Sunday commentary

Don't give it away
After a month this blog is doing for me what I intended. I'm getting out more trying to take purposeful and interesting pictures. It is rather subjective to conclude that I've done that but I think I have.
I've also been reading more about photography, especially the business of photography including magazine, book and newspaper publishing, studio and wedding photography, and stock photography. One question that kept popping up in my mind while doing all that reading is: "What kind of photographer am I."
Well, a pretty good one, if I might say so myself. Last year revenue from my assignment and stock sales paid for five day cruise to Mexico. That may sound impressive until you consider that cruises these days are cheap if you know the right time to book. What I'm trying to say is that I sell -- excuse me-- I LICENSE a picture or two a year and my health or livlihood hardly depend on photo license income. However, I truly believe that if I had to, as in had no other choice, and if I really hustled and worked the phone and took lots of pictures I might be able to eek out a very, very modest living as a photographer.
So, when I license a photo I try to get as much money as buyer is willing to pay. I might not be a well known photographer and I might not be a fulltime photographer but if I have a picture a buyer is willing to pay for I want to get the same amount of money as that buyer would pay to the "more professional" photographer.
The consensus among the professional photographers writing on the subjet is that digital photography and the internet has made it possible for any putz with a camera to get in on the action. Many of these so called putzs post their photos on microstock sites such as istockphoto and sell what is called royalty-free photography for rock bottom prices. I would go so far as to call it the Wal-Martization of stock photography, only worse.
And don't get me started on those folks on craigslist looking for a wedding photographer willing to shoot a wedding and then turn over a CD of images for $250 or $300, if that much. What's worse is the putzes who take these jobs. Some of these discount shooters might be good. If they're that good, they should be getting more for their work. If they end up shooting crappy photos then the bride and bridegroom got what they paid for. Crap.
The system will weed out this new breed of crappy photographers because it simply isn't true that any putz with a digital camera can shoot good pictures. What we really have to worry about is these photographers who do shoot decent photos and give them away. Stop selling yourself short. It depresses prices across the board and if you're a good photographer just starting out it just doesn't help you to give away your services at discout prices. If you shoot like a pro then you should charge like a pro. People will still pay for good photography.