Comments on: Moms Making Money with their Cameras

By: David Crowe

David Crowe — Sun, 20 May 2007 22:52:40 +0000

Regarding “cockles of the heart”…According to the Oxford English Dictionary this is based on the similarity between the cockle shell to the human heart, which is probably why its Latin name is Cardium, which is in turn from the Greek for ‘heart’. Too bad I didn’t think of this in time for your ‘love’ contest. See the URL of this posting for a picture of cockle shells (and the inside, which is a delicacy in England, if there’s anything about English cuisine that could be called delicate…). So to warm the cockles of your heart really means to warm the heart of your heart…

By: Wes

Wes — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:53:24 +0000

Isn’t this what makes our country great? I can not believe the negative response I get from “Professional Photographers” when I tell them I sell micro-stock. If I sell for less than you would like to earn does that make me a non-pro? I am labeled GWC and relegated to be an unskilled fool willing to sell an image for $1. I think that if you are a skilled photographer you can thrive in this market. However, too many business men that lack photographic vision have been in the industry because of a corner on the market that is quickly vanishing. If you are good at what you do you can make a very nice income as a photographer.
I am upset about my IT job being outsourced to India where someone is eager to perform it for a fraction of the cost. I have to prove that I have a greater skill level and compete in this brave new world and so do you.

By: Ralph Berrett

Ralph Berrett — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:54:49 +0000

This is not a new debate. About eight years ago I had this conversation over PDN website’s email message board. with Gary Gladstone. At that time two major issues were happening because tech. First was 35mm SLRs were getting cheaper and easier to use. The Second was flatbed scanners was gutting the wedding market. Before digitals had hit the scene 35mm were seen as evil. The Darth Vader of the time was young guy with a 35mm willing to work for next to nothing. A lot of the old pros wanted all Professional Photographers to be licensed and to have been through some sort of internship like they do in Germany. This was less about getting consumers quality images and more about killing off the competition.
The seconded more devastating was scanners. You have to understand at that time most photographers hid the cost of their time for shooting, instead they inflated production and material costs. A $2.00 roll of film became $10.00, film processing that was $100 - $200 became a $1000 or more, the same story for print processing. This was because alchemy of the darkroom. A darkroom was view as a magical intimidating place. Then the photographer held the negs hostage. So if you wanted more copies you would have to buy from them at really high prices.
Well along comes Photoshop and scanners, and now as soon a person got a hold of photograph it was scanned. This was hell for most portrait and wedding photographers. Jump to present day digital cameras and computers are very affordable. Now that most people have a camera and computer, pros are having a really difficult time marketing themselves. So how should a photographer charge? I have charging for my time for the last 13 years, plus cost.
More than ever it is the skill, technique and professionalism, that you bring, is what matters. The next big shake up that is coming is HD video, that should be fun to watch.