Wow. This sucks.

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Technology has robbed any respect for creativity in this world. Everyone assumes anyone can take a photo. Everyone assumes you're born with the ability to draw, and everyone has a nephew who can draw and will do it for free. Everyone assumes that owning a DSLR makes you a pro because the camera does all of the work.

Technology will progress whether we like it or not. I studied to be a photographer back in the 80's and was a professional for close to 10 years. Business got really tough. I saw the writing on the wall and I gave it up. However, while studying photography as an undergrad, I was fortunate enough to use the Macintosh SE computer. Photoshop didn't exist then nor the internet. I went back to night school at my local junior college and got another degree in Graphic Communication and got my feet wet with Photoshop and desktop publishing.
I got lucky again, over 20 years ago. I got my foot in the door at a University to create Veterinary Education modules. I first got hired because I knew HTML and was able to create a website. I later moved to another new department that taught digital cinema among other technical disciplines. I was at the ground floor. I created the technical infrastructure for the curriculum which included a Macintosh lab. It was all pretty exciting and scary at the same time, because I know nothing about the enterprise side of Macintosh. I just asked a lot of questions had faith in myself as I faced new technical challenges. I used my knowledge of cameras, lighting and grip equipment to advance my career with my new department.

When I was an undergrad during the 80's, I would have never guessed about the internet, computer animation and even digital cinema. I had to be comfortable with the unknown and tried to keep ahead of technology the best I can. Technology is a ocean wave. On your surfboard you can try to paddle ahead and try to wide the wave or let the wave fall on you.

 

[MattKing]

In our market, all the realty agencies essentially provide nothing more than some needed infrastructure, while the individual realtors bear all the costs.
The listing fees, the cost of photography, the preparation of floor plans, the brochures, the newspaper advertisements - all those costs are born by the listing agent. If the property doesn't sell, the listing agent "eats" those costs.
If the property does sell, the listing agent keeps the commission.
Some invest in good photography, because they believe they get value from that expense.
Almost all potential purchasers use the internet to look for properties. Very few purchasers limit themselves to what the realtors recommend.

 

[Rudeofus]

My wife did both. The last job catalog she shot was for about 2,000 images of various auto transmission parts. He originally offered to pay her 10 cents a photo. His argument was the camera did all of the work and all she had to do was click a button. After months of negotiations, she finally got him up to $3 a photo. After it was all done, she gave him the photos and he tried to stiff her on the money. She had to threaten to hire a lawyer and remind him the contract he signed meant he would lose in court, and have to pay her legal fees and court costs. Months later, he finally paid her. This is a company that has about 100 employees and does business all over the world, so you know they had no problem coming up with $6,000. Later, this same company called her up and asked her to steal photos from a competitor's website and remove their watermarks to use on their own. She refused and reminded him it was illegal. He argued that every photo on the internet is free and yelled at her for refusing him. He still calls her about once a year to see if he can get more photos from her, but she refuses, as it just isn't worth her time.

Delaying payments through deception can be a strategy to keep a company financially liquid. Yeah, the business world can be downright evil, and these evil types are frequently rewarded for their ways. Some people give up on their money because it's too much trouble to pursue it, and the people in charge of those companies get applause because "they improved the financials!". Since she had a written contract, she at least didn't have to go to court and didn't incur legal costs. Good for her!

Wedding photography is even worse. [...] The family members will often send you to other family members to collect your money in an endless loop of denial. Then, after going through months of trouble, you finally take the bride and groom to court. Only they don't show. And they lose. But the judge can't do much, outside of putting lean on their home or something. Then they get foreclosed on their house and skip town and the bank takes over the house, and you have to take the bank to court. Suddenly you've spent more money on lawyers than you're owed.

It's awful if you had to chase your money, and possibly lost some or most of it, but losing a house to foreclosure is no fun either. That family was probably broke to begin with, or at least went broke during or right after the wedding. Whatever happened here, it did most likely not happen out of malice, and I really don't think it's a common occurrence.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I would make full payment of the invoice before the company gets to use the images. Anything less than a fully paid invoice is a copyright violation if the images are used.

 

[jtk]

Anybody seriously interested in these issues should look into PPA. https://www.ppa.com/ Membership sometimes brings business.

PPA has for decades been the ultimate American source of expertise in these areas. Regional associations depend upon PPA.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Anybody seriously interested in these issues should look into PPA. https://www.ppa.com/ Membership sometimes brings business.

PPA has for decades been the ultimate American source of expertise in these areas. Regional associations depend upon PPA.

It's great. I used an ASMP form(s) for years. The contracts protect photographers. I got a call for a job and the prospective client wanted to use their own contract. It was so one-sided that I just flat out refused the job.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

In this largely digital age where we look to buy on the Internet good photography will easily help tip the balance.

This is true, however very few people/businesses are willing to pay for it. I do a lot of catalog/product photography and I can’t tell you how many people think that they can just take the photos with their iPhone and have the tech kid working for them photoshop it.

Sometimes after all that, they realize it looks terrible, and either do nothing about it because the product doesn’t make enough money to justify it, or if it does, have professional pictures taken. For the vast majority of products, if selling online, unless it’s a huge seller there’s typically no budget for good product photos, and if it is a huge seller, they rarely have incentive to make good photos because it’s already a huge seller.

 

[Ian Grant]

This is true, however very few people/businesses are willing to pay for it. I do a lot of catalog/product photography and I can’t tell you how many people think that they can just take the photos with their iPhone and have the tech kid working for them photoshop it.

Sometimes after all that, they realize it looks terrible, and either do nothing about it because the product doesn’t make enough money to justify it, or if it does, have professional pictures taken. For the vast majority of products, if selling online, unless it’s a huge seller there’s typically no budget for good product photos, and if it is a huge seller, they rarely have incentive to make good photos because it’s already a huge seller.

That was the case even before Digital, someone in the company might do the photos or they had a friend.

ian

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Delaying payments through deception can be a strategy to keep a company financially liquid. Yeah, the business world can be downright evil, and these evil types are frequently rewarded for their ways. Some people give up on their money because it's too much trouble to pursue it, and the people in charge of those companies get applause because "they improved the financials!". Since she had a written contract, she at least didn't have to go to court and didn't incur legal costs. Good for her!

It's awful if you had to chase your money, and possibly lost some or most of it, but losing a house to foreclosure is no fun either. That family was probably broke to begin with, or at least went broke during or right after the wedding. Whatever happened here, it did most likely not happen out of malice, and I really don't think it's a common occurrence.

With me, at least 50% payment is due at contract signing, or I do nothing except start seeking out the next paying assignment, and the rest is due on delivery, or you get nothing. Never, ever, deliver images without payment. They either have the cash to pay you, or they don’t.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

That was the case even before Digital, someone in the company might do the photos or they had a friend.

ian

Yep. The primary complaint (if you can call it that) that I hear is that the customer doesn’t understand why hiring me costs so much. They don’t seem to realize that there’s a lot more to it than just having a camera. When you hire me, I’m typically shooting your product in an environment where I have total and complete control over the light and can shape it in any way that’s best for the product at hand.

That environment, those lights, and all those light modifiers cost money. I actually spend more money per year on rent for my studio than what my camera and lighting gear costs me.

I consider it a complement when somebody sees one of my images and says “wow, you must be really awesome with photoshop” my response is typically, “ummm, no, not really, that image is actually pretty much straight out of the camera. The only post I did was crop, resize, and sharpen for the output”. That usually registers a look of shock and disbelief and then they ask how I got it to look that way. I usually respond by saying that’s the difference between taking a photo with an iPhone and photoshopping it, and shooting it with light you can control.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've been on both sides Adrian, and sometimes at the same time. So I might actually commission work from another photographer (this was mid 1970's to late 1980's, while undertaking outside commercial work myself. Actually it worked both ways and was a loose flexible arrangement, I might shoot work they didn't enjoy (social functions0) in return I got large scale studio work.

At the time I had a very specialist photographic company, we did almost all our graphics in-house and some of the photography. we didn't have the time and resources to do it all, sometimes we were supplied with images via a clients advertising agents or marketing department. On one occasion we were asked to make a life size image of a Formula 1 powerboat, we required the 35mm negative but were told it;'s a high quality image from a reputable Professional, then they complained about the grain We had said we needed a professional Large Format negative but they insisted what they'd supplied was the bees knees.

Ian

 

[Rudeofus]

With me, at least 50% payment is due at contract signing, or I do nothing except start seeking out the next paying assignment, and the rest is due on delivery, or you get nothing. Never, ever, deliver images without payment. They either have the cash to pay you, or they don’t.

I agree, you are in a bad position, if you have already made a delivery and only then discover, that agreed on payment is less than certain. You are in an equally bad position, though, if you have made the pics, went through all the effort, and the client suddenly becomes itchy about payment. It's not like you could sell these pics to someone else or use them for yourself, and going to court will inevitably lead to a "both these pics are useless, not what I wanted, not what I ordered, too expensive for what they are, whatever" situation, which may be difficult to sort out. At the same time no client would (or should) pay upfront to a person just entering the field or with no recognizable brand name.

The main problem is, that rules ("don't lie", "don't steal", ...), which are commonly accepted in social circles, do not have much value in a business environment. This is a new concept to grasp for most entrants into the commercial world.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I agree, you are in a bad position, if you have already made a delivery and only then discover, that agreed on payment is less than certain. You are in an equally bad position, though, if you have made the pics, went through all the effort, and the client suddenly becomes itchy about payment. It's not like you could sell these pics to someone else or use them for yourself, and going to court will inevitably lead to a "both these pics are useless, not what I wanted, not what I ordered, too expensive for what they are, whatever" situation, which may be difficult to sort out. At the same time no client would (or should) pay upfront to a person just entering the field or with no recognizable brand name.

The main problem is, that rules ("don't lie", "don't steal", ...), which are commonly accepted in social circles, do not have much value in a business environment. This is a new concept to grasp for most entrants into the commercial world.

Well, the up front payment is to cover your costs, the payment on delivery is usually for usage rights, or to buy the rights outright. The contractual language should stipulate what is being created, who owns what when, payment terms, delivery terms, etc. This is the purpose of having a contract. It’s basic business that a lot of photographers don’t do very well at.

In terms of just entering the field, well, this is what portfolios are for. You should be able to show that you can create the images that the prospective client is looking to have created. Sometimes this means that you do prospective work to build your portfolio, sometimes it means that you do work at a reduced rate to get in the door, and sometimes it means you just caught a break and was in the right place at the right time and had the skills to pull it off.

 

[Luckless]

This feels like a company realigning its processes and services to reflect reality, and is in a similar vein as modern machining has long since replaced the local blacksmith for many things. Blacksmiths adapted or went out of business, and Photographers will do the same. And I imagine that few of us as customers have bought a set of hand crafted cutlery instead of something mass machined in China, or given much thought to it...

If no one is buying complex and restrictive licensing on images, then it makes sense that businesses don't want to keep paying to maintain services to sell them.

Markets set value, and like it or not but photography is not exactly some rare arcane specialist art at this point... It has actually been a pretty easy art to do reasonably well for the last century. [Doing a great job with it is however another matter...] If you're selling something then it is your job to convince the people buying it that it is worth what you're asking, and there is little sense in expecting them to magically accept your demands for what you think your product is worth...

And part of me wants to suggest that the shift away from haggling in some cultures tends to blind many to this fact. If you don't accept the value set for something you're buying from someone, you walk away... And if people don't like the value you've set on stuff you're trying to sell them, then they walk away...

 

[Pieter12]

You can spend tens to hundreds of dollars for a shirt..or just about any item. It depends on what you are looking for, the level of quality or utility, status, personal philosophy, culture or ethics. Some people would never pay retail or list price for an item, others think it is stooping low to bargain. Many makers of high-price items deliberately limit access to keep the prices high and make sure supply does not outstrip demand.

For photography, some areas have become commodities, such as landscapes and lifestyle. There is a glut of images, and they can be had for next to nothing.

Wedding photography used to be at the bottom of the photography chain, along with what I would call "department-store" portraits. Today, couples can and will pay more than I paid for my entire wedding just for photography. I attended a wedding recently where there were at least 4 photographers, some with multiple cameras including film, and a couple of videographers. There is social pressure to have elaborate weddings with complete photo coverage and I am sure some couples get in over their heads.

Today, there is the idea among some that if an image is on the internet, it's available to use for free. The sad part is that concept is wide-spread.

And lastly, when I freelanced, I would always ask new or unknown clients for a 50% deposit on their project. My thinking was if they can't pay 50% up front, they are less likely to pay the full bill upon completion.