Who earns their livelihood photographing?

[Dan Cripps]

There are few professions that are truly regulated.
Medicine & law are the obvious ones.
But even then naturopathy, homeopathy etc. are much less regulated than modern medicine.

That reminds me of this site:

How does homeopathy work?

[Bear Dale]

Anyone remember the days before PADI when you could just go and buy whatever scuba gear your heart desired without any qualifications whatsoever?

Lots of people got seriously hurt and in some cases lost their lives.

[Steve Axford]

Anyone remember the days before PADI when you could just go and buy whatever scuba gear your heart desired without any qualifications whatsoever?

Lots of people got seriously hurt and in some cases lost their lives.

It usually takes something like that to bring in new laws. Perhaps a law will come in when a lot of newly weds jump off a cliff in a mass protest at not getting decent wedding photos.

[Longshots]

Zeke, I don't think that government is going to get involved in regulating an industry that has little in the way of danger to the public. Even things like counselling is essentially unregulated with anyone able to put up a board and call themselves a counselor. Things like medicine and law are regulated for obvious reasons, but give me one good reason why photography should be?

I'm not sure if this helps. But some background information on this. About 11 years ago, there was a very big push for regulation.

In fact Queensland Goverment took it so seriously (after a couple of pros put their cause for concern to them officially) that they launched a major enquiry. In the cause for concern from the two who approached Qld Gov, there was a claim that there were literally tens of thousands of complaints against shonky or under performing photographers.

A "research paper" called the "Review of the Photographic Industry" was released to the public 21st September 2000 by the hen Minister of Fair Trading, Judy Spence MLA.

It made quite interesting reading to those, like me, who had severe doubts about the large numbers of complaints.


These are relevant, and I havent selected them to support my point. Just selected the pieces I feel to put the area into focus.


Let me quote one important (to me at least) section:

Without downplaying the importance to the people concerned in those casess, it is difficult to perceive any widespread consumer dissatisfaction across the industry.
The available objective information indicates a significant concern with a very small number of traders.

Here's another:

Of the 6,500 written complaints per year received by the Office of Fair Trading, on average only about 60 involve photographic services

They then give a list of 2 years of complaints and average the breakdown:

Taking these two years together, of the 119 complaints (2 years total),
46% concerned portraits
24% glamour portraits
14% wedding photographs
The most obvious point to emerge, however is that in both years a very high proportion of complaints were directed against a small number of traders (24 in each year), with one or two operators taking the brunt of complaints.


These figures need to be considered in context, on both the supply and demand sides. There are many hundreds of photographic businesses, and even more individual photographers, so the 24 traders against whom complaints were made represents a small proportion.

Some 21,000 weddings a year occur in Queensland, most of which would involve photographic services of some sort. The complaints level of below 10 in each year suggests that the overwhelming majority are satisfied with the photographic services.

The conclusion of the report was to offer various options of regulation, but concluded that there was no real need for it.

As past National Vice President of both AIPP, and ACMP and past Qld President of AIPP, and ACMP, the call for regulation comes and goes, but now is a far quieter call each time it comes around.

A bad job means dissapointed people. Its not life threatening. So I'm afraid that I would personally see no point in regulation other then to increase the amount of existing bureaucracy, when its not doing anything other then making the photographers life harder (ie permits for shooting in parks, and other places, etc, etc).

I'm, a self taught photographer. I've taught many people who've gone on to get a piece of paper that says they have a degree in photography - and I'm sorry to say that it doesnt mean that they're any better then someone without it.

The industry will continue to adapt, and it will survive. It will still go on with people doing the wrong thing - and sometimes they will be the hard nosed full time professional and others it will be the part timer, who has no insurance, no business registration, no real name to their website, and possibly not even their own photographs on that website - and its highly likely that both ends of the scale will have seriously shonky ethics. Regulating wont get rid of that element I'm afraid. And thats been proven by Government research (across the world) and associations attempts at doing the same. All I can say is thank god we live in a free world (well sort of), and a democracy, otherwise I would never have made it to being a full time professional, and I wouldnt want to rob anyone of that chance

[Gypsy]

To answer the poll....

I guess I'd be a weekend warrior.
During the week I'm a full time Mum. I have a little boy still at home so I cant shoot during the week. I shoot weekends and do my processing and other work on weekdays after the kids have gone to bed.
At this stage, I dont make a lot. I've only started charging earlier this year, so I'm still really setting yo my collection of props and equiptment.

[Longshots]

To answer the poll....

I guess I'd be a weekend warrior.
During the week I'm a full time Mum. I have a little boy still at home so I cant shoot during the week. I shoot weekends and do my processing and other work on weekdays after the kids have gone to bed.
At this stage, I dont make a lot. I've only started charging earlier this year, so I'm still really setting yo my collection of props and equiptment.

And for the record, I, like many pros who started the same way, would be only too happy to assist and guide you. So as I've offered to many people along he way, if you want some advice, send me a pm, or contact me.

[Gypsy]

Thanks heaps for that, I appreciate it

[atky]

In my experience a lot of industries with licensing have licensing simply as a way of protecting the incomes of those already in the industry.
This may not of been the original aim, it may well of been to protect the consumer but unfortunately ends up protecting incomes of those supplying services.

[Longshots]

In my experience a lot of industries with licensing have licensing simply as a way of protecting the incomes of those already in the industry.
This may not of been the original aim, it may well of been to protect the consumer but unfortunately ends up protecting incomes of those supplying services.

Completely and utterly agree with you

[Gremlin]

wasnt the licencing also so the insurance companies knew who they could blame an proceed with recovery action against?

[jasevk]

Although I can see the valid argument in regulation... the cost of going down this path would be monstrous.

When you consider the things which would need to be developed like industry legislation PLUS development or amendment of industry specific safety legislation, codes of practice, australian standards, etc etc....

Then think about the insurance aspect and the impact on businesses, in a regulated industry premiums would rise enormously to reflect consequences asssociated with non-compliance to the items I described earlier. Then you have the cost of building & implementing a regulatory authority to regulate the industry. And this is only scratching the surface!

Although this would have the effect that Pro's undoubtedly urge for... is the cost to the tax payer really feasible? I'd say no way...

[Redgum]

Although this would have the effect that Pro's undoubtedly urge for... is the cost to the tax payer really feasible? I'd say no way...

Why would Pro's want regulation? Regulation is designed to protect the weak and unfortunate and I'm sure this doesn't embrace photography.

[jasevk]

Why would Pro's want regulation? Regulation is designed to protect the weak and unfortunate and I'm sure this doesn't embrace photography.

I didn't say Pro's WANT regulation, I said I think it would have a desirable effect from the Pro's perspective... whether they see that or not is a different thing altogether. I may be alone in my view here... but thinking long term I disagree with you.

Regulation significantly increases the risks associated with operating within an industry. It's my honest opinion that in the long term, it would have the same effect that it had on industries like plumbing etc. By increasing the risks, you drive up the cost of operating. Driving up the cost of operating pushes out the illegitimate operators to a degree. But more importantly it also increases the risk to client's when they hire illegitimate operators, as insurance becomes a big factor to the consumer.... for example, I know I can get someone to come and re-wire my house for half the price of a registered electrician. But when I consider that if something goes wrong, he has no insurance to cover my house being re-built when it burns down.... all of a sudden, I'm preferring to pay the full price for a 'Proper' electrician.

[Longshots]

Although this would have the effect that Pro's undoubtedly urge for... is the cost to the tax payer really feasible? I'd say no way...

I thought by posting some actual facts and figures that it would temper wild assumptions - clearly not.

Where is this urging by Pro's you speak of ? Clearly not in my world.

[jasevk]

My point is, that it brings the supply & demand levels back to a more healthy level to the benefit of the Pro... I for one would not like to see this happen, I'm just saying that I believe this would be the result of regulating the industry.

[jasevk]

Where is this urging by Pro's you speak of ? Clearly not in my world.

Poor choice of words on my part - the intended point is that the end result of regulation IMO would wash out alot of weekend warrior competition for Pro's. And again, I'm not claiming to be right... just putting an opinion out there!

[Longshots]

Fair enough. I wont pretend to think that there isnt a group out there who want regulation. I just tend to feel it would be entirely counter productive for all of the reasons you mentioned. Which is what Qld Gov concluded after their "research paper" into the industry.

[jasevk]

Fair enough. I wont pretend to think that there isnt a group out there who want regulation. I just tend to feel it would be entirely counter productive for all of the reasons you mentioned. Which is what Qld Gov concluded after their "research paper" into the industry.

Agreed - as mentioned in my first reply I don't want to see regulation either, it would make my transition to Pro much harder! But I'm just looking at it from both angles though, the effect IMO would be beneficial... the resources and funding required for implementation outways the benefits entirely Catch 22.

[kiwi]

Can we all agree on a few fundamental things :?

1/ No one wants regulation
2/ Everyone wants fairer prices
3/ No one is particularly worried about part time vs full time - it's about the approach and the customer

yeah !!!

[jasevk]

Can we all agree on a few fundamental things :?

1/ No one wants regulation
2/ Everyone wants fairer prices
3/ No one is particularly worried about part time vs full time - it's about the approach and the customer

yeah !!!

Of course we all agree... but can we all dance around it and confuse each other a little more before we wrap this up?