UKC

Yup this is how it is -

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1720931/surve...

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Interesting.


So what is?

Do we have to own photoshop as well? Lightroom? Is there a list of lenses we have to have to be certified?

I do quite a bit of professional photography and I have to say that I don't worry about amateurs simply because I'm better at it than 99.9% of them. I'm trained, experienced and I can reliably produce good shots.

But it's not that I can do those things because I'm a professional, I'm a professional because I can do them.

In reply to niggle: Did you just totaly miss the point?


People dont apreciate expensive photography anymore, and alot of ametures are far better then you.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Wow £34,535 on average for a staff photographer! I haven't seen much of that :0

Interesting that it's only a small majority of photographers who believe the orphan works legislation will "significantly or moderately affect them for the worse".
Regardless of the unfairness of the legislation (I'm not disputing it) I was shot down on here for saying that at the time it would not effect me in the slightest as I was one of the many, many photographers out there who from the very outset of a shoot, do not have control over their copyright. It would appear that the 40% of photographers who "say it would neither help nor hinder their businesses" bear that out. It's just the way it is for some work, if you want the contract, you relinquish copyright ownership - if not, twiddle your thumbs.
Furthermore for many, the availability of royalty free images on the internet will not effect the workload of many because the workload consists of specific images that are simply not available on the internet. i.e picture of Joe & Jane Bloggs etc.

I'm not denying that any of this is a sad state of affairs however and incidentally, my situation has now changed entirely and I would now count myself amongst those photographers who think the legislation could well have a significant impact on them. The whole thing makes for pretty sobering reading.

Thanks for posting.

In reply to niggle:


The survey shows the concerns of those for whom photography is a main income. Take from it what you will. I sense it is not your only income, although you may have studied it.

Personally I think a professional photographer is one who earns the majority of there income from photography alone, is a member of a relevant organisation, and has their business organised along professional lines with liability / indemnity insurances etc. As in any job there are good and bad practitioners, meanwhile there are numerous semi pro photographers and amateurs who produce great images.

Can of worms?

In reply to niggle:

Yes, it is a bit condescending that isn't it.

In reply to Tom_Harding:


My clients do.


No doubt. But it's highly unlikely that many amateurs have as much studio experience as me or are as creative as me. If they were, my clients would go to them and get better, cheaper work.

But they don't.

In reply to Henry Iddon:


You're right, I'm a designer too. I know how far my skills go; for really difficult shoots I'm happy to hire a professional and art direct them.

But that's the point: if those professionals were no better than the amateurs, I wouldn't hire them and certainly wouldn't pay their fees. I don't think they have anything to fear from me, let alone from amateurs who aren't even able to compete with me.

In reply to niggle:

Your a creative professional - thats fine. I agree a good pro photographer has nothing to fear especially those working for large clients / agencies.
Undoubtedly tho smaller jobs and some PR work is being squeezed by a combination of the economy and client side amateurs offering to do shoots. I certainly think that good photography isn't valued as it once was.

I do a lot of work in the education sector, and have clients that value what I produce. Conversely odd clients now use me less because "Mr So and So" the maths teacher or whatever has a digital camera and has done some photography this year. That wouldn't have happened 5 years ago - clients like that are looking at the £ first not the quality of the images - so there is an impact.

For the record I'd like to think I'm pretty good at what I do - my works there for all to see and judge for themselves. I feel for those starting out.

In reply to Henry Iddon:
"Mr So and So" the maths teacher or whatever has a digital camera and has done some photography this year. That wouldn't have happened 5 years ago - clients like that are looking at the £ first not the quality of the images - so there is an impact.


This is happening increasingly with us and some of the work we do for a couple of local authorities. Because all their work is by definition locally based we deal with a lot of their departments; occasionally one of them will book a job, only for it to be canceled because so-and-so thinks they can do it.
Tellingly, this has never yet happened more than once with any of their departments and I think they've all since come back to us for work.

We missed out some work yesterday because we were told someone went in way lower than anyone else. It's hard to see how anyone who is used to working within the sort of pricing structure that will actually make any money at all could have gone is any lower than we did, let alone "much lower". Anyway, not saying that they're crap, just that as you say pricing quite understandably dominates at the moment. Whether some emphasis will move back to quality once things pick up remains to be seen.

In reply to Henry Iddon:


Absolutely. I don't think you have a lot to fear from me!

In reply to Tom_Harding:


Surely you mean 'quality' photography? Expensive doesn't mean good.

In reply to Fraser:

Controversially, perhaps 'expensive' is the right word to use. I'm sure that people like Niggle are able to produce much higher quality work than most, if not all amateurs. On the flip side though, the advent of very high quality digital SLRs has made photography a lot easier than it used to be.

Various technological improvements like high iso performance and the latitude offered by RAW shooting etc, etc means that the skill set required to get shots which are 'good' has reduced to the level which is easily acquired by the keen amateur.

To make it concrete, I am an amateur photographer and spend a moderate amount of time on it (less than I spend on work and climbing). Ocassionally, as a favour to friends i will shoot their wedding for a fee which is much less than a professional would ask. I do an OK job; the images won't win any awards but I think I reliably hit the middle of the quality range offered by the pros.
Because photography is just easier these days, I imagine there are many, many amateurs who would do a better job.

In this climate, isn't it right that 'quality' photography is now worth less?

Put more bluntly; we used to pay big whack for pro photographers because they'd learnt a skill set that made them valuable. If you are at the top of your game, this is still true. If you are a 'jobbing' pro perhaps it isn't?