Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica]now Paying!NO PAYING!!!
From: "Dan S" <>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:44:41 GMT

I really can't help myself from weighing in on this subject...It irks me 
that anyone would PAY to shoot a picture of someone.  Note that I did not 
say TAKE their picture.  When you shoot a photo you take NOTHING.  If the 
mear act of pointing a camera in the direction of another entitles them to 
payment than I can only imagine what pointing my EYES at them is worth.  I 
have only one lens, but TWO eyes, so do I pay double?  If I then take my 
memories of that scene and paint a picture have I taken something from them? 
  Absolutely not!

It is the natural human reluctance to look directly at a person that creates 
timid photographers, and subjects that expect money when photographed.  I 
implore you all to "just say no" when asked for money.  (And maybe make the 
picture anyhow:)

Best wishes
Dan States

>From: Ted Grant <>
>Subject: [Leica] was:flowers of the street. now Paying!
>Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 05:49:36 -0800
>Eric Welch wrote:
><<<<Paying for the privilege of taking a picture only hurts photographers
>to come, by creating an expectation for it. And photojournalists should
>never pay for making pictures, any more than they should take money to put
>someone in their publication.>>>>
>G'day Eric,
>Paying only encourages folks to "get money" if they have their picture
>taken. Once they have that idea in their mind it's almost impossible to
>shoot as a photojournalist doing a legitimate photo essay.
>Example: Photographing Eskimos/Inuit in the Arctic of Canada at one time
>was a great, you went about your assignment, never any hands out.
>Then the advent of "Explore the undiscovered outposts of the Arctic!" by
>the southern folks with lots of money. Damn and the next time I went north
>on a health related project every one had their hand out or I was being
>told, "You have to pay them if you want to photograph them."
>Hell what happened was these dummy tourists were paying them a $1.00 and
>more, if they didn't have a dollar in their pocket, to have a picture
>taken.  So the message was, "If I have my picture taken I'll get money!"
>ERGO! the damn hand was out to anyone with a camera.
>Paying when it's a real time phojournalistic assignment one should keep
>their money to themselves! As should the damn tourists. However today many
>of the  indigenous people of the world have become very demanding of money
>if you point a camera in their direction. Tourist or working
>Sure if they are asked to pose and go out of their way to "act as models,"
>then sure enough pay them and pay them well for their services, as you
>would any models. But don't go handing out money indiscriminately just to
>get a bloody happy snap souvenir.  Buy postcards!
>If we're talking "homeless" better to buy them a coffee or lunch than just
>giving them money.  But after you've got pictures that they didn't know you
>were taking. Pay first? Nope, breaks the complete real time scene and
>posing kicks in and the moment of motivating truth is gone.
>Ted Grant
>This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.

Get Your Private, Free Email at