[Leica] Giving pictures away for free

[chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com (Chris Crawford)]

You're ignoring what people said and changing the subject. You originally
said that making a living as a photographer is harder than making it as a
poet, which is untrue. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you change the
subject to say that only a minority of photographers are professionals.
That's true, but that is not the same as saying that it is harder to make a
living at photography than poetry.

I'd rather make what I do as a photographer, despite being relatively poor,
than anything else. Where I live, there are NO jobs for young university
educated men. Our unemployment rate here is over 70%. That wasn't a typo.
Few jobs here need an education and employers largely will not hire
university grads. I have friends who have never had a job and never will
until they move away from here like I did when I went to Santa Fe (I came
back to Indiana for my son after his mother was put in a mental hospital).
Most of those who do have jobs here in Fort Wayne make $8 an hour. You
cannot live on that, not even in Indiana...and the cost of living here is
very low. I make twice what a burger flipper or Walmart cashier makes here
and I am still struggling sometimes financially. Still, I am thankful that I
have the talent, ambition, drive, and good fortune to be able to make a
living as a photographer. A hell of a lot better than starving on $8 an
hour. Been there, done that, not fucking interested.

Rants like yours come up fairly often on photo forums from guys who make
their living somewhere outside the photo world, and frankly it puzzles me.
It shows a contempt for photographers who earn a living. Why? Most of us are
not rich, we are not paid by the government, we aren't your parasite boss
who gets rich while you work your ass off....so we are not hurting you. The
only thing I can think is that you despise your job, despite its good pay,
and it pisses you off that some people have the talent, intelligence, and
even good luck to make a living, even if it is a modest one, on their own
terms rather than being someone's slave like most most people are.

I sold enough prints last week to pay my bills, eat, and buy my son
something for Christmas. If I were lazy, I could just lay back and relax for
a while....but I won't. I'm still taking print orders for Christmas (people
are buying them as gifts) and still scanning film to add to my online
portfolio. I started out dirt poor because I couldn't find a job after
college. I starved for a few years and am finally finding success. I made
more this year than last, and more last year than the one before that, and I
am doing it without being anyone's employee (slave) for $8 an hour.



-- 
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-486-2581

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My portfolio

http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My latest work!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798
Become a fan on Facebook



On 12/5/10 1:06 PM, "Lawrence Zeitlin" <lrzeitlin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I certainly don't fault Peter for giving his photo away for free. Anyone 
> can
> do anything he wants with his/her photos. Recognition and credit for one's
> efforts are a positive good. So are contributions to charity. Are there no
> Mother Theresas amongst us?
> 
> 
> Photographers have SO many self serving arguments. Sure a photographer
> should get paid for what he/she does - if someone is willing to pay 
> him/her.
> We must remember that it is not immoral to give photos away if the donor
> chooses to do so. No more so than it is immoral to give photographic or
> computer advice on the LUG for free. And, I am constantly informed by my
> better half, that a wife should get paid for what she does as well.
> Otherwise she is taking the bread out of the mouths of maids, cooks, 
> nursery
> school teachers and prostitutes. One might as well fault Tina for selling
> photos to stock agencies. Remember that every time a publication purchases 
> a
> stock photo an otherwise unemployed photographer is not paid. In that sense
> stock agencies and the photographers who sell to them are inimical to the
> profession of photography.
> 
> 
> But first a couple of truths. Photography is not legally a profession.
> Anyone can call themselves a "professional photographer." There are no
> exams, no licenses, no boards of regulation, no educational requirements.
> Your doctor, dentist, architect, lawyer, accountant, podiatrist, and even
> your kid's kindergarten teacher are professionals. Photography is a
> business, and, according to the IRS, if you don't make money three years 
> out
> of five, it is a hobby. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, data shows that
> there are 152,000 people in the U.S. who classify themselves as
> photographers but only about 10% of those make a living which puts them
> solidly in the middle class. If the practice of photography is their only
> income, the rest qualify for food stamps. Many LUG members, probably
> including Dr. Ted, who profess to making a nice living from photography, 
> are
> not free lancers but are or were gainfully employed by some organization 
> who
> paid them to take pictures.
> 
> 
> Second, photographic equipment has evolved to the point where little
> technical knowledge is required to make adequate photographs. Anyone can
> pick up a camera, point it at a subject and get a perfectly exposed, in
> focus, image. It is all in knowing where to point the camera and that
> facility is shared by many who do not classify themselves as photographers.
> There is no long apprenticeship learning the fundamentals. The entry bar is
> very low. This extends to commercial photography as well as pictures of 
> Aunt
> Julia. A national distributor of mechanical equipment in my neighborhood
> photographs all the pictures in his voluminous catalog himself. "Why," he
> says, "pay thousands to a professional photographer. How much skill does it
> take to make a picture of a bolt?"
> 
> 
> Third, professional quality equipment is cheap and readily available. Canon
> expects to sell 26 million cameras this year. Two million will be of
> professional level. Nikon, Sony, and even Leica will add to the sum, 
> perhaps
> 5 million pro cameras in total. Clearly there is no shortage of equipment
> which can meet the highest standards for publication. And the stuff is
> easier than ever to use.
> 
> 
> So let's run a little survey on the LUG. The LUG has approximately 2000
> members all of whom have a high interest in photography and probably 
> possess
> professional level equipment. How many of us make a living from photography
> alone? Just photography. No other day jobs, investment, trust fund, Social
> Security, retirement benefits or spousal income included. I mean a real
> living. The average middle class income in the US is $40,000. The poverty
> level is under $20,000. Remember you can make almost that much by frying
> hamburgers at Burger King. If you don't make an adequate living income from
> photography, no matter how skilled you are, you are practicing a hobby.
> Unless at least 200 LUG members are gainfully employed in photography, I
> maintain that the "professionals" amongst us are a distinct minority,
> unrepresentative of the interests of the entire group. If we listen to them
> we might as well expect all real photographers to only use Leicas.
> 
> 
> Larry Z
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information