Amen to that.
He didn't include the cost of his flash card, or his time, which covers:
- the drive to and from the scene;
- the time he spent processing the image; and, most importantly
- the time he took toand develop his craft.
I coulda taken it for half that...
He doesn't actually state that anyone asked for the image for free...
Pick a "hot-button" topic, start with an outlandish statement ("It cost me $6,612 to take this photo") and watch the hits roll in...So if you’re a magazine, website, corporation, sports team, or advertiser who wishes to use this photo, please don’t come and ask to use it for free
good luck selling that image for $6.6k i reckon. fact is that every tom, richard and harry has a DSLR these days and therefore has the potential to create something just like this.... in fact I could myself quite easily....
... still he has achieved the notoriety that he wanted in the creation of his statement. sounds a bit up him-self imo.
Back to the topic at hand. It's an interesting statement but why not add his car to the cost? Or his house or office where he processed it? Etc...
At the end of the day people understand a photograph requires an investment in equipment to produce, I think the difficultly is some people don't understand the value of the photograph. But I'm sure those people have always been around and isn't something completely new, perhaps before they were more inclined to just ask for cheap photographs as opposed to free.
Bugger me I have been charging for my work all wrong! Sold a boat canopy today for $500, should have added $13k for the sewing machines.
Canon 50D - Zuiko 28/2.8 50/1.8 100/2.8 - Tokina 11-16/2.8
point taken...even though the article is not specifically about the image - I think that I would've been digging out a better photo before drawing attention to it.
I reckon essentially the owner of that image is just making a point of not asking for free photos for credit only. I mean who is to say what the photo is worth to different individuals? The recent million dollar photograph that was sold... ermm.... i'm not much of a fan of it.. but it seems there are people who are.
Last edited by KeeFy; 11-01-2012 at 7:47pm.
I bet the hit counter on his blog as increased a hundred fold since this story.
Fact is that photography as a commodity has changed forever.
As David already said, every Tom, Dick and Harry are out there taking photos, and many of them are very good to excellent.
The actual cost of producing a photo has reduced to close to zero for some folks .. so for them to give 'em away is a fleeting moment they really don't care about.
if there are 7 billion people in the world, there's a very high chance that there will be about 7 million people in the world at any one time all capturing a photo of some kind.
many of these photos will be useless, but there will be a large enough supply of a high standard to cater to those that ask to borrow them.
Digital cameras have progressed in recent times with some of the intricate features such as HDR and panorama creation built into the camera itself.
All the world really needs is 7000 of those 7 million users of these feature rich cameras, to be in the right time, at the right spot and using the right feature to snap a classic shot, just once.
At this current rate of 1 in 1000, that means there could be 7 super fantastic images being created every second by people that simply don't know better,.
And probably don't really care either, and for them to be asked for their images to be borrowed is probably an honour.
Mass media have realised this and now seem to be on a crusade to devalue photography to a junk status, where the photographer will end up paying for the opportunity to display their images on the world stage.
They make no secret of their desire to use images supplied from the general population to bring you the news, the next step is to supply a service whereby they store your images for a small charge with dubious T&C's attached to the storage of those images and ..... there'ya'haviit!
Them(the media giants) getting paid to use images as they please.
FWIW: The unit cost of a single instance of my landscape images has been in the order of about 8c.
Averaged out on a cost per image basis. If I sell them for $6,612, I'm way ahead of him in terms of profitability!
They may not be profit-making organisations, but they do have operational costs like Web sites and the usual running expenses.
As I see it, paying a photographer for the use of his/her images would be one of those expenses.
If it's good enough to use, it's good enough to cough up some cash.
Photography has been devalued, and is continuing to be devalued as digital technology allows just about anyone to publish images with little effort.
Just because anyone can do that doesn't make just anyone a good photographer.
What I suspect is that a combination of "my mate is a photographer; he'll do it free" or "I've got a camera; I can do that myself" attitudes has contributed to the devaluation of photographic images.
My feeling was that the author of that article wasn't egotistical or trying to pass himself off as a photographer who has the capability to sell an image for $6K, but was making a point that there is value in photographic images.
A very important point of this is that some people just have to accept that images are given away for free every day, on 'en masse.
Not saying that this guy has to give his away, just accept that a lot of photographers do give them away.
But these photographers aren't of the professional kind, they're of the Joe Average kind, that don't care what John Mueller writes in his blogs.
Basically, he's preaching to the converted. If he want to make noises about it, he needs to reach an audience that is probably causing the issue to begin with.
He can't really blame the folks asking for the images either. They've probably asked many other photographers and had success .. why not ask this guy.
These freeloading customers can't see that this John guy spent $6K on capturing this image. They themselves, have an iPhone that takes terrific snaps and use an app to make these snaps look snazzy .. it cost them nothing!
My counter point is that there is very little value in an image nowadays, unless you are someone of importance. Simple as that!
if you can sell yourself well .. you'll make a squillion bucks.
That 4 million dollar image had nothing to do with the image itself, and everything to do with the person that put their name to it.
if John Mueller wants to break even with this image, he has to sell himself, and not his image(s).
There are literally a million John Muellers out there, on the various forums all over the net and in general every day life.
The world is now flush with photographic images and their value has dropped, unless it has a value of special significance.
Just wait. give it a few years and your DSLR camera will be linked to the mobile phone network. Take a photo, and upload to Flickr, facebook, or News.com.au etc, right there and then. I concur with AK, that a lot of photography is going to stay free, cause of the huge volumes being shared for free already. Digital photography and connectivity has changed photography forever. But there will still be a market, just a changed one.
We all see newspapers asking for these photos for free all the time. And then we hear about newspapers not making money etc, and how they are going to start charging for online content. I doubt it will be to many years before the actual printed newspaper is no more.
What used to be a good income stream for some photographers, is drying up/dried up. Photographers are often lamenting this, but fighting the system doesn't make them winners. Changing with the times will, looking at markets that are productive and profitable.
Having said all of this, I think the blogger made his point clear!
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated