Spinnaker photo wanted

[Rob_Webb]

Ask yourself why top nature and travel photographers can no longer earn a living.

Dunno. Maybe simple market forces i.e. too many of them chasing too little work.

I haven't noticed any decline in the quality of visual media around my world. The rise of digital has generated a huge increase in volumes of photography - resulting in many very average snaps, granted - but also some stunning images taken by amateurs. Check out any online photo competition for evidence of this.

But why should higher volumes of average pics taken by amateurs erode the work of previously high quality operators?

I'd day the decline in quality of written journalism is a far more worrying trend than visual media, which if anything has got more exciting.

 

[photodog]

Oh ffs - get over yourself. I did not notice you wading in to defend professional web designers when Lovezoo et al were having a go at me. The market is changing, the technology is changing - adapt or go ..

- W

Wtf are u talking about... ?

I am not here wading through every thread..

I don't know jack **** about web design.. So why would I get involved?

Why are you having a go at me instead of the arguements?

Btw... My web design guy just bought a new half million pound house... So there are still people out there who do the business...




Both of you guys have missed the point of my concerns.... Essentially there are some idiot amateurs who are "dumping" there mediocre product on the market..
And the major media groups are exploiting this... These guys know that the only way they can get published is to give it away for free... If Paul's work was of a high standard... He would ask for the payment which a proper photographer would get.... But he knows that the only way that he can compete is by giving it away... In any other business we call this "dumping"... And it's morally reprehensible by any standard...

But of course some people don't understand this...because they equate photography with a technical function...

I would have though it that you webby in particular would understand ...

As for Paul's naive belief that the market is in decline due to increased competition between professionals.... And that only a few people are getting free stuff published....

The is of course a considerable truth that increasing competition is driving down prices... This is exacerbated by the publics general view that photography has no value... And this is further driven by the number of people who are happy to allow large companies to exploit their ip for free... And this is not "a few". But a considerable percentage of material that is now published in magazines and newspapers... I would suggest as much as 30-40% overall and as much as 90% in certain markets.

This has obviously had a major impact on the income of professional photographers in the editorial market... It's impact on other markets I can only surmise.

amateurs like Paul are willing to give away their work because it's the only way they can get published. If they had to compete on a level playing field... They would lose... But of course a free Kia beats a paid for BMW every day..

Fortunately I have other interests to keep me occupied, I am particularly keen on plumbing and adding up... So I do that for free for anyone who asks!

 

[Lakesailor]

I am particularly keen on plumbing and adding up... So I do that for free for anyone who asks!

Our central heating is gurgling quite a lot.......

I wouldn't want to pay a plumber.

 

[Sybarite]

My topsides need a polish, rather than paying a professional to do it, I'll give £50 to the RNLI for someone on here to do it for me*

There again, you could do it yourself and then give yourself the £50 donation?

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Whilst I can sympathise to some extent, in principle I think the professional photographers are missing the point.

If the OP only needs a photo that has been taken by an amateur then you should not have a problem with that.

If on the other hand your work cannot be differentiated from amateurs then maybe you need to do a little thinking.

Many professions have found that technology has changed the discipline they are in by taking away the need for specialist skills.

This is just basic supply/demand/price stuff. If someone is willing to do what you do for less money there is no point moaning at them. It's your own approach that needs rethinking.

Adapt, differentiate or decline.

 

[Pleiades]

Spinnaker storm

Neutral on the issues here so my tuppence:-
(Incidentally - wonderful spinny shots, ta everyone and love Seajet's aerial phots.)
Reasonable request from OP which he was perfectly entitled to post, followed by some rather hostile replies. The Forum surely does not exist to rubbish the views of someone who might challenge a particular trade, craft or profession - make your case Pros and Ex Pros but a more measured approach would perhaps have won more hearts and minds.
Don't follow the argument that amateurs have driven down quality. If editors choose and publish technically inferior shots, then that is what that market wants. Some Editors will always want medium or large format images or shots taken in demanding circumstances and will pay Pros the going rate for that professional expertise. No point blaming amateurs if they are supplying what the customer wants in the high volume end of the market.
Also don't understand the shock and awe at the thought that someone may do something for nothing for someone else - it is irrelevant who benefits, if that is what the giver wants then his or her free choice. If some disgruntled local artisan looses out of a commission thereby perhaps they should try some charity work themselves - charity may come back to them on the wind!
Not having any good spinny shots myself, I attach herewith some free rubbish spinny shots at risk of sending quality standards through the sea bed...

Robin
Pleiades of Birdham
MXWQ5

 

[Lakesailor]

Don't follow the argument that amateurs have driven down quality. If editors choose and publish technically inferior shots, then that is what that market wants.

No. You don't understand the market.
The editors will use the cheapest they think they can get away with.
Then they regret it and look for better shots. Then they regret it and look for cheaper shots.
They can't see that good shots and low prices are not compatible.

Even the amateurs, happy to see their pics in print, get fed up with the demands of the mag editors and either stop supplying or ask for more money.

I did a job for a boat mag in awful weather of a yacht race.
The pics were actually very good.
The assistant Ed also took some shots a few weeks later on a cracking sunny day whilst he was doing the copy. Even he says they are not super.

But they used them as well as mine, because his shots were free and mine weren't. So instead of getting two published pages I only got one.
Purely on price. If I'd known, I wouldn't have turned out.
But they wanted top quality. They settled for less because it was cheaper.

If you are saying we should work cheaper, if you are saying we should produce lower quality. Why? We go there, Take the same gear and spend the same time. Why would inferior shots work out any cheaper? It's not possible.
The fact is, if someone will give them pics they will put up with rubbish.

It's not a question of adapting. It's a question of deciding if you want to be involved at all.