Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/12/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I certainly don't fault Peter for giving his photo away for free. Anyone can do anything he wants with his/her photos. Recognition and credit for one's efforts are a positive good. So are contributions to charity. Are there no Mother Theresas amongst us? Photographers have SO many self serving arguments. Sure a photographer should get paid for what he/she does - if someone is willing to pay him/her. We must remember that it is not immoral to give photos away if the donor chooses to do so. No more so than it is immoral to give photographic or computer advice on the LUG for free. And, I am constantly informed by my better half, that a wife should get paid for what she does as well. Otherwise she is taking the bread out of the mouths of maids, cooks, nursery school teachers and prostitutes. One might as well fault Tina for selling photos to stock agencies. Remember that every time a publication purchases a stock photo an otherwise unemployed photographer is not paid. In that sense stock agencies and the photographers who sell to them are inimical to the profession of photography. But first a couple of truths. Photography is not legally a profession. Anyone can call themselves a "professional photographer." There are no exams, no licenses, no boards of regulation, no educational requirements. Your doctor, dentist, architect, lawyer, accountant, podiatrist, and even your kid's kindergarten teacher are professionals. Photography is a business, and, according to the IRS, if you don't make money three years out of five, it is a hobby. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, data shows that there are 152,000 people in the U.S. who classify themselves as photographers but only about 10% of those make a living which puts them solidly in the middle class. If the practice of photography is their only income, the rest qualify for food stamps. Many LUG members, probably including Dr. Ted, who profess to making a nice living from photography, are not free lancers but are or were gainfully employed by some organization who paid them to take pictures. Second, photographic equipment has evolved to the point where little technical knowledge is required to make adequate photographs. Anyone can pick up a camera, point it at a subject and get a perfectly exposed, in focus, image. It is all in knowing where to point the camera and that facility is shared by many who do not classify themselves as photographers. There is no long apprenticeship learning the fundamentals. The entry bar is very low. This extends to commercial photography as well as pictures of Aunt Julia. A national distributor of mechanical equipment in my neighborhood photographs all the pictures in his voluminous catalog himself. "Why," he says, "pay thousands to a professional photographer. How much skill does it take to make a picture of a bolt?" Third, professional quality equipment is cheap and readily available. Canon expects to sell 26 million cameras this year. Two million will be of professional level. Nikon, Sony, and even Leica will add to the sum, perhaps 5 million pro cameras in total. Clearly there is no shortage of equipment which can meet the highest standards for publication. And the stuff is easier than ever to use. So let's run a little survey on the LUG. The LUG has approximately 2000 members all of whom have a high interest in photography and probably possess professional level equipment. How many of us make a living from photography alone? Just photography. No other day jobs, investment, trust fund, Social Security, retirement benefits or spousal income included. I mean a real living. The average middle class income in the US is $40,000. The poverty level is under $20,000. Remember you can make almost that much by frying hamburgers at Burger King. If you don't make an adequate living income from photography, no matter how skilled you are, you are practicing a hobby. Unless at least 200 LUG members are gainfully employed in photography, I maintain that the "professionals" amongst us are a distinct minority, unrepresentative of the interests of the entire group. If we listen to them we might as well expect all real photographers to only use Leicas. Larry Z