Josef wrote:And so there you have the salient point. 'At the same level'. There's no doubt that, almost without exception, a company offered any service at a substantially lower cost than the one they currently pay will jump at it.
It's human nature to go for the cheapest option - but unfortunately the cheapest option isn't usually the most reliable option. If you're going on an overland journey through a desert, do you buy an old Ford Escort for £100 that might get you part of the way or do you go for the professionally adapted Landrover that will very likely complete the journey?
It's the same with photography do you want a couple of cheap, and possibly lucky shots from a part-timer or do you want to pay for a professional who can CONTINUE to supply high quality shots as and when you need them and who is also likely to have many other useful contacts within the same area of business? Unfortunately, the publishers seem to always chance it with the cheap option.
Josef wrote:IT's probably not the best comparator here, though, since one of the main requirements is continuity of service, whereas what has been described here is piecework.
I think that's actually the best example of what the majority of posters don't seem to understand here - "continuity of service". Continuity of service is important for ANY business or service, not just IT.
The "photographer" playing at gig photography has no pressure - they just turn up and take a couple of shots and edit them at their leisure and don't have to worry about deadlines or getting out to the next job or whatever whereas the "pro" will have an established workflow and the means to supply images at the required standard while still effectively managing their day-to-day tasks.
What tends to happen is that there comes a point where the "client" needs more photos which can't be provided by the part-timer and they then have to look for another source. The chances are that they can't get another amateur who has the contacts or knowledge to get access to take the shots required and consequently everyone loses as the opportunity is missed.
Josef wrote:So, what's being said here? That where a publication can get roughly the same images, of equal quality, at widely differing costs, they should take the expensive one because that's that person's sole source of income? Well, that's the choice of that individual, surely?
Nobody owes anyone a living and it's always the choice of the individual but it still always comes back to your previous point - continuity of service.
The photographers who provide stuff for free are usually under the impression that if they do enough stuff for free then they'll eventually be asked to take on some paid work - sadly what happens is that they'll just be replaced by the next wannabee who'll work for free, and so it continues...........
Sadly, there's obvious double standards in the world of journalism - ask yourself why they don't just get rid of all the "writers" as well as there's also plenty of wannabees who would write the articles and reviews for free, thinking that it'll get them a foot in the door. Unfortunately they're just remembered as the suckers who worked for free.
Everyone loses in the long run when the free (or cheap) option is taken! People will always accept free stuff, but unfortunately nobody appreciates what something is actually worth until they have to pay for it!
The original point of this thread was "How Much Are Our Photos Worth?" and the answer is nothing, if people continue to give them away for free!
meg
) on band economics written by a well known muso (Dave Grohl, possibly?) which went into detail on the example of a (typical) band which sells 250,000 albums, but ends up with the band members earning barely the minimum wage yet still in debt to the record company.
