NYT - For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path

[Harry Lime]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30photogs.html?ref=global-home


Interesting article in the NYT, about how digital and the use of images shot by amateurs is driving the pros out of business.

Front page none the less...

[martin s]

This was the first thing I read for breakfast today. Very depressing, nothing new though.

martin

[Pickett Wilson]

Yeah. I was reading this on my Ipod Touch last night. Which is telling of how digital changes things. I railed against this idea that "good enough" was really good enough for years. And then I finally realized that for most people, that was true. Digital killed the pro photographer. Those of us in the pro arena simply have to reinvent ourselves. Change or die.

[Keith]

Blame Leice ... they invented auto focus or so I've read ... and Nikon need a kick in the arse for that matrix metering system that is near idiot proof!

Digital has sure created some collateral damage in the world of paid photography ... mind you the fact that this woman in the article kicked off with a $99.00 camera and caught someone's attention through flickr indicates she must have some sort of eye. I'd be curious to see her pics?

[Dave Wilkinson]

Though never a full-time pro, for years I would have a wedding and/or portrait job most weeks. Now long retired I still get asked occasionally, but usually decline - there are just too many 'photographers' around, and some very good ones! - at these gigs. In a lot of ways I'm glad that I now shoot for fun to please myself and family, and that I'm not a youngster trying to make a living at our wonderful occupation. :)
Dave.

[Vobluda]

Just ask Google:-)

www.flickr.com/people/pinksherbet/ (http://www.flickr.com/people/pinksherbet/)


Blame Leice ... they invented auto focus or so I've read ... and Nikon need a kick in the arse for that matrix metering system that is near idiot proof!

Digital has sure created some collateral damage in the world of paid photography ... mind you the fact that this woman in the article kicked off with a $99.00 camera and caught someone's attention through flickr indicates she must have some sort of eye. I'd be curious to see her pics?

[Keith]

Just ask Google:-)

www.flickr.com/people/pinksherbet/ (http://www.flickr.com/people/pinksherbet/)


You couldn't call her talentless by any stretch ... but if she's the future of photography we're all doomed!

[newspaperguy]

Hmmm... impressive.

Methinks she doth protest too much.

[csaunders]

Everything is cyclical. This situation won't last.

[martin s]

Everything is cyclical. This situation won't last.

Like pagers, right?

martin

[Harry Lime]

Ah, yes. The tyranny of the mob...

NYT:

“Can an amateur take a picture as good as a professional? Sure,” Ms. Eismann said. “Can they do it on demand? Can they do it again? Can they do it over and over? Can they do it when a scene isn’t that interesting?”

But amateurs like Ms. Pruitt do not particularly care.

“I never followed any traditional photography rules only because I didn’t know of any — I never went to photography school, never took any classes,” she said. “People don’t know the rules, so they just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.”"

[sreed2006]

Hmmm... impressive.

Methinks she doth protest too much.

The text for the lead picture in the NYT article says, "D. Sharon Pruitt, taking photos of her daughter Hayley, is one of a growing number of amateur photographers who earn small fees for their work."

She is an amateur who has sold some pictures. She is not protesting. She's enjoying the extra income.

[Pickett Wilson]

"Everything is cyclical. This situation won't last."

Ain't no putting this genie back into the bottle I'm afraid.

[Frank Petronio]

All I know is that Pink Sherbert is a good photographer, her pictures have a lot more soul than a lot of professional lifestyle-kids photographers. That she low balls is another matter.

[Paul T.]

Ah, yes. The tyranny of the mob...

NY “People don’t know the rules, so they just shoot what they like — and other people like it, too.”"

I found myself ready to detest her and her pretentious initial. But she has a good eye, her photos are really human, with far more energy and vibe than many stock shots.

It's quite possible she's a better photographer than the guy who went to college. Hopefully she'll learn to hike her prices eventually.

[Harry Lime]

Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I looked at her pics and they are competent for an amateur.

I'm just bothered by the dismissal of professional experience by 'gut decision'.
There is a movement in society these days that dismisses everything from hard science to professional experience as 'opinion'. It's a blurry line when it comes to the arts, but I wonder if people like this feel the same way about decisions or analysis their doctor makes...

The irony is that although she dismisses professionals, I'm willing to bet that since she has had success, she does think of herself as something of a professional... and no longer just a mom taking pictures of her kids.

[JohnTF]

Let me clarify what I was trying to say. I looked at her pics and they are competent.

I'm just bothered by the dismissal of professional experience by 'gut decision'.
There is a movement in society these days that dismisses everything from hard science to professional experience as 'opinion'. It's a blurry line when it comes to the arts, but I wonder if people like this feel the same way about decisions or analysis their doctor makes...



That's just a "theory". ;-)

I did have my eyes examined by a machine.


People seem to accept less than great photos for publication, though all the chimping in the world will not help if you missed the shot that cannot be retaken. However, the bar is certainly lowered for many photographs.

What I might call serious photography, working with determination with the goal of producing a good, perhaps great, image-- will remain the domain of a few, but as always, only a few could be financially successful within fine art photography.

The rest is a floating bar of success.

Tough times for the photojournalist who might cross over into the fine art realm within his assignment.

Regards, John

[victoriapio]

Harry, in the case of the professional (trained) photojournalists, any decline was accompanied by the complete breakdown of the traditional advertising/news model that newspapers and magazines had used. News departments across the world are shrinking, budgets plummeting, and staff numbers dropping drastically. That ship doesn't float anymore, you know this.

Agree with you 100% that experience means little these days, unfortunately and as the article implies, no one seems to give a crap anymore whether you are a trained photographer or not. The woman discussed in the article illustrates the point that SOME untrained photographers can bring a new "eye" to an art director. When she starts charging a liveable wage for her images, the art director will move to someone else.

Which brings us to the root of the problem - it's the art directors :D

[monochromejrnl]

excepted from wikipedia:

A free market is a market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market) without economic intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_intervention) and regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation) by government except to regulate against force or fraud. ... The theory holds that within the ideal free market, property rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights) are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellers) and buyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyers).

She found a market for her images. Good for her. She has no obligation to charge higher prices.

[csaunders]

Like pagers, right?

martin

A pager is a piece of technology, not a job.

[Harry Lime]

excepted from wikipedia:

A free market is a market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market) without economic intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_intervention) and regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation) by government except to regulate against force or fraud. ... The theory holds that within the ideal free market, property rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights) are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellers) and buyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyers).

She found a market for her images. Good for her. She has no obligation to charge higher prices.


I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, but no one is calling for the regulation of the photo market or advocating that we all turn in to godless communists. (although the Chinese are making a killing these days)

The article is merely observing how changes in the market place are affecting the viability of a profession. On a personal note some of us are not too pleased to see this change; due to professional association with the field or not.

But as was mentioned earlier, if someone under cuts her while offering the same level of quality, she too will be dumped.

It's a race to the bottom and those who think they are immune to it will be it's victims tomorrow. That's what the Ayn Rand fan club always seems to forget.

[MCTuomey]

i was maligned awhile ago on another thread for suggesting that photogs not dependent on photography for a living should consider refraining from offering zero- or low-cost photos when doing so would undercut working photographers.

a simple call to a form of oblige for those who really don't need the income, in other words.

there were no takers at all.

i know a number of photographers - commercial, product (automotive mostly), real estate, portrait and weddings - all now in their 40s and 50s. only one remains professionally involved in photography: now a medical photographer only (former photojournalist and studio practitioner).

it's a commodity market, i guess.

[Bill Pierce]

I wish I could say I’m joining this conversation late because I was working. Actually I was scanning some family portraits and reading a lot of emails from friends who had seen the New York Times article that started this thread.

You might think that photojournalism would be relatively immune to the downturn. After all, your neighbor who sets their digital to Program and takes outdoor portraits of children can’t get clearance to the White House or get embedded with troops.

Wrong. A quarter of a century ago, when things were a lot cheaper, I got anywhere from $300 to $1200 a day for editorial work, more for annual reports and similar work. I was reimbursed for all my expenses. Now, here’s the kicker. Time, Inc., which assigned and paid for much of my work, got first rights. But, after Time developed the film, someone from my agency was there, if the pictures were important, screaming for the editors to make their selects so the agency could sell the other pictures to other non competitive magazines outside the country. Future publications of the same pictures in Time, Inc. publications received additional pay. Time, Inc. also gave me an office and medical and camera insurance.

Compare that to the $250 a day for all rights that some major publications are now offering.

One major publication cut its day rate almost in half. I’m told that one of the business folk at the meeting that decided this said that the quality of the pictures would drop, but that the readers would get used to it. And once that happened, they could drop the rate even more.

I suppose I’m saying you get what you pay for. There are some excellent young photojournalists around. But, often, they can’t afford to stick around. They go into other areas of photography or leave it all together. I believe there are young photographers who are potentially as great as my heroes who simply will not continue their work as photojournalists.

I’ve got a lot more to say about this, but I’ve got to get back to the personal emails from other ex photojournalists.

[jan normandale]

There's another darker side to this whole story and that's the outright theft of images from flickr or personal websites by journals.

I have had at least two instances of image theft reported to me. One I was able to document. The response from the Publisher was "oh gee, that's terrible. Let me talk to that bad art director" No apology, no offer of compensation, no film, no SD card, no photo credit ... no nothing.

I think the problem is greater than photography. We have a lot of sociopaths at the top who operate on the principle of "screw everybody and do it every day" and "if you're caught deny or blame someone else even the victim"

The idea that there is no worth to others work is a virus and it's basically coming from the senior people in industry.

[Pickett Wilson]

I could care less of people steal my photos. They weren't going to pay for them anyway. I know many photographers store up copyrights like they were some kind of 401K, but the reality is that they are being devalued every day, and there is no way to undo that.

[jan normandale]

I could care less of people steal my photos. They weren't going to pay for them anyway. I know many photographers store up copyrights like they were some kind of 401K, but the reality is that they are being devalued every day, and there is no way to undo that.

wow.......

[scottwallick]

After all, your neighbor who sets their digital to Program and takes outdoor portraits of children can’t get clearance to the White House or get embedded with troops.

My secondhand understanding of this is quite different, Bill. My postmate from the Peace Corps, right after we finished in 2004, flew from Nepal to Kuwait, and then managed a visa to Iraq. He was embedded a number of times over about 18 months, and even later went to Afghanistan and was embedded once or twice more.

The only job he had prior to this was in the Peace Corps teaching English to school kids—never published a photo, never done any journalism. He liked photography and thought it would be an adventure.

When asked about how he got there, he says he had two qualifications: (a) being in Iraq and (b) passing the security clearance.

Funny in a way.

[martin s]

A pager is a piece of technology, not a job.

That was a joke, a reference even. I should start using smileys or stop expecting people to watch popular TV.

martin

[Bill Pierce]

Actually, filing for copyright is not a waste. I don’t threaten small house publications or websites with copyright suites and financial ruin for using my pictures without permission or payment. I do point out this possibility and then ask for the normal amount I would charge a small publication, a significantly lower sum. I am almost always paid. I’m not naive enough to think I have changed the heart and soul of a picture thief, but I am amazed at how many “professionals” and “academics” actually think picking up pictures from the web and publishing them does not break the law.

[Al Patterson]

Like pagers, right?

martin

And outsourcing.

Face it, when a job market is destroyed, it doesn't come back. I wouldn't want to go work for GM either.

[monochromejrnl]

I'm just making an observation that the market forces that have caused this 'race to the bottom' is no unique to the photography market. Offshoring has decimated 'value added' manufacturing jobs in North America and Western Europe for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of workers to low cost labour markets and we as 'consumers' 'benefit' from these market forces. ;P

I'm a lawyer and offshoring/outsourcing is affecting my profession as well (it's a profession that resists innovation and change to it's own detriment) and it's a profession that benefits/suffers (depending on which side of the bar you're on) from an extremely high barrier to entry.

Adapt or die. Or move to China. ;)

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, but no one is calling for the regulation of the photo market or advocating that we all turn in to godless communists. (although the Chinese are making a killing these days)

The article is merely observing how changes in the market place are affecting the viability of a profession. On a personal note some of us are not too pleased to see this change; due to professional association with the field or not.

But as was mentioned earlier, if someone under cuts her while offering the same level of quality, she too will be dumped.

It's a race to the bottom and those who think they are immune to it will be it's victims tomorrow. That's what the Ayn Rand fan club always seems to forget.

[kbg32]

"I work as a freelance stock photographer and artist. I specialize in colorful photography with a unique twist, non-traditional stock photography, theme and concept photography, musician and band album cover art, alternative model headshots and unique portraiture. I am LGBT and family friendly."

She may be a stock photographer, but artist??? She ain't.

[kbg32]

"Free for use My photos that have a creative commons license and are free for everyone to download..." Pink Sherbert


This, is a problem.

[reala_fan]

Actually, filing for copyright is not a waste. I don’t threaten small house publications or websites with copyright suites and financial ruin for using my pictures without permission or payment. I do point out this possibility and then ask for the normal amount I would charge a small publication, a significantly lower sum. I am almost always paid. I’m not naive enough to think I have changed the heart and soul of a picture thief, but I am amazed at how many “professionals” and “academics” actually think picking up pictures from the web and publishing them does not break the law.


Exactly correct!! They think "if they found it on the web...it's in the public domain"!!

I just had it happen to me, the other day, it's detailed here (I'm "Infrared-IR"):

http://www.flickr.com/groups/colorado_springs/discuss/72157623653128154/

[Harry Lime]

I'm just making an observation that the market forces that have caused this 'race to the bottom' is no unique to the photography market. Offshoring has decimated 'value added' manufacturing jobs in North America....

Oh, I hear you. I work in the movie business and if 10 years ago you had told me that films are no longer going to be made in Hollywood I would have asked you if you would like another drink.. ;-)


Adapt or die. Or move to China. ;)

Maybe it's no too late to learn Mandarin after all...

[charjohncarter]

or stop expecting people to watch popular TV.

martin

That will never happen, unless Shakespeare comes back (hopefully, {please soon} that will occur).

[larmarv916]

Ah society validates another step down....this is the same old scam that art directors and magazines have pulled over and over in the "new digital" age. That is if something is cheap enough or can be stolen and used the validation occurs "if" it gains publication by the mainstream media ! When it comes to advertising or photo journalism...it's only about the cost. Quality can be justified as...."it's good if it's Cheap"!! So now the ad agencies have teams that scour the net looking for "non-copyrighted" images to steal or modify.

The HD flash drive "video" will soon replace the TV station reporter! Will Big media care the unprofessional are giving them free content...NO. Or will they care if maybe the Video is distorted or bad quality... NO Advertising and media are all about money and only money. So some mom shoots marginal baby photos or anything else. It is the management of the media that is willing to sell anything that is free , stolen or just cheap. They pat themselves on the back and brag about cutting costs ... never once giving a damm about the end product. So again the self appointed "artistic" authorities... steering the creative public into thinking only they know what is best..... it's just crap!

[charjohncarter]

Ah society validates another step down....this is the same old scam that art directors and magazines have pulled over and over in the "new digital" age. That is if something is cheap enough or can be stolen and used the validation occurs "if" it gains publication by the mainstream media ! When it comes to advertising or photo journalism...it's only about the cost. Quality can be justified as...."it's good if it's Cheap"!! So now the ad agencies have teams that scour the net looking for "non-copyrighted" images to steal or modify.

The HD flash drive "video" will soon replace the TV station reporter! Will Big media care the unprofessional are giving them free content...NO. Or will they care if maybe the Video is distorted or bad quality... NO Advertising and media are all about money and only money. So some mom shoots marginal baby photos or anything else. It is the management of the media that is willing to sell anything that is free , stolen or just cheap. They pat themselves on the back and brag about cutting costs ... never once giving a damm about the end product. So again the self appointed "artistic" authorities... steering the creative public into thinking only they know what is best..... it's just crap!

I agree, by the way, did see who won Oscars this year? Not much there on the talent front.

[csaunders]

It's a race to the bottom and those who think they are immune to it will be it's victims tomorrow.

Exactly. And that's when the cycle will begin again.

And don't think that just because China has become the 'factory of the world' in our current epoch that it is permanent: this too will not last.

[easyrider]

Everything is cyclical. This situation won't last.


I am afraid not. I worked in television news as a producer in the 1970s when something called ENG -- electronic news gathering, i.e. tape-- came in. Several film cameramen were convinced that it would not last because, they said, tape does not have the durability of film.

Studio technicians referred to the 3/4 inch tape as "toy tape" and always filled out a "fault report" when it was used in a program. I then had to write a note that the news value outweighed any technical deficiencies.

Needless to say, film never came back in TV news and the camera guys grumblingly retired except for a few who converted to tape.

Like newspapers and ad agencies photographers have to find new business models. People may shoot digital PS pix at an event but the selling point is still to have someone with experience concentrating on the event and guaranteeing results.

It is a harder sell but it is possible. There will also be high end fashion photographers with innovative ideas.

PJs may have to offer writing and video as well as still pix.

Like it or not, that is where it's heading.

[Damaso]

As a working photographer I really worry about the next generation of documentary photojournalists who don't have the ecosystem to support themselves while they master their craft do to the tightening market. Crowd sourcing is fine for where there are crowds but the kind of work I do and that photographers like Salgado or W. Eugene Smith did can't be found by tourists on Flickr. You need the dedication to go where others won't and I fear many of these important stories will go untold...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_wVN-eOnrlo8/S7N92YWQcxI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/pDvB02HGvik/RwandaSkull.jpg

[swoop]

IPeople may shoot digital PS pix at an event but the selling point is still to have someone with experience concentrating on the event and guaranteeing results.


PJs may have to offer writing and video as well as still pix.

Like it or not, that is where it's heading.


I see it coming. A lot of the photojournalist want ads out there are asking for video experience. Or some writing capability as well.

I can write. But I've never been asked to. Never even bothered doing more than a caption and providing additional info to the reporter. So I have no writing clips. Bt at least I have a ton of image clips, so that helps my resume. It isn't pretty but it shows I have field experience and that I can guarantee results. I'm thinking of picking up a 5d MkII sometime next year just to build experience with video. I figure If I have to do it why not make the video camera a spare still camera.

I don't think video will be the future though. It still comes down to time. Who wants to sit there and watch a 5 minute piece. You can't print videos. Images will always have a place.

[Pickett Wilson]

It's not cyclical. That's just wishful thinking. Specialization in news gathering is a thing of the past. We talked about this a lot among ourselves at the last TPA (Texas Press Association) meeting.

It's simple economics. Everyone at our newspapers carry cameras of some kind. P&S, dSLR's, whatever. From accountants to distribution people. If you come upon something newsworthy, you take the photo. A reporter can follow up and get the information. Just get the photo.

Hopes springs eternal, though. Folks here still believe that the South is going to rise again! :)

[martin s]

I don't think video will be the future though. It still comes down to time. Who wants to sit there and watch a 5 minute piece. You can't print videos. Images will always have a place.

Video doesn't replace a picture but rather the whole article. Five minutes in favor of a few images - probably not, but instead of reading an article, I'm sure many prefer the video.

martin

[Tompas]

(...) no one seems to give a crap anymore whether you are a trained photographer or not. (...)

I believe no one ever did. All that ever mattered is the result.

[Harry Lime]

The military dependent wife photographers are a plague. We have at least 10 of them out here selling their 'services'.

She is a metaphor for a larger issue. No one is singling her out personally.

I think if anyone is being blamed, it's the bean counters who are willing to flush quality (and an entire industry) down the toilet in order to save a few pennies.

[buzzardkid]

"Everything is cyclical. This situation won't last."

Ain't no putting this genie back into the bottle I'm afraid.

Oh but there is.

Once people smell money they will up their prices. Stock agencies will only be able to save some cash when they strike deals with people that can actually photograph on the traditional way, because they can provide a volume and you only have to negotiate once to secure a lot of shots. Negotiating with small volume photographers will prove uneconomical.

Best bet is to have a large volume of quality shots available, have all people depicted sign contracts ( no legal hassle)

[pluton]

Remember when commercial photographers were asked to simulate the look of technically and aesthetically-challenged amateur photography? Well, now they don't have to hire a pro to get their market-researched, lowest-common-denominator junk. The Just Plain Folks can now grind it out .

[wgerrard]

As an all-thumbs amateur, I want to endorse Franko's comment. The use of "amateur" images by commercial media is driven by economic forces. Better to fire a photographer and give a reporter the camera than fire the reporter and keep the photographer. Meanwhile, most of the points raised by pros in this thread intended to highlight the value of traditional photography are factors appreciated and understood primarily by professional photographers, not the people who look at those photos. This is true of any profession or craft.

Almost all photos viewed by almost all people are digital images placed online somewhere. That trend is not going to reverse itself. And, as with all things digital, we expect the hardware to be as automated as possible. When I shoot digital, I don't mess around with focus, aperture, etc. I put it on full auto and have fun. That's what I bought it for. People I show photos to can't tell the difference between a photo I hand-crafted and a photo I snapped with a digital on automatic. If I show them a pic that used depth of field, for example, sometimes they'll say "Nice", and other times they'll ask "Why is the background out of focus?"

Being a pro means selling stuff. That means someone selling snaps from a cellphone is just as much a pro as someone selling big paper prints in a studio. No one is keeping score, so it isn't prudent for either one to devalue the other.

[emraphoto]

It's not cyclical. That's just wishful thinking. Specialization in news gathering is a thing of the past. We talked about this a lot among ourselves at the last TPA (Texas Press Association) meeting.

It's simple economics. Everyone at our newspapers carry cameras of some kind. P&S, dSLR's, whatever. From accountants to distribution people. If you come upon something newsworthy, you take the photo. A reporter can follow up and get the information. Just get the photo.

Hopes springs eternal, though. Folks here still believe that the South is going to rise again! :)

i think what this outlines is the shift in "photojournalism" and folks relatively myopic understanding of it. the small, medium and even large circ papers are indeed in a serious state and the only photographers with their heads in the "staff pool" world are most likely holding on for the pension. the very idea of not maintaining ownership/copyright/whatever and exercising your rights accordingly flies in the face of what pays my mortgage almost every month. for the record "specialization" was one of the best decisions i made in the past 3 years. this isn't to point a finger and say "you're wrong". it is merely highlighting how diverse things can be.

[amateriat]

The interesting thing for me is that most, if not all, of the "toe-dipping" folks making a few bucks on the side via photography, have another source of income–their own or a significant other's–paying the bills. I don't knock that per se (hell, I've done it), but I don't gloat over the inability of a trained pro to cut a living anymore in the same field. (That has a way of coming back to bite you.) The world has long been overwhelmed with images, but now the means of distribution point up just how littered with images we are, and taking more of them at a rate that can only be described as exponential. And, when something is perceived by most people as "easily done" (regardless of whether the perception is right or wrong), that thing is almost always devalued. And, as has already been mentioned, photography is merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg. (Let's talk medicine: tried looking for a new GP lately?)


- Barrett

[wgerrard]

...I don't gloat over the inability of a trained pro to cut a living anymore in the same field. (That has a way of coming back to bite you.)

- Barrett

It's the gloating the really annoys me, as well. We see it not just in photography but in almost every profession that's been affected by digital technology. For example, the demise of, or cutbacks, at a major daily newspaper typically attracts a lot of gloating and glee in certain parts of the blogosphere. It's as if they see themselves as, by definition, superior beings engaged in a contest with lesser creatures. I can understand advocating technology and new ways of doing business with that technology, but I can't understand gloating when real people lose real jobs.

[Bike Tourist]

Prior to noticing how my microstock income was being constantly dilluted and shipping off all my Nikon digital gear to the rendering factory, I also noticed how my stupid iPhone 3Gs made images about as good as my D700 when they were only used on the web.

What better excuse to come back to a Leica and 35/1.4? Now, I will be a carefree amateur with no pretensions to glory. I wish the damned Leica would arrive. I'm bored with the iPhone!

[jfretless]

Nobody wants to pay for images, period.

Pros who think the problem lies with amateurs who undercut with low prices or "give" their work away are a little misguided. Sure, that's a small part of the problem, but more it's the fact that people don't put any value on images anymore. The "good enough" camera phone image is king.

My children attend a high parent participation school, which means, I'm on the campus a lot with my camera. Also, field trips and events are a major part of the school. Over the past four years, I have documented the journey of about 100 kids through this school. I recently made available about 10,000 of my images online (private galleries). Because of various factors (legal and moral), I choose to only charge a "service" fee for parents to print or download images from the site. Mainly to pay for the cost of the site. Very MODEST to say the least. 50 cents for a 4x6 and 25 cents for a 1MP download with personal license. Not to mention that I only get half of the profit. Parents can buy other items, larger prints, etc.

After a couple of weeks;

17,000 images views.

80 4x6 prints sold. No digital downloads.

A TON of Thank Yous and hugs from Moms. ...and a couple of inquiries about portrait sessions and events, but no deposits received.

I figure that only 3% of people are willing to pay ANY amount for image of their child. They rest don't get it and probably never will.

I suspect/hoping that as time passes, the value of these images will increase. As the images get older, I will be raising the price of them.

John.