Josef wrote:[W]here a publication can get roughly the same images, of equal quality, at widely differing costs …
Josef wrote:In all my years reading the music press, I can recall only one or two live gig photos that I so much as more than glanced at. One photo of a bloke playing a guitar or with a screwed-up face and his mouth open is much like another. To that extent, I couldn't care less whether it's a high quality uninteresting photo taken by a pro or a low to medium uninteresting photo taken by an amateur enthusiast.
Hoom hom. Bones of contention, here, though they may be down to personal preference. An uninteresting photo of a bloke playing guitar is a crap photo, regardless of resolution, clarity, or other issues of technical quality. Good gig photos capture something of the mood, and should engage the viewer on an emotional level. I've seen plenty of examples. I'd go so far as to say I've made a couple.
In fact, a friend of mine is exhibiting some of her concert work at the Thirteenth Note if anyone fancies a swatch. Kicks off tomorrow night, as it happens.
Josef wrote:And the cost of promo photos for a band will almost invariably come off the band's bottom line rather than the record company's. The vast majority of professional musicians barely scrape a living.
See, there's a great community in Glasgow at the lower end of the scale. People are happy to donate time to things they believe in and enjoy. By the time you're selling out the ABC main hall or the Carling Academy, though, you ought to be paying the people who are working for you.
Is it morally justifiable to exploit people if they don't mind being exploited? This is what it comes down to, I guess. It's an old question.