Software (the favorite here) is a different deal. The creation of it is a group effort for the most part, but I bet if you asked one of the coders at MS if he thought he should have a piece of the Windows take, he would say yes. He is compensated with stock and other items to make it worth his giving up the copyright on what he creates.
Photography is more akin to a book or music.
Just because I buy a copy of say "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" doesn't mean I can go ahead and photocopy it and sell copies of it. That is what photography is, moreso then software.
ACTUALLY,
If you go into a professional event, You expressly ARE NOT granted the right to take photos of the event.
You are taking images of their copyrighted event/uniforms etc.
The press is granted rights for editorial usage, but rights to use/maintain/sell the images of say an NFL game are controlled by the NFL and it's licensees (Getty, primarily I believe)
So, there would be some question to as whether you "own" the copyright to that image. Should you go to coourt for trying to sell that image of Brett Favre throwing, I wouldn't bet on you winning.
You are being paid for your skills in creating the photos, you SHOULD own them, unless you agree not to.
You are creating something, if you don't own what you create "by default" something is wrong.
Wedding Photography is a little of a different beast, but WFH is killing photography as an industry.
I am getting a more "semi" then "pro" from what you say because if you were actually subsisting off of your work behind the camera, you would understand that you need to retain ownership of that which you create.
Your story of your mentor is, I agree the absolute pits.
But as a photog shooting a wedding, you are doing something the "normal" person can not, why shouldn't you realize fair (ie: enough to live) compensation for that?
You believe that your INKJET prints are going to last 25 years because Epson/Canon/HP et al said so? 100 years?
That's laughable.
I'd go with a REAL photo everytime. As an owner of a Kodak Dye-Sub, I wouldn't trust that to last for 25 years, let alone an inkjet, These inks haven't been around 25 years, when they are talk to me.
What the vendor says to sell his product is one thing, reality is quite another.
"this asshole who seriously believes that the wedding is being put on for his benefit rather than, you know, that of you and your guests"
Actually, it seems to be closer to:
"You are paying me to perform a service, To perform that service optimally, you need to do X, Y & Z, The job will not be done correctly if you add "D" or remove "Z", So I am writing that into my contract. "
The analogy can be compared to roadwork, you need to close the freeway for the roadwork to be done, they won't do it if you insist on driving through when they are working.
Get a clue.
I work(ed) at a "school" photography studio for the past year, and that $40 you pay for the package doesn't even provide enough cash (amortized, as you say, over the student population) to pay enough to keep the studio staffed full time through the year.
The backend to "shoot a school photo" as you put it, just in the equipment is something to the effect of 7-10k per photo station (the way we shoot which is perhap a bit forward tech wise)
a Digital Body (Canon 10D/20D) A powerful Laptop (P4 at this point) Color Laser printer/laminator (for the complimentary photo IDs) A set of strobes, and the software to create and database the images to student names and create onsite IDs. As well a a photographer that knows how to run this setup. That is onsite.
Our setup for a medium school (1500 kids) 3 days shooting, three or four stations running all day (arrive at 6-7AM leave at 4pm). And then probably Three makeup days with one or two cameras.
At the Studio there are approximately 10 state of the art machines, as well as a large format inkjet and Minilab machine to actually create the packages you are complaining on the price about.
The images then need to be processed for both order fulfilment as well as creation of the yearbook CDs (~2-4000 records for a high school), and the orders need to be printed and packaged. Which also requires staff of varying capacities (being paid out of that $40 you are bitching about).
So the 30 seconds you are talking about is NOTHING near the actual reality.
All the bitching about wedding photography strikes me as similar ignorance. You people have no idea of the labor involved with shooting a wedding and creating the images afterwords.
You don't have an idea of the equipment, training and cost involved. Photography is a VERY hard industry to make a living in and you folks have no idea. The idea of a wedding photog being one of the top-ten overpaid careers is laughable. It is a hard job, that doesn't pay well, and people think, "Hey I'll just put disposable cameras on the table, that will do the job better anyway"
As far as the "nominal" rate of $200/hour, that would be great, if All I need to do as a wedding photographer is show up at your wedding and shoot for 3-5 hours and then be done.
The actual process is something more like:
Several meetings before the wedding (no fee for those) An engagement session (maybe no fee for that) Selecting the engagement session meeting (not charging hourly for that) Printing the engagement session (maybe an album, maybe souvenirs at the wedding, this can vary) The actual wedding shoot (the shortest part of all this in all likelyhood) Go through the photos (not charging that nominal hourly here either) Make the proof set (See Nominal Hourly) Meeting about what photos are going to be selected (See that hourly again) Procuring the album(s) and making the prints for them (this maybe broken out, but just as often is in the "overall price")
So for a "5 hour" wedding, as a photog how many hours have I put in? 20? 50? none of those are billed at "$200 an hour" last I checked.
You people complaining haven't got a clue. (did I mention that already?) Gil Batzri (a former full-time photographer)
Slashdot Mirror
They are for the most part getting screwed.
Software (the favorite here) is a different deal. The creation of it is a group effort for the most part, but I bet if you asked one of the coders at MS if he thought he should have a piece of the Windows take, he would say yes. He is compensated with stock and other items to make it worth his giving up the copyright on what he creates.
Photography is more akin to a book or music.
Just because I buy a copy of say "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" doesn't mean I can go ahead and photocopy it and sell copies of it. That is what photography is, moreso then software.
You can't sell images you make at a pro game. Period. Unless you had a credential granted by the organization/league/team you were photographing.
They are very specific on this, It is probably on the ticket.
Not for editorial, not for commercial, not anything. You are not in a public place, those rules do not apply.
This might be different if you are selling photos of a fight in the stands, but of actual game action, I am fairly confident.
Look it up.
ACTUALLY, If you go into a professional event, You expressly ARE NOT granted the right to take photos of the event. You are taking images of their copyrighted event/uniforms etc. The press is granted rights for editorial usage, but rights to use/maintain/sell the images of say an NFL game are controlled by the NFL and it's licensees (Getty, primarily I believe) So, there would be some question to as whether you "own" the copyright to that image. Should you go to coourt for trying to sell that image of Brett Favre throwing, I wouldn't bet on you winning.
It's WFH IF the the photog agrees to it.
You are being paid for your skills in creating the photos, you SHOULD own them, unless you agree not to.
You are creating something, if you don't own what you create "by default" something is wrong.
Wedding Photography is a little of a different beast, but WFH is killing photography as an industry.
I am getting a more "semi" then "pro" from what you say because if you were actually subsisting off of your work behind the camera, you would understand that you need to retain ownership of that which you create.
Your story of your mentor is, I agree the absolute pits.
But as a photog shooting a wedding, you are doing something the "normal" person can not, why shouldn't you realize fair (ie: enough to live) compensation for that?
You believe that your INKJET prints are going to last 25 years because Epson/Canon/HP et al said so? 100 years?
That's laughable.
I'd go with a REAL photo everytime. As an owner of a Kodak Dye-Sub, I wouldn't trust that to last for 25 years, let alone an inkjet, These inks haven't been around 25 years, when they are talk to me.
What the vendor says to sell his product is one thing, reality is quite another.
"this asshole who seriously believes that the wedding is being put on for his benefit rather than, you know, that of you and your guests" Actually, it seems to be closer to: "You are paying me to perform a service, To perform that service optimally, you need to do X, Y & Z, The job will not be done correctly if you add "D" or remove "Z", So I am writing that into my contract. " The analogy can be compared to roadwork, you need to close the freeway for the roadwork to be done, they won't do it if you insist on driving through when they are working. Get a clue.
I work(ed) at a "school" photography studio for the past year, and that $40 you pay for the package doesn't even provide enough cash (amortized, as you say, over the student population) to pay enough to keep the studio staffed full time through the year.
The backend to "shoot a school photo" as you put it, just in the equipment is something to the effect of 7-10k per photo station (the way we shoot which is perhap a bit forward tech wise)
a Digital Body (Canon 10D/20D) A powerful Laptop (P4 at this point) Color Laser printer/laminator (for the complimentary photo IDs) A set of strobes, and the software to create and database the images to student names and create onsite IDs. As well a a photographer that knows how to run this setup. That is onsite.
Our setup for a medium school (1500 kids) 3 days shooting, three or four stations running all day (arrive at 6-7AM leave at 4pm). And then probably Three makeup days with one or two cameras.
At the Studio there are approximately 10 state of the art machines, as well as a large format inkjet and Minilab machine to actually create the packages you are complaining on the price about.
The images then need to be processed for both order fulfilment as well as creation of the yearbook CDs (~2-4000 records for a high school), and the orders need to be printed and packaged. Which also requires staff of varying capacities (being paid out of that $40 you are bitching about).
So the 30 seconds you are talking about is NOTHING near the actual reality.
All the bitching about wedding photography strikes me as similar ignorance. You people have no idea of the labor involved with shooting a wedding and creating the images afterwords.
You don't have an idea of the equipment, training and cost involved. Photography is a VERY hard industry to make a living in and you folks have no idea. The idea of a wedding photog being one of the top-ten overpaid careers is laughable. It is a hard job, that doesn't pay well, and people think, "Hey I'll just put disposable cameras on the table, that will do the job better anyway"
As far as the "nominal" rate of $200/hour, that would be great, if All I need to do as a wedding photographer is show up at your wedding and shoot for 3-5 hours and then be done.
The actual process is something more like:
Several meetings before the wedding (no fee for those)
An engagement session (maybe no fee for that)
Selecting the engagement session meeting (not charging hourly for that)
Printing the engagement session (maybe an album, maybe souvenirs at the wedding, this can vary)
The actual wedding shoot (the shortest part of all this in all likelyhood)
Go through the photos (not charging that nominal hourly here either)
Make the proof set (See Nominal Hourly)
Meeting about what photos are going to be selected (See that hourly again)
Procuring the album(s) and making the prints for them (this maybe broken out, but just as often is in the "overall price")
So for a "5 hour" wedding, as a photog how many hours have I put in? 20? 50? none of those are billed at "$200 an hour" last I checked.
You people complaining haven't got a clue. (did I mention that already?)
Gil Batzri
(a former full-time photographer)