This photograph is not free

[Steve Axford]

That is a very silly blog. Imagine if a taxi driver asked you to pay for his car for each trip? Of course you won't pay that. The only reason he can charge for his photo at all is that most amateurs can't take that photo because it needs a tripod and you have to get up early. Wait for a few years and it will have the artistic merit of three ducks on a wall (average ducks at that).

[Dylan & Marianne]

I agree in general principle , though to generalise the costs to that degree sounds a little 'silly' personally.
Agree also with tony that perhaps he should have chosen a better image to draw attention to the point :P
Lastly, I recently had a request for an image of mine to be used for free on a photographer wanting to pimp his own photography tour of iceland ........wait a sec, promote your tour with my image ??????

[Xenedis]

That is a very silly blog. Imagine if a taxi driver asked you to pay for his car for each trip? Of course you won't pay that.

Car and fuel costs might well be incorporated into the tarriff.

Certainly you pay booking fees and motorway tolls.

The only reason he can charge for his photo at all is that most amateurs can't take that photo because it needs a tripod and you have to get up early.

There's more to good imagery than a tripod and alarm clock.

It's entirely possible to take bad photos at 5am with a tripod.

[Steve Axford]

When did you last pay for the full cost of the car in a taxi trip? That would be $30,000 plus for each ride. I suspect the taxi driver wouldn't have the customers queuing to pay that. Nor will a photographer if he charges $6,000 for an ordinary photo. Unless, of course, he is a brilliant marketer.

And I'm surprised that you feel the need to point out that "There's more to good imagery than a tripod and alarm clock." I think we all know that.

[Xenedis]

When did you last pay for the full cost of the car in a taxi trip?

I didn't say that each customer would pay for the full cost of the car; that's patently silly.

The cars of course do cost money, as does fuel and maintenance. Surely the costs are incorporated into the fares.

Taken a taxi lately? It's expensive.

Keeping the cars on the road is expensive. Who do you think pays for that?

And I'm surprised that you feel the need to point out that "There's more to good imagery than a tripod and alarm clock." I think we all know that.

Unfortunately your earlier post implied that any early riser with a tripod can produce that sort of image, and unfortunately I cannot assume that all readers of this site possess a specific level of knowledge and understanding.

[Steve Axford]

I would point out that in the original blog the photographer has itemised all his camera costs in the cost of the photo. This is exactly analogous to a taxi driver charging for the full cost of his car.

I do think that most of the photographers here could produce an image of equal quality to the one being discussed with a little training and the right gear. It is hardly an image that is going to stun an audience by its originality and brilliance. Not that it's a bad image - it's just not a great image, and certainly not worth the price of a camera. etc.

[Xenedis]

I would point out that in the original blog the photographer has itemised all his camera costs in the cost of the photo. This is exactly analogous to a taxi driver charging for the full cost of his car.

Itemising every cost of the equipment he used in the creation of that image wouldn't be the right way to go about it, as he probably didn't buy all of that gear specifically to shoot that image, and if he were in the business of selling images, he'd incorporate the cost over time rather than attributing the cost of, say one lens, to one image.

I do think that most of the photographers here could produce an image of equal quality to the one being discussed with a little training and the right gear. It is hardly an image that is going to stun an audience by its originality and brilliance. Not that it's a bad image - it's just not a great image, and certainly not worth the price of a camera. etc.

I'd agree that achieving an image like that is achievable for many.

I'd also agree that while the image is decent, it's not mind-blowingly stunning.

However, that's not to say that it doesn't have value, but I certainly wouldn't value it at $6K.

[Tom J McDonald]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.

[JM Tran]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.

hahahaha

[Steve Axford]

To Xenedis

I think we agree. We just get there by different routes.

I see photography as a means of communication. I don't sell a lot - possibly because I don't try to sell and because of what I take. I see little point in producing lots of images that lots of people produce (like the one in the blog). I far prefer to produce images that help me to say something. These may not sell, but it is a thrill to see the wonder in peoples eyes when they see them. People often walk away knowing a little more about the world - and that makes me feel good.

[KeeFy]

I think what the blogger meant is that 6K will be the initial outlay for the people wanting the images for free if they were have a go at it themselves from scratch.
It's like if you want to get to move around on your own in a taxi equivalent, you'd have to go and buy yourself a car as well which would cost you $30k for a new falcon.

Try not to read too much into the post but just have an idea it's about a photographer whinging about cheap corporate companies.

[Steve Axford]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.

Yep, a bit boring, but that is what the thread is about. Perhaps it can start a more useful discussion.

[KeeFy]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots. Please, move on to something else.

Thanks for your consideration.

Damn... now why did i buy the 16-35L II for again? Oh wait. Just that. :P

[Xenedis]

Sure, almost anyone could go out and take this shot.

I'm not convinced you can.

But please people, the world doesn't need any more shiny rock'd, velvety ocean'd, glowing sky'd coastal sunset shots.

The world doesn't need any more portraits, but that isn't going to stop you.

Please, move on to something else.

People can shoot whatever they like, as you indeed are also free to do.

[Xenedis]

I think we agree. We just get there by different routes.

Seems that way. :-)

I see photography as a means of communication. I don't sell a lot - possibly because I don't try to sell and because of what I take. I see little point in producing lots of images that lots of people produce (like the one in the blog). I far prefer to produce images that help me to say something. These may not sell, but it is a thrill to see the wonder in peoples eyes when they see them. People often walk away knowing a little more about the world - and that makes me feel good.

A completely valid form of photography.

Some people are artists.

Some people are storytellers.

Some people are technicians.

It all comes down to what you like to shoot. Seascapes, sunrises, etc., may not be everyone's cup of tea, but there is a market for them.

Personally I'm not interested in selling images. For me photography isn't about making money, but while money isn't my motivation (nor necessarily that of the blogger), I certainly think there us value in photographic images.

Exactly what value depends on the viewer.

I've seen those stories of some bizarre abstract image commanding six- or seven-figure prices, but in all honesty I cannot make any sense of that; but someone figured those images were worth that money, and were more than happy to part with it to land the image.

[Tom J McDonald]

Xenedis,

'I'm not convinced you can'.

No, I can't afford the 6k in equipment.


'The world doesn't need any more portraits'.

Yes, it does.

'People can shoot whatever they like, as you indeed are also free to do'.

Thanks.

[Xenedis]

No, I can't afford the 6k in equipment.

I wasn't referring to your equipment. You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos.

[ving]

I wasn't referring to your equipment. You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos.

true. takes skills.

with the given shot i reckon anyone with about a years experience in taking landscapes could do that one standing on thier head. its pretty basic really.... but this is not about criticizing that particular shot.

[fillum]

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/10/...ee/#more-44476

676 comments. >5000 "Tweets". >6000 "Likes". Job done.



Cheers.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Xenedis,

'I'm not convinced you can'.

No, I can't afford the 6k in equipment.


'The world doesn't need any more portraits'.

Yes, it does.

'People can shoot whatever they like, as you indeed are also free to do'.

Thanks.

True, this isn't a great example of a seascape so most people could take the shot
What you think the world needs doesn't equate with everyone's opinions so don't try to state your opinion as fact (ps I take plenty of portraits and landscapes)
Agree with John - you don't need 6k of equipment to take that shot - in fact, nowhere near.........
Agree with David, it's off the point of the topic and I've fed the troll.....

He made a point, he got his exposure from a controversial topic , his image and his maths were dodgy - not sure what else to say that's relevant really?