-shoot cameras that were perfectly acceptable for publication. As an aside one of my best-selling pictures was taken with an Olympus Stylus Epic which illustrates the point.
The truth is, for a lot of people (clients), the kind who will use Cousin Maurie with his new DSLR to do the job for free, as long as the image is in focus and properly exposed (which with today's cameras is hard not to do) that's just fine.
I agree with you that if you want to break into professional photography or freelance journalism you must do whatever to build up a portfolio and that WILL mean shooting pics for free. Heck it's been like that forever and I venture that almost every established pro had to do the same to get where he/she is today.
The world moves on. I teach photo-manipulation courses but can see those days are numbered with easily-available, free, software like Picassa. Sure it can't do the same as Photoshop or Gimp, but for the vast majority of people who take pictures it is good enough.
Guess I am going to have to reinvent myself again!
Keep up the good work. Hey if people don't like what you have to say, let 'em read something else.
~Hilton~
www.thelightstuff.blogspot.com
Tips, tutorials and (mainly) photographic musings.
Thanks for a very nice post. I loved the kittens, even though they weren't meant for me. I just wanted to thank you (on behalf of my employer) for linking to Paul Souders blog. It completely ruined my working day.
Yours,
Michael
So you like monkeys outside you hotel room?!
Next time you come to London we'll all chimp outside!!
Nice work on the pictures.
Do you really think that this is a good way to deal with John Harringtons criticism.
I think most people would prefer arguments instead of trying to ridicule someone with a different view or opinion by telling him to better shut up and watch photos of "cute kittens".
David, your comments about John remind me of a famous saying: "Sometimes when you argue with a fool it's hard to tell who is who." While I don't agree with the general premise of working for free I thought in the context of yours and Chase' collective readership that what you all laid out was appropriate. BTW have been to see the folks at The Magazine Group in DC?
Good Luck with John.
I think you opened quite a can of worms, not quite like the scene in Raiders when the Nazi opens the Arc, but pretty darn close. Thanks for sharing what you do best. Sincerely, SRE
Sascha, Anon, Hilton-
Actually, I am not ridiculing John at all. We are friends, and we come at the idea from two different directions. And his point of view is a perfectly valid.
In fact, the best path probably lies somewhere between our two approaches.
This is an example of something I did that he probably wouldn't have. But this way I can have a little fun and make people aware of his point of view, too.
It is important to give the idea of working for free a little thought and understand the context in which you are doing it. Done in the wrog way, or for the wrong reasons, you can do yourself (and your profession, if you are a pro) more harm than good.)
And as I look at different examples I will continue to make people aware of other viewpoints.
Best,
DH
The only professional photographers who need to worry about others working for free are those whose work is no better than your average DSLR owner.
There will always be people who pay for quality, however some professional photographers make their money from their 'professional' status and expensive camera rather than the quality of their work.
I wonder how many other photographers get "volunteered" by a well-meaning wife/partner or friend? Once you've been volunteered, in my experience it becomes very difficult to charge a professional rate for something that can eat into time that could be spent on more profitable assignments.
David:
Nice stuff ... I stayed at the Arco two years ago and loved it. Thanks for sharing. You can check a few of mine at www.justinide.com and hit Costa Rica.
JI
I see the copyright notice at the bottom of your blog. Just wondering if Harrington paid you when he quoted your comments on his site.
Little mistake here!
"Em and Susan road all afternoon and hung out"
Hahaha! I like the gentle jab at Harrington :) And the person who got ruffled about it. I appreciate both your perspectives, but have to admit - you were definitely the less cranky of the two.
I would like to see what an ambient only exposure looks like for the shot of the bed. It seems to me that your SBs are only increasing the output of what are already the main lights, the windows. I guess it gives you control over which window is the fill and which is the main. And lets you balance with the tungsten fixtures. Anyway would be great to see the ambient only shot.
Matt-
Amateurs who do things for free won't ruin my business. And I don't think that amateurs in general produce less qualitity than professionals. (To be frank I know enough pros producing poor quality.)
The point is: Anybody who works for free, should be well aware that there are many people who are only waiting for what they call a "Nützlicher Idiot" (useful idiot) in German. Yes, there may be nice and gentle people, too.
If I had a charity or something like that and someone would work for me for free, I would at least have to ask him about his expenses and what we would do if his equipment would be damaged during the job. If I don't care about that he will not work for free - he will pay to work.
Greetings -
I like cats, I grew up with them (Misty and Calico where their names), but in the end, having had my life saved by dogs one year, I am solidly a dog person, and I have two Siberian Huskies....but, I digress!
I agree whole-heartedly with Hilton's comments about how the pro's abilities were shrouded in mystery, until auto-exposure and capable auto-focus came along. Now, photographers can't be surly jerks, they have to be personable and have showered in order to have clients want to work with them again. Nowadays, the differentiators has become creative talent and quality customer service.
The influx of cheap photography started in the stock segment, because, well, when it's already shot, there's no risk in not getting the shot, and thus, that market has been devastated, for the most part. However, in the assignment realm, when it's "go out and shoot my building/interior", if the person shooting it gets it wrong, they can tell someone else to do it. When it's "go shoot that portrait", and they get it wrong and it needs a re-do, well, it can be re-done, but there may not be enough time, or it's now inconvenient for the subject to do over. Then, when it's a happens-only-once coverage need, you'd better not get someone who's never done that type of work before, or you'll be taking an unnecessary risk.
In the end, as Mark Loundy so ably puts it in his January Common Cents article, "...Every photographer who works for free increases the belief that photography is not worth paying for", and now, in Santa Elena, Susanna is thinking "boy, I just need to get another photographer to come down here and they'll probably shoot a photo for me for free, since, heck, they're on vacation anyway!" (translation - they're on vacation and not working really!). Or, perhaps she'll post an ad on craigs list with the solicitation "come stay in my lodge for free in exchange for taking a few photos" during a time when she's got few paying guests, or perhaps she'll get involved in the local press fam trip in the idea that she could convince those coming to give her some free photos. In the end, it's not that she would never have hired a photographer, it's that she likely never knew how, or knew the value.
If, instead, David had shot one for free, showed her the value, and then did the research to find a local photographer or two she could contact, or, heck, even contacted them and said "I'm talking to a local business who might need your services, what would you charge to photograph three rooms so she can use them for her marketing materials", and then that photographer said $X, and then David put those two together, not only would he have helped out that photographer, he would have taught the shop owner about the value of photography, and done so with a good deed of making one great image for her without making it that much harder for the local guy down there - wherever he/she is in proximity to the location - to convince people of the value of his services.
(Oh, and yes, David and I are good friends, and I enjoyed the good natured ribbing!)
Nicely done.
I think you're looking for "Em and Susan rode...", not "Em and Susan Road..."
(Yep, sometimes I'm that annoying guy.)
- Marshall
David-
Thanks for the wonderful post! I also liked the way you handled the angry/out of touch "pro". Funny, when the going gets tough, some people start to eat their own. Sad really.
I am an amateur (really) with a great day job. I'm not looking to transition to photography as a main livelihood, and do shoot for free frequently.
There are SO MANY things I could jump all over Mr. Harrington about. Non industry specific flaws in his philosophy. I think CJ hit it on the head with his comment as the keynote at the photo shelter conf. a while back, copyright is shifting sand, get used to it. Also the whole digital image & proliferation...
It's 2009. Not 1989, lots has changed. Those who have not changed with it are in it deep. Just look at the American Auto industry. Change will happen, I guess I tend to run a bit more to your direction of thinking....
I suspect that the whole digital revolution in photography will eventually lead to far fewer "professional photographers" but those that remain will be the highly skilled, highly creative and highly motivated ones (+ a few lucky ones too, but hey...)
I mainly take event photos that I sell online (www.rightplacerighttime.co.uk) That's pics of hundreds of competitors doing the same event, and I rely on selling a lot of pics for not a lot of money each. It's not a full time job but it's not far off and it has only been made possible by the internet. At the last event I photographed (as the official photographer) there was a guy taking photos (from public land) of all the competitors, that he then gave away online via flickr. I know a lot of the competitors found out who he was and he probably hit my sales badly. But I still did OK, as IMHO I had better pics and some riders preferred good to free.
Irritated yes, pi$$ed off, no. It just makes me think/work harder to differentiate myself, which I know is what pays off in the end.
Aloha! ive been following the discussion here with some interest. In some people's opinion i am a good enough photographer--that is to say, i create images good enough--for them to want to give me money to shoot for them. i have done some minor commercial work for money and continue to hone my skills by doing alot of "free" portraiture for family and friends.
i think the conundrum here, for me at least, is that while i can see that my talent is growing and my quality is ever increasing, and i am getting wonderful feedback from friends and strangers that see my work alike, i am always stuck on the cheaper side of humility when it comes to how much i should charge--especially when it comes to shooting for friends.
case and point: i will be traveling to portland next week to visit friends. he is an architect and wants me to shoot a few houses for him. i have made him aware of my naivete regarding this type of shoot--he is alright with that. he has offered to make financial arrangements. heres my question: to get payed or not to get payed? should i charge only if the shots come out good? if so should i charge a full commercial fee ? if so, how much is that? more to the heart of the matter: am i really good enough to deserve to get payed?? THAT is the question...
these shots will be going on his website, so , yes, he does stand to profit from them...whats my cut?
these questions are more rhetorical. the point im making is that its my own self doubt, or more precisely, my own feeling of " my works not good enough...is it? or IS it? " that hinders me in charging what the average pro would. after all...im just an enthusiastic amateur that takes some pretty good shots now and again, right?
this is a thought provoking discussion...perhaps Harlen Ellison's piece will help me sway my mind..
Well-said, John. I'm glad to see you've responded. When I read David's post, my first thought was "oh wonderful, David's taught someone else that photography has no value. How nice of him."
As for Mr. Stevens, how wonderful that he has a "really great" day job to support his hobby. I wonder if he'd feel differently if he didn't, or if someone came in offering to do his day-job for free? Maybe he could get used to it and not feel angry and out of touch?
Gotta love when the significant other volunteers your skills. Happens to me all the time.
Cheers
Alleh
FWIW, I believe very strongly in the idea of providing something for value for free when it is practical to do so.
If I didn't, I certainly never would have started this site -- and would likely be wondering what I would do to support my family when it was time for my neck to go onto the chopping block at the paper.
I can certainly understand the idea that some are vehemently opposed to doing anything for free, ever. But I wonder how that rationalizes with reading, for instance, this site and consuming content for free?
Or downloading a free app on the iPhone? Or using Google, for that matter?
It seems odd to me that people can so easily embrace the idea and value of *receiving* something for free so much easier than they can embrace the idea -- and value -- of sometimes *providing* something for free.
I was noted in print today in the NPPA's News Photographer magazine by Mark Loundy, a photo-business journalist that I have long respected.
He was so put off by the idea that he wrote a column that demonstrated to me that he understood neither the value from nor the motivations behind what I am doing.
That's certainly his right. But I am confused that did it without ever trying to talk with me about it first. I guess it is easier to make the obligatory "hobby" pun than it is to pick up the phone and try to get a better understanding of something.
Free is an exceptionally powerful force. It has been transformative in my life over the last three years, just as it has been all over the web.
I am trying to explore the nexus between photography and free on a personal level, and writing about the experience.
I guess I should have expected to attract some flak. But it is still both disconcerting and confusing to try to wrap my head around how some people are so attached to the idea of a zero-sum world.
I need to toss a couple back tonight and think some more.
-D
David, I'm sure the people in the Linux community would sympathize with your plight.
After finding one of her students giving out linux CDs a Texas teacher wrote an angry letter to that particular version's creator.
"Mr. Starks, I am sure you strongly believe in what you are doing but I cannot either support your efforts or allow them to happen in my classroom. At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful."
Because Linux is free, does that make Microsoft products free or operating systems worthless?
Neither does someone shooting for free.
There is room for everyone.
David --
While you're reading this after a few drinks, I thought I'd answer a few of your q's:
>>>I wonder how that rationalizes with reading, for instance, this site and consuming content for free?
We are not consuming your content for free. We are exchanging our eyeballs and attention for it so that your advertisers make sales, and you earn a few thousandth's of a cent per pair of eyeballs. So too, the same with "free tv", and the local "free weekly newspaper", both are free but you do give back of your attention and, in a faction of instances, the purchase of an advertised product or service.
While you started this blog without advertisers (as did I), they did come to you (as they did me), and ask to advertise. When you started blogging, you were subsidizing it with your 'day job', but now that your old day job has disappeared, you couldn't afford to just do this without the advertisers.
Yet, if you believed this content to actually be free, then you wouldn't object when others repurposed it on other blogs/sites. It's yours, and others are only allowed to view an entire piece within the context of your blog and your advertisers. Yes, some are reading it on an RSS feed, but it's allowable to insert advertisements like "this RSS feed brought to you by Midwest Camera...", but if you choose not to do that, that's fine too. Heck, there are some sites that allow you to read up until the "read more" link, and then you have to pay $2.50 to read the entire article. For now, that's reserved for articles that were mainly in traditional newspapers or magazines, but it could be applied down the line to blogs with little problem.
>>>Or downloading a free app on the iPhone?
Let's look at a few "free apps" on the iPhone.
AOL IM, for example, is free. But, it's purpose is to maintain the IM user base, realizing that many of the people that they are IM-ing are using the free aol IM client that is supported by advertising, or some other variation that has ad revenue tie-ins.
Some free apps are meant to extend a brand, like Pandora, Sponge Bob games, Sonos, Merriam Webster dictionary.
On the other hand, there are the "lite" editions, for example Pac-Man Lite is free, and you get to do 1 level, and Pac-Man is $5.99. Then there are free beta games, or applications where they wanted to be first to market, and capture marketshare.
>>>Or using Google, for that matter?
Google? You've got to be kidding? 98% of Google's $21.8 BILLION dollars in 2008 came from advertising revenue, and once again, you are exchanging your eyeballs, attention, and occasional click-throughs for the use of their search engine.
>>>Free is an exceptionally powerful force.
Yes, because people are willing to do extreme things to get something for free. Witness the insanity of the Dennys Super Bowl promo for their "free" grand slam breakfast. Yes, it retails for $5.99, but it does cost about $1.50 (see AdAge here for more insights) and Denny's took out a $3m ad spot, and had people coming in and then buying coffee, drinks, and other things that were not free. That's like doing the photo shoot for free but then charging for post production and licensing at a normal rate. People were in 4 hour lines for a free breakfast. The upside, is that Denny's will have people who normally would go to IHOP to buy a breakfast instead coming there. It was a one-time promotion and in the future, people will have to pay, because people KNOW that a breakfast costs money. But snapping a few photos on a SD card? Heck, that doesn't cost a thing, right? If you could convince me that a client you did your first job for for free that was valued at $500 was then going to hire you 10 more times in a two year period at the going rate, then I might be more inclined to see that that freebie was worthwhile. However, instead it should be "I'll do 9 at my normal rate, and the 10th is free...".
For many years, you cut your teeth, honed your talents, and in the end, subsidized this blog as a newspaper photographer, so I know that you appreciate the importance of the news media and newspapers specifically. Yet, they were lured into believing that they should put their papers on the web for free (and the few - NYT, WSJ that charged learned) and everyone learned that doing so without an advertising model that was comparable to the revenue generation of the printed paper, as readership shifted, they began losing money, and now these very important news organizations are going out of business not because of a lack of a quality product, or a desirous readership, but because someone gave them bad advice about sustainable advertising models for the web, and now they are all stuck with it, and, in turn, they are all laying off thousands of our photographic colleagues, and the news organizations that taught so many and which we believed in the value of, are going away.
If instead, someone did some simple math and said (subtracting the cost to actually print a paper), it cost us $0.32 per paper per subscriber. We have 20 spots on one page for advertising, and the average reader reads four pages of text on our website, so that's 80 ad income sources per reader, thus that's 4-tenths of a cent per ad slot per page we need to charge, and since the standard for online advertising is CPM (i.e. cost per 1,000 pairs of eyeballs) that means each of those ad spots need to be $4 per CPM. Then, as readers migrated over, printed subscriptions would be down, as online readers increased. Yet, no one did that, and we have massive layoffs in the newspaper industry as a result.
Free, or cheap-at-a-rate-less-than-the-cost-to-be-in-business is not a sustaining model.
On a lighter note, thanks for hte link to Paul Souder's site ... great images and I got a real kick out of his entertaining Bio page, especially the resume part where 'photographer' is casually slipped in amongst all the other high profile jobs!
David,
I am strictly an amateur and use your site and tips to increase the quality of the photographs I take and my enjoyment of the hobby. My wife recently volunteered me to help her sister with a project. She has a start up Landscape Architecture business and just completed a large project for our local Hospice. The gardens turned out beautifully and she needed some pictures for the upcoming Garden Tour in town.
I decided (with your free post in the back of my mind) to treat this as an assignment rather than just taking a few snapshots. The goal was to push myself and see what I could do. I ended up shooting some daylight and twilight shots, using my strobes and poverty wizards. Even a voice activated light stand (me and the timer on my camera).
The pictures turned out great. My sister-in-law was moved to tears with the results and she showed a few to other contractors from the project. One of them thought my work was much better than what he had paid for from other photographers and asked to buy 4 pictures for his website and advertising. I charged him the same rate he has paid in the past. My free shoot turned in to my first paid assignment and I have a little extra cash for my next equipment purchase. Even more valuable was the experience of pushing myself creatively and getting some feedback and confidence in return.
Thank you for sharing your experiences on your blog.
Brent
I have to object to this working for free thing rant that I see in these comments. David is a smart guy. Do you think he took these photos just to be kind to his hostess (who at $140 in Costa Rica can't be too bad off anyway)? He didn't give her the full rights to the photos now did he? He kept the rights to himeself and got a good blog post about his few minutes spent taking photos he probably would have taken in private anyway.
This blog post generates buzz, which keeps his fans coming back for more (it does work for me, I suck at interiors and study as much as I can at these blogs), which added to his ad-viewer base which allows him to take in more money from his blogs, build buzz for his seminars (which I guess is the real money maker, not the acutal paid shots) and published material.
All in all, it makes perfect business sense to do it in exactly the way David did it. If you think he was wrong to take these pictures, you are only underevaluating a professional at work.
David is a new kind of photoprofessional, one that is actually evolving with the new conditions instead of useless whining about the "good old days". The music industry could learn alot from his business model.
@Harrington-
John, it has been too long a day to debate a manifesto point for point in my own comments. I am glad your day was light enough to give it a whirl.
But I am pleased to learn the fact that a reader has to spend valuable time here counts as payment. Problem solved: I could argue the same thing for my subjects.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have to go destroy some food I was going to donate to the food bank. And to think, I almost devalued lima beans all over the world...
:)
Oh, screw it.
Newspapers? Newspapers?
Newspapers were doomed the moment DARPA lit up the web. On the web, information is cheap -- and wants to be free. That is the product of the removal of nearly every marginal cost associated with distribution.
Granted, newspapers do not get the web,never really did and likely never will. They made money for many years because of strong economic barriers to entry and thus very little competition. In fact, Warren Buffet famously called them virtual toll gates for entire cities. (He owned the Buffalo News.)
[ Warren Buffet on the economics of newspapers ]
The organizations to too top-heavy to survive when all of their economic moats are taken away by disruptive technology. Today, it makes absolutely zero sense to kill trees and pay truck drivers to deliver day-old news.
They need full adoption to thrive and majority adoption to succeed moderately. They won't make it.
We can try to prop up that business model as long as possible, and migrate the journalists involved to new jobs. But the absolute and unavoidable fact is that information wants to be free on the web. Chris Anderson of Wired gets it better than anyone else, IMO.
http://www.thelongtail.com/
1. Create and give away valuable content in a medium where replication costs are near zero. Develop an audience.
2. Create a "premium structure" for the information, (or premium content that is not available in the free medium) and sell that to a small percentage of your readers.
If the audience is large enough, it is a strong business model. And the model is viable even if only a very small percentage of the people who use the product actually pay the freight.
It works astoundingly well for Google, whose product is totally free to the vast (99%+) majority of users. But it also works quite nicely for bloggers who also publish books.
The blog/book model works even though it does significantly devalue the information that used to be taught by specialized photography schools. In fact, it works because it is more economically efficient.
Does this make the model bad or immoral? No. It is what it is -- simply a reaction to a disruptive change in the information infrastructure. And you and I are both willing participants both as producers and consumers.
Given near zero marginal distribution costs, Free (and Free+Premium) are more powerful than prices that are protected by economic moats and grow faster than inflation, such as photo business courses at Brooks or RIT.
The BBC's In Business radio programme covered the subject of the "free" business model recently including a long interview with Chris Anderson here
BTW thanks for the link to John Harrington's blog. I know you two don't agree on this point, but there's tons of other interesting stuff there.
Not sure if this was mentioned before....
When I (and many other photographers/graphic design firms, etc. I've spoken with) approach a client to do free work, I will still make out an invoice listing my hourly rates, etc.. I would then include a "100% discount" entry at the bottom of the invoice for the entire amount.
This makes it very clear to them that, while their project was done for "free", what they received had a price/ AND high "value". If they (or others they recommend me to) want more work done, they know what it will cost and the quality work they will receive.
Mark Scheuern:
I have a great day job too. And in my industry, people give free services all the time. You see, I work in software industry, and open source is all there for us, to use and to contribute.
So, if anybody asked me how would I feel if people are offering things for free, well hey, its happen all the time where I work. So, either I get used to it and differentiate myself with my products, or I can gripe to no ends. At least thats how it is in the software industry. And don't get me start with other countries offering cheaper services.
Still, good developers and good products are still expensive (although things change a bit with the current state of the economy, another thing for us to get used to).
Like other posters mentioned, photography today is not immune of change. Hordes of people with point and shoots and first time DSLR users will offer pictures next to nothing. Most of them are not reliable, but there are A LOT of these people, so if a buyer is willing to sift through images, or number of amateurs, there is still a good chance they can get the picture they want, much more than you can say in a decade back.
There will always be people who look for quality, but there will also be people who realize, they can save a lot if they compromise on the quality, at least good enough for what they plan to use. There will also be another set of people, who never though getting a photographer taking their picture, will do so right now, as there will be people who will charge next to nothing or even free. Probably the picture wont be that good, but they would not even think of getting one back then.
One analogy that I could make, is the quality and price of cars back then. Back then, most cars are up to a certain standards. Nowadays, there are cheaper cars, that may not be on the same standard as it used to be. Parts and hinges of a car are made of cheap plastics just to save cost. What happen is that, there are more people using cars, much more than last time (at least where I live). And then it get even cheaper, with even some dangerously cheap spec; ie. world cheapest car in India made by Tata. Sure, it wont have any appeal in countries like US or Europe. But to some people in India, it is good enough. And if its not that cheap, they probably wont even consider it. Back then they wont even think of owning a car, now they do, because its good enough and its cheap enough.
This is not to say that the value of car is getting less. But some people value quality more than others, some less then others. Those who can appreciate a good car, will go for the premium. Those who go for a very basic car with all the cheap parts, will probably consider it good enough.
My point is that, the same thing is happening in photography. There are people who appreciate quality, and there are also people who realize they can get away with cheaper alternatives. The barrier of entry is becoming lower and lower considering the advance of todays camera. There will be more and more supply albeit with lower quality. And the advent of the Internet doesn't make anything better in this respect.
It seems to me, photography is heading in this direction. We can complain, but if that is the direction of the masses, it would be just a matter of time before we get there.
David,
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this post and the fact that you see the benefit of looking beyond payment in certain regards.
The day you stop blogging will be a sad, sad day. I enjoy photography now more than ever, simply because of the FREE information, time and expertise you have shared on this blog and I am sure there are hundreds of THOUSANDS of Strobist readers who would agree.
I hope you don't let people of differing opinions and negative attitudes bring you down.
Thanks for another informative and enLIGHTening post. =)
Great post as usual, but I'm really really enjoying this discussion in the comments section, very interesting to hear both sides'POV.
Open source is mentioned several times here as an example of an industry where people actually do give stuff away for free.
I am a researcher, another field where this applies. I'm being paid a salary to do research. This salary is coming from some combination of a university and grant funding agencies; they've decided the stuff I want to do is worth financing.
So, they put in the money, I put in my time. The result is a set of papers, published in journals and conferences. I don't get paid to write and publish those - indeed, sometimes you have to pay the publisher a per-page charge. We're donating the papers to the journals for free, in other words, after having spent a lot of money and time creating those papers.
Papers need to be selected and reviewed, though. That is mostly done by researchers, doing the work for free - to get another entry in your all-important CV of course, but also because reviewing papers is something you do as a good community citizen.
The journals, however - at least, many of them - certainly don't give the finished work away for free. They charge a sometimes ungodly amount for a single copy of the magazine. Indeed, I have papers published where I don't have a copy of the journal (or book) myself, since they don't give away a single copy to authors and it's way too expensive for me to buy a copy for myself.
But of course, if you go through a university library (that pay dearly for access to paper databases - academia paying for access to its own work) you can get those papers for free or a low copy charge. And many do - for all of their complaining about the cost of doing research, pharmaceutical companies - to take one example - actually depend critically on this open, accessible, free research for their product pipelines.
That is OK, though (except for the exorbitant greed of some journal publishers). If people can make use of our work, then good for them. Research, done properly, is all about giving away your results to any and all takers.
The minute "Free" starts paying my bills, fixing my car and paying my doctor, I'll sign up for it in a heartbeat.
Until then, I'm going to work on making better and better images.
This has turned out to be an interesting and very thought-provoking discussion and I, for one, am glad you provided a link to John's blog which I will definitely put on my blogroll.
Much as I hate to say it, I believe the days of the professional photographer are largely numbered. I say this for a couple of reasons. Technology has brought convenience and simplicity making it easy for camera-owners to shoot properly-focussed, well-exposed, pictures -- the fact that little thought or creativity is involved, means nothing. Consumers of images have, since the advent of web publishing, been dumbed down and most wouldn't know quality if it walked up and slapped them in the face.
Nowadays, anyone with a digital camera, figures he or she is, or can be, a professional photographer. By way of example, I live in a small town in South Africa that has fallen on hard times as a result of local gold mines shutting down. There are 57 "wedding photographers" here, pretty well all of whom are equipped with a digital camera, painfully slow kit zoom lens (most don't know what that means) and built-in, pop up flash. Their standard operating procedure is to speculatively shoot around 1400 images, download them, burn a CD and present it to the client at the end of the wedding. They justify this mediocrity as "photojournalistic wedding photography," although the nearest any of these "photographers" has ever come to photojournalism is buying a newspaper from a street-corner vendor.
They are happy to work at a rate that, in many cases, just covers traveling expenses. But the client is happy because he's never seen better or "just good enough" is indeed good enough.
Recently, a young-buck newspaper sports photographer asked how I could shoot a motorcycle race with a manual Nikkormat that doesn't autofocus, has no motor-drive and does not allow me to immediately see the shot taken. He spoke from behind some or other 10 frames per second DSLR. As soon as I started to explain zone focussing and the decisive moment, his eyes glazed over. He had no clue what I was talking about an mumbled that those things didn't bother him, he simply put the camera on "auto" and of the hundreds of images he shot he was sure some would be good enough for publication.
I do not think it is the guy shooting for free that is going to put the pro out of business. I think the wave of technology - in much the same way easily-used office software signalled the doom of typists - and the general acceptance of mediocrity, where purchasers of photography can't recognise the quality offered by the true professional, will do that.
It's sad but I think we are a bunch of dinosaurs in a rapidly-developing ice-age!
~Hilton~
www.thelightsuff.blogspot.com
Tips, tutorials and (mainly) photographic musings
Just a small comment that will get lost in all the treaties written here, but in response to the hypo that the hotel owner may place an ad for free rooms in exchange for free promo photos... neither of those things are actually free. thats just a simple value trade proposition.
Many people who think they would work for free are being exploited without noticing.
They do not understand that working without getting payment is not working for free, as there are such thinks as expenses and wear and tear.
Photography is not for free! Even with a digital camera that seems to cause (nearly) no operating costs.
And before the nice guy, who kindly allows you to work for free, will buy you an new camera if yours gets damaged while working for him, he will rather look for another "useful idiot" (as they are called in German) to replace the one with the broken camera.
Someone who really cares about someones photography and who, apart from not being able to pay for it, appreciates the value of it would at least have to talk about expenses and the risks for your gear.
In our agency we often allow charities, student magazines etc. to use pictures from our archives for free (we cover a big part of German right wing parties and neonazis and many pictures showing the typical nazi dresscode are used to inform students and teachers). But we have one big rule. Nobody gets pictures for free if he is paying other photographers or editors and writers.
I meet many young photographers who believe that working for free would open doors for them. But what good is an open door to someone who will not pay photographers; if you want to become a photographer.
Many (young) photographers seem to think that other photographers with critical comments towards working for free just want to keep them away from taking their chance, but ist more likely saving them from harm.
Photography is not so much about "working one's way up", it's more about improving your skills (that's what makes Davids Site so valuable!). If your pictures are good they will be used, even if you haven't covered the editors daughters wedding for free.
After I decided to give it a try (the original plan was to be a coward and avoid failing as a photographer by becoming a wealthy doctor who's having an expensive hobby) my first picture was published in Stern Magazine. Without working for free. What helped was that, by chance, I found someone who taught me the basics of the trade and told me what to do and where to go with my pictures. One imprtant thing was that if they don't publish your pictures it's the pictures and not the price.
The first time I worked for free was much later, when I could afford to work for free, knowing that it costs me money.
David,
You seem to have switched from Bogen Super Clamps to Justin Clamps. Any special reason? I just managed to snag a Super Clamp for Christmas, and now I'm wondering if I should try a Justin next time.
is susan your wife? if so, you need to divorce her. and backpacker joints... ya, i really want to hang out with a bunch of n americans and europeans when i travel. much better and more culturally enlightening ways of traveling on the cheap. heh.
Nice use of available diffuser in the bathroom and cabin shots. As always, thanks for sharing.
Anon-
Divorce my wife? You are smoking crack, dude. I married well!
Geoff-
They had not yet invented Justin Clamps when I was using Super Clamps, as far as I know. DIfferent animals. Super Clamps are much more heavy duty, and can do many things a Justin Clamp cannot.
But Justin clamps are lighter and more versatile for clamping a speedlight to something.
Just wanted to say how delightful it was to see pictures of one of my favorite places I have ever stayed while traveling. Over 10 years ago, on a trip to Costa Rica with my parents we stayed there over New Years. It was pretty great then (my horse ride memories have lasted still) and I am so glad to see they are still going strong!
First off, I really appreciate these explanations -- the ones which show how to achieve great results with minimal gear. These are the situations I often find myself in and these explanations are fantastic.
As an amateur photographer who is still trying to break into the realms of photographic paid jobs, I must say that this debate is interesting, but somewhat plagued with what I feel are serious misconceptions from professional photographers. And before the "pros" start jumping down my throat, let me say that I, for one, do not believe in microstock and I don't believe that professionals should continually work for free.
As much as I wish it were different, at the end of the day, photography is still not my main source of income. I'm still trying to build a portfolio and gain the necessary experience to bid / execute jobs successfully. Therefore, I volunteer to shoot as many events as possible. More often than not, I charge a nominal fee for prints, and do not sell my copyright.
How is this a threat to the photographic business? For all you pros out there, I would venture to guess that aside from the occasional "lucky" shot, your shots should be far superior to my own. Therefore, if you can't convince people the value of your own work, you need to re-evaluate your marketing and work. Trust me, if I were good enough to get paid pro value for my work, I would charge pro value.
As a professional engineer, I would venture to guess that my work would far surpass that of an amateur and therefore, I would feel no reluctance to charge a high value for my work. Frankly, people are free to go elsewhere for my services but if they pay less, they will get a lower quality product. The same is true for photographers.
If you want my take on this conundrum, the people who are de-valuing the photographic professional's work are the photographic professionals who are lowering their prices to compete with the amateurs. These "pros" are essentially admitting that their work isn't any better than those who charge less. If this is true, they deserve to take a pay cut. If not, charge what your work is worth and be happy (or step up and offer a better product).
But if people continue to complain about the devaluing of their work, they may benefit from taking a long, hard look at their final product and try to understand why it doesn't command the market value they wish it did. I'm guessing that if you're threatened by amateurs, then you must be producing a similar quality product.
Good luck to all -- pros and amateurs alike!
In response to the February 09, 2009 8:14 AM Anonymous poster:
Engineering and photography are two entirely different fields. As this site illustrates, amateurs can learn enough to produce pro-quality work without a formal education.
Secondly, I don't really care one way or the other that you're working for free, but just because you don't think highly enough of your work to charge for it doesn't mean you cannot charge for it. A good 50% of the images published in magazines (both editorially and in adverts) are quite mediocre in technical quality -- maybe not even "pro" quality by your standards. What makes an image publishable is not necessarily how aesthetically pleasing it is, but how USEFUL it is.
Pros charging high rates get their mediocre work published all the time. Sometimes these shots are nothing special--cousin Billy could've taken the same shot with his camera phone.
Amateurs who don't think highly enough of their work is just one problem. Another problem is when those who are technically proficient lower their prices to unsustainable fees, because they aren't doing photography for money, but for the joy of it. Sure, "free" can definitely lead to more work, and "free" might be required to get enough material for a portfolio. But with no future payback, "free" isn't doing anybody any good, except the person at the receiving end. This is especially mind-boggling when the receiver plans to improve their profit as a result of the free service (commercial use).
There are a ton of talented people giving away their services/work for next to nothing. And this is all subsidized by their day job. If it's for a non-profit or for personal use, fine. But it's quite sad for the photographer when the recipient will use such free or undervalued work to add value to their own business.
Does JH need more kittens?
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/02/extreme-skin-flint.html
Phojos, journalists & photogs are just getting the same treatment from the market that we more physical workers got years ago with robots, automation, hydraulics & outsourcing manufacturing offshore.
It's "different" now, of course, because it's happening to you instead of us...
That's all.
There are still lathe workers, still construction workers, still farm workers, but the percentage of the population NOT doing physical labor has increased spectacularly in the last century.
The percentage of photogs NOT lugging full pro kit is increasing similarly ( dilution, instead of replacement, because people LIKE doing photography ), for the same reason:
the tide changed.
It's weird, though, that I've seen comments/sentiment attacking your giving:
Did god *lease* life to those who criticast, and keep demanding increasing and onerous payment with no rights?
No: life is a gift.
Learning's a gift, too.
"education", though, is an industrial-era manufactory for workers, not Learning: Learning's a natural & innate hunger, and force-feeding doesn't feed healthy hunger.
Civilized people have forgotten that Learning and Certification are separate things, and confusedly operate manufactory/certification as "Learning".
Separate 'em, make Learning centres, as Strobist.com is, for its subject, and Learning flourishes!
If someone wants certification centres, then make 'em, but don't call the things Learning centres!
David, you're giving many many lives a great gift, the gift of owning one's own independent, god-given capability.
The total energy among the ecology *increases* when individual autonomy increases, though the Established Special Interest Groups may gripe & thrash about losing their extortion grounded comfort...
( see the discussions about newspapers being toll-gates to news/community-info, e.g. and the tolls being washed away by free/libre information ).
There will be high price pro photogs for centuries yet: no fear of that.
There will be much more *balance* in the ecology than there has been, though.
Cheers,
Come on people! I know the pay issue is serious, but the kitten link is hilarious. Laughing does not negate the seriousness of the issue. A little levity is what allows people with differing opinions to remain friends.
Post a Comment
<< Home