Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Photos - nothing suss. Thanks

Winston

3-Aug-2006
3:15:25 PM

Hi All,

Thanks for the comments I received on my previous post.

Seems to me it's people's personal choice as to whether or not they wanna send some photos in. If they don't like the prices they can skip over my topic and go onto the next one. When confronted with large insurance costs when establishing a business, I'm sure people will understand why someone may not want to purchase a dozen $200 photos.

I particularly like the Batman & Robyn photo and I'm pretty sure Adam West would do anything for $5.

Diablo

5-Aug-2006
8:16:36 PM

What are you gathering pictures for anyway???

I AM actually thinking of sending some, unlike the others just having a go at you.

There just pictures, not gold, and im just wondering what exactly im supporting...

(no affence at the posters of the last thread, all were valid points)

Catch!
Ryan

mousey

5-Aug-2006
10:58:41 PM

>If they don't like the prices they can skip over my topic and go onto the next one.

unfortunately thats not the way it works when a bunch of photographers see a thread about severly devalueing their industry... yes it is expensive, no you probably dont want to pay that much- not many people do---- but thats what it costs. photos are bread and how much bread do you think $5-20 is putting on the table?

Sabu

6-Aug-2006
8:49:10 PM

On 5/08/2006 mousey wrote:
>unfortunately thats not the way it works when a bunch of photographers
>see a thread about severly devalueing their industry... yes it is expensive,
>no you probably dont want to pay that much- not many people do---- but
>thats what it costs. photos are bread and how much bread do you think $5-20
>is putting on the table?

ok but what about those of us that don't make a living from photos but have some ok ones lying around!!
For me i wouldn't mind a little money from something i normally would get anything from.
i understand your case though!!

kerroxapithecus

6-Aug-2006
9:07:39 PM

On 5/08/2006 mousey wrote:
>>If they don't like the prices they can skip over my topic and go onto
>the next one.
>
>unfortunately thats not the way it works when a bunch of photographers
>see a thread about severly devalueing their industry... yes it is expensive,
>no you probably dont want to pay that much- not many people do---- but
>thats what it costs. photos are bread and how much bread do you think $5-20
>is putting on the table?

Free music downloads aren't putting much bread on the table either but nobody cares about that....and it costs a lot more to make a music track than it does to take a photo. Everyone thinks it's their right to steal music. As technology becomes more sophisticated we see the devaluation of the commercial arts. Some argue that it's the way it should be because art should not be commercialised. A photo costs as much as someone is willing to pay for it or what the seller is willing to sell it for. I bet there are people who would give their photos away. There's not much you can do to stop it. If you're already earning good money from taking photos then you wouldn't need to sell for a low price but there's not much you can do to stop others from getting into the industry by selling at lower rates.....just like any other market.

dalai

6-Aug-2006
9:26:01 PM

On 6/08/2006 kerroxapithecus wrote:
>I bet there are people who would give their photos away. There's not much you can do
>to stop it. If you're already earning good money from taking photos then
>you wouldn't need to sell for a low price but there's not much you can
>do to stop others from getting into the industry by selling at lower rates.....just
>like any other market.

It gets them into the market but destroys the very market they are wanting to join at the same time! It feeds the vicious cycle of new people selling their services for far less than they are worth. This impacts those already in the industry and then themselves down the track once they are established, because of the next person wanting to get into the industry undersells and so on...

Market rates are there so people who choose to be climbing photographers (or any other career) can make a living! It's like saying we should abolish minimum wages because there will always be someone willing to work for less than the next to get a foot in the door...

kerroxapithecus

6-Aug-2006
9:53:53 PM

Hello free market society.

But yes...absolutely I agree with you. That is the effect on the industry. I have a family member in the music industry and I know how much blood, sweat, tears and money goes into the making of music and that's why it's a bummer to see it starting to be taken for free. And then to have people argue that it should be free! But all industries suffer from this phenomenon to an extent.

gordoste

6-Aug-2006
9:59:13 PM

Photos people give away for free are never going to be of a consistent high quality like those produced by professional photographers. The main reasons are that amateurs typically cannot invest as much money (for equipment) or time in photography, and that they are also generally not as good at it (partly due to experience, partly because if they were they would in all likelihood be doing it professionally!).
Regarding the giving away of music, don't even start comparing that. For artists who actually have talent distributing your own stuff is much better. The consumer wins (paying lower prices), the artist wins (via higher royalties) and the people who lose are those who are just adding fluff to justify the exorbitant prices. Of course, if you are one of the countless manufactured pop "personalities" manufactured nowadays, you have reason to fear as you will no longer be an effective tactic to reduce costs (the record industry solved the problem that they had to pay decent money for people with talent - now they don't need people with talent). Don't bother arguing this point with me.... get out there and read the different viewpoints and some actual case studies and form your own opinion - I have.

kerroxapithecus

6-Aug-2006
10:09:31 PM

On 6/08/2006 gordoste wrote:
>For artists who actually have talent distributing your own stuff is much better.

That's so not so!!! Do you really think an artist is going to make more money distributing music themselves?? Really? And how much do you think that's going to cost?
I suspect you might be a photographer who's been downloading free music...tut tut tut.

winston

8-Aug-2006
7:05:59 PM

G'day Ryan,

I'm starting up a business that in part, will involve taking school groups rock climbing, abseiling, doing team building stuff etc. As you probably gathered, I'm not after photos of ripped 20 something's climbing the Candlestick or anything. The photos would be used in a brochure to reflect the kinds of people we take out - secondary school kids mainly.

So to cut a long story short, the photos I'd need have to show a safety conscious, fun environment where people are just having a go. If you do send some through and I end up using them, I'll make sure I get the permissions etc, and give you some cash for your time and effort.

Thanks heaps for your response on the thread.

Mat

mousey

8-Aug-2006
7:29:38 PM

On 6/08/2006 Sabu wrote
>
>ok but what about those of us that don't make a living from photos but
>have some ok ones lying around!!
>For me i wouldn't mind a little money from something i normally would
>get anything from.
>i understand your case though!!

thats the problem dude, by doing that you are undercutting the pros and then the pros can no longer demand what the photos are really worth because clients know they can rip off amateurs

Robin

8-Aug-2006
7:55:44 PM

Why not take the pictures yourself? Might be a silly question but I think the (little) money you plan to spend on photos would almost buy a cheap digital camera. It would give you the chance to photograph exactly what you want.

I've used plenty of my own dodgy photos for catalogues and brochures. However when we needed photos for plant labels we payed the $$$ for a professional.

master of drung

8-Aug-2006
8:15:42 PM

just because you work very hard at something you are passionate about doesn't mean you have some automatic right to make money from it of course that would be a desirable outcome but it is not somebody elses responsibility if you don't.
the music industry example is actually illegal but someone buying or selling a cheap image thats ownership is not under question is hardly comparable even on a moral level.

One Day Hero

8-Aug-2006
9:51:51 PM

On 8/08/2006 winston wrote:
>I'm starting up a business that in part, will involve taking school groups
>rock climbing, abseiling, doing team building stuff etc. The photos would be used in a brochure to reflect the kinds
>of people we take out - secondary school kids mainly.

I hope you have plans in place to manage the environmental damage of your groups, and to minimize the crag hogging effect some commercial outfits have.

kerroxapithecus

8-Aug-2006
10:33:19 PM

On 8/08/2006 Robin wrote:
>Why not take the pictures yourself?

Yes. Good plan Robin!

Bob Saki

9-Aug-2006
9:59:35 AM

On 8/08/2006 master of drung wrote:
>just because you work very hard at something you are passionate about doesn't
>mean you have some automatic right to make money from it

precisely - and any photographer worth their salt will be able to show prospective clients the quality of their work compared to "cheap immitations" and explain scientifically and practically why their work is superior.

Doesn't this also ensure the photographer is selling these images to the right person so the client/artist fit is a good one. There are certain people you just wouldn't sell your wares to regardless of what they offered if you are serious about artistic integrity.

Ronny

9-Aug-2006
5:40:29 PM

>On 8/08/2006 master of drung wrote:
>>just because you work very hard at something you are passionate about
>doesn't
>>mean you have some automatic right to make money from it
>

Well sort of. The whole concept of property rights, intellectual property, and consequentially copyright, is that you DO have the right to make money out of it. Its your property, and you can sell if if you chose to. But nobody has to buy it.
Similarly, if you want to buy something you will have to pay what someone is prepared to sell it for. This is simple supply and demand. The idea that amateurs should stay out of the market on the basis of some sort of solidarity with the pros is bollocks. Similarly, if you can get a bargain off an amateur, go for it.

Of course, there's not going to be as much choice in the photos from amateurs, and the photos probably won't be as good, and they'll be harder to find - but then, you get what you pay for really...

nmonteith

17-Aug-2006
4:29:50 PM

On 3/08/2006 Winston wrote:
>When confronted with large insurance costs
>when establishing a business, I'm sure people will understand why someone
>may not want to purchase a dozen $200 photos.

You make it sound like you are the only one dealing with insurance - proffesional climbing photograpahers need insurance as well! We are also in dangerous positions using highly specialied and expensive equipment.

Also - imagine if an ametuer climber decided he wanted to make a few quick bucks by doing some part-time guiding and then stole your clients by massivly undercutting the rates you charge for guiding? Same principle.

There are 18 messages in this topic.