Go to his website and you'll get a better idea where this yuk is coming
from -- we're talking "nerd to the geek power" here! I wonder how he
would feel if, after devoting years of his life learning and developing
his talent, then creating code for an innovative, remarkable new
program, someone pirated it and gave it out free for the asking? I
doubt he'd be a programmer for long! That, or he'd have to work
part-time at McDonald's to pay his rent!
Seems to me that what this individual is advocating is "image piracy",
much the same as software piracy. His self-absorbed thinking, coupled
with some personal experience of my own, gives me pause, however. I'm
considering a few new "rules" and procedures (i.e., contractual
conditions) to include in my photographer's agreement for when I shoot
the rare wedding or portrait.
Some years ago (when I was much younger and oh-so-naive!) I shot a
wedding portrait. After hours of posing and lighting and shooting, I
presented her and her mother with the best proofs from which they could
select their choices. Some weeks later, when they got back to me, they
said the wedding was going to be more expensive than they'd planned, but
they would order my reasonably priced enlargements later. But when I
showed up at the reception after shooting the wedding, there by the
entry was a big 11x14 enlargement obviously scanned from one of my
proofs!
I should have walked out, perhaps taking the enlargement with me -- it
_was_ a violation of my copywrite, after all -- then billed her
according to my "work for hire" rates for my work to that point if she
wanted the film from the wedding. Instead I foolishly completed my side
of the bargain, knowing that they had already violated their side. (To
add insult to injury, their last checks bounced, and I've never
collected! Live and learn!)
I've long contemplated buying a "foil imprinter" to print my copywrite
on my final images, but reading this fellow's tripe has iced the
(wedding) cake -- I'm going to finally get one. Proofs will either be
lo-res for the customer, hi-res that I keep and never allow out of my
posession, or on-line with scanned-in copywrite/logos all over. That,
or it's "work for hire", for which you pay big time!
Then, consider this statement from this nerd:
> First, consider the abundance of digital
{irrelevent - the same happens with film cameras, and the format of the
image is moot...}
> cameras present at any wedding these days. This came up afterwards
> in idle conversation with our photographer, and she said,
> "I know I can't do anything about it, but it's frustrating
> to work so hard to set up my shot only to have everyone else
> take advantage by snapping the same shot."
The "art" of photography is in the capturing of light and shadow in a
pleasing way -- and most of that comes from experience and talent,
learning how to pose and how to light the subject. This ability, talent
and experience is what the customer pays for. If someone stands next to
the wedding artist and "steals" his shot, that's no less piracy to me
than if they just used a scanner! So from now on, I'm going to include
this little "condition" when I shoot a wedding:
When it's time for the "posed" shots, nobody, but _nobody_ gets to use a
camera but me, or I'm outta there, deposit (and film) in hand.
I see the work of the artist/photographer much as that of a conductor of
an orchestra -- put together even the best virtuosi, and there still
needs to be an experienced, capable hand on the baton to coordinate the
performance. Sure, anyone can whack out a tempo, but it takes true
insight to mold a pleasing sound out of even the best orchestra. And
put together a dozen or so individuals, even the most gorgeous and
attractive (much less, your average wedding party!), and you still need
someone who can "see" and capture a pleasing image by posing and
lighting the subject. That, in the bottom line, is what the customer is
paying for. Sure, Aunt Tilley or Uncle Bob can get lucky once in a
while, but who is willing to risk their memories to chance (that sounds
like a advertisement, huh? ;^)
OK, off of soapbox....
Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> Today's Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org) has an article discussing one
> customer's experience with digital imaging from his wedding. The main
> article is at http://digitalpilgrim.com/personal/photo.html .
>
> The author argues that professional photographers will shrink in numbers and
> importance in a digital era because of the improvement in quality of digital
> imaging and the ability of the average person to produce high-quality
> images, and the corresponding decrease in importance of viewing images on
> paper. I'm not sure I buy that argument, but it's one to consider.
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|