Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 <tedgrant@islandnet.com> >Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >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 >photojournalist. > >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 > >Ted Grant >This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. >http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com