Under-serviced or growth areas in photography [Archive] - CanPhoto Forums - Professional Canadian Photography Discussions

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 23/07, 06:03 AM

In general. from the point of view of the photojournalist, I think that the editorial market in Canada and for that matter, North America is definitely in decline. Not only are there fewer and fewer outlets, but unrealistic contracts and demands make it almost impossible to make a decent living shooting exclusively editorial assignments today. Compared to even five years ago, the available market has shrunk drastically. Digital is partially to blame, or at least the misconception that now anyone can take editorial photos and deliver them yesterday, at little to no cost, but also the shrinking market for the printed page does not bode well for print media. Then too, you have the further misguided concept that web use is not subject to the same price structures as the "old "printed page was. This seems to be perpetrated by both, photographers and the media mogols. Frankly, as the web reaches a huge market compared to printed sources, the prices paid should reflect that potential and be dramatically higher than traditional media outlets!

Cheers all,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

PS> Darrol, just for the record, there are more photographers in Manhattan than there are in all of Canada, never mind New York State.

Sharon_Doucette

Apr 23/07, 03:56 PM

Unfortunately for all of us I think the photography industry ( ie. markets for photographers) is shrinking in all areas - editorial - commercial - stock. This I think is in large part due to all the reasons Peter outlined. Although the stock market is going strong in terms of images used in both editorial and commercial placement the dollar amounts going into photographers pockets are shrinking. I'm telling photography students and interns that I come in contact with to have a plan B in terms of career choice. Unless one is extremely driven, well connected, and has a lot of business savvy it will be very hard to make a decent living from photography alone. Talent and vision doesn't seem to enter into the equation in today's business conditions. But, then I'm feeling rather pessimistic today.

gr82bart

Apr 24/07, 06:08 AM

I think the shift in the photography industry is from the professionals to the prosumers. On the whole, I don't think the market is shrinking at all. It's just shifting as who is taking and marketing the images.

Which then goes back to my argument that there is a strong market in Canada for equipment. The buyers of the equipment though have shifted from the working full time professional photographer to the part-timer who does a wedding on the side or has a couple shows or freelances, for example. The Canadian retail market in my opinion is missing out here and short changing photographers in Canada. I say this in part because of my observations here in the states of the numbers of Canadians who buy their gear here - purely non-scientific ancedotal evidence.

Another observation is another site which I frequent. About 200 members - all local GTA people - mostly week end warriors. I did a poll recently and about 100 of them have bought lighting equipment in the last 2 years. All of the equipment directly from the states. So who says Canada has no market?

Regards, Art.

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 24/07, 06:31 AM

Art:
I don't think anyone is saying that there is no ,market in Canada, but rather that the markets for photography, by professional photographers are shrinking and or being reduced, by current circumstances. Personally, I fail to see what the retail market for consumer or professional products has to do with it at all. This market simply reacts to economic and buyer demographics and if there is not enough demand to justify supply, then there will be no supply.
As to the matter of weekend warriors, please do not get me started. These people have no business being in our market place in the first place and are and have been a sore point for years. They have a full time job, they have no expenses and almost to a one, no ethics or business morality. The only thing they see is the vision of their photos in print or on the web or wherever and business acumen and sense never enter into it. The sooner we, as a profession, take serious steps to curtail or eliminate these parasites, the sooner we will begin to regain some of our market. When ever person who claims to be a photographer has to not only prove that claim, but also pay all the taxes and insurance and, and, and, that those of us with real businesses do, the better off not only us, but the consumer will be. We should never be encouraging these people in any way other than to understand the proper and ethical business practices of our profession. I doubt very much that they would be willing to have one of us help ourselves to half of their pre-tax income, without so much as a by your leave!
Thus endeth the rant for today.
Cheers
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

Robert_Ottawa

Apr 24/07, 12:50 PM

As to the matter of weekend warriors, please do not get me started. These people have no business being in our market place in the first place and are and have been a sore point for years. They have a full time job, they have no expenses and almost to a one, no ethics or business morality. The only thing they see is the vision of their photos in print or on the web or wherever and business acumen and sense never enter into it. The sooner we, as a profession, take serious steps to curtail or eliminate these parasites, the sooner we will begin to regain some of our market. When ever person who claims to be a photographer has to not only prove that claim, but also pay all the taxes and insurance and, and, and, that those of us with real businesses do, the better off not only us, but the consumer will be. We should never be encouraging these people in any way other than to understand the proper and ethical business practices of our profession. I doubt very much that they would be willing to have one of us help ourselves to half of their pre-tax income, without so much as a by your leave!

I can only assume that the above hyperbole was written to elicit response. You cannot possibly believe that you have the right to tell others whether or not they are allowed to have part-time jobs. I can understand how it would rankle to be undercut by competitors with lower costs, but that's just life. Why should professional photogrpahers be immune from competition? No one else is. Paying your dues and building a business over the years is simply NOT a guarantee of anything and I don't see why you would expect to have control over the marketplace because of it.

The comment that "the weekend warriors" have "...almost to a one, no ethics or business morality" is a bit over the top, I'd say. Part-timers, a priori, have no more or less business sense, skill, or ethics than anyone else.

The sentence "When ever person who claims to be a photographer has to not only prove that claim, but also pay all the taxes and insurance and, and, and, that those of us with real businesses do, the better off not only us, but the consumer will be." is troublesome in many ways. Prove what to whom? If their clients are happy, you have nothing to say about it. You certainly do not have the right to expect your competitors to prove anything to you. Or me. Or anyone. As to whether consumers are better off or not, that is only up to the consumer to decide, not you. Or me. Or anyone. And why do you assume that someone doing the work part-time is not operating a "real business" or not paying taxes or insurance? You're making a lot of assumptions.

Your last sentence, "I doubt very much that they would be willing to have one of us help ourselves to half of their pre-tax income, without so much as a by your leave!" is also problematic. Everyone is faced with competitors who "help themselves" to their income. That's what happens to everybody, all the time. People don't need to ask you (or me or anyone) for permission
to start up a business.

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 24/07, 01:53 PM

Hello Robert:
What I wrote was only partially intended to generate a response and all of it was intended to point out a serious problem in our industry. Firstly, I do not consider impersonating another's occupation to be " having a part -time job". Working part time for the local wedding photographer is a part -time job, assisting a commercial photographer, could be a part-time job, but advertising yourself as a professional photographer is NOT a part -time job, it is fraud. Fair competition is the best thing a photographer can have, it levels the playing field in some cases and in others causes introspection concerning one's business and usually results in improvements in order to meet the challenge. Having someone who will produce a product at a loss consistently, for no other reason than that they don't care, is not fair competition and is not tolerated in most business circles. Paying your dues and building a business is no guarantee it will be a success, or that it will stay a success if it has become one. However, it should provide you with a level of protection from unfair business practices. Either by local governance or, by means of professional associations which regulate the practitioners of your field. And why should we not be able to regulate our marketplace?

Business morality and ethics would dictate that one would conduct one's enterprise in a manner which adhered to common community and business practices and standards. These should include, though not be limited to, honesty, integrity, fair play, conduct befitting the public trust and that of your peers. Business sense, dictates that the business operator knows and understands accepted business practices, keeps accurate financial records, pays any and all required business taxes, fees, licenses and levies and operates as a legal entity within the community. It also requires that the practitioner of said business is aware of and maintains certain expected, if not required obligations such as liability insurance. I have met many starting photographers and there are many on this list, who at the very least endeavour to do these things as well as do nothing to harm the profession which they hope to enter. I have never met a week-end warrior who had any such inclination. I stand by what I said.

I think I have every right to expect my competitors to prove to me, the rest of their peers and the consumer that they are what they say they are, because I firmly believe that we as a profession should demand it. Furthermore, there should be federal legislation that demands it. You can not be a plumber if you are not licensed, nor an electrician, nor, an auto mechanic, pipe fitter,machinist, baker, butcher, chef or chartered accountant. We should not be any different. It is high time that professional photographers regulated themselves in a similar manner to innumerable other trades and professions and presented the public with a unified qualification that is government recognized and provides us with a way to control undercutting and false claims of proficiency. It would not assure us all of success and it would not guarantee the consumers of a quality product, there are bad practitioners of every form of endeavour, but it would at least give them an expectation of competence and good practice.

I do not want to stop anyone from starting a business, provided they live by the rules of doing so. What I would like to see is the cessation of fly by night practitioners who with no formal training and no intention of ever competing on an even playing field with those who have put their life's blood into building something of value, offering photographs at less than cost and with no regard to copyright, to our marketplace. I respectfully submit that that should not be too much to ask. It isn't about me, it is about the viability of our profession as we move towards a challenging ,if uncertain future.

Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

gr82bart

Apr 24/07, 02:41 PM

Personally, I fail to see what the retail market for consumer or professional products has to do with it at all.My apologies. I re-read the OPs post and I mis-interpreted the post.

As for the week end warrior stuff, I have to digest it all before I respond, if I do respond at all. I see I poked at a very sore point here.

I doubt very much that they would be willing to have one of us help ourselves to half of their pre-tax income, without so much as a by your leave!OK one quick response. This in fact happens in business world all the time. It's not so much part-time versus full time, but industrialized labour rates versus emerging country labour rates. Apparently many things that we do can be out-sourced to China and India for less than week end warrior rate!

Regards, Art.

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 24/07, 03:11 PM

Hi Art:
In regards India, Sabastao Selgado photographed a very interesting example of that very fact for one of his books. Ships, such as lake freighters are towed to India and wrecked there, by being dragged ashore, by hand, and then wrecked for the steel ,with only hand tools and welding/cutting torches ,for less money than our mechanized world can accomplish it for! Now if that is not astounding, I do not know what is.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

Darrol

Apr 24/07, 06:22 PM

Peter, rarely am I in awe of a response posted on this or any other site I've visited, but you, my friend, have me in awe. I don't think I have ever seen or heard a more eloquent arguement about the state of our industry regarding these "weekend warriors".

I have copied your response and would very much like to use it, or reference it in the future. I am the VP of PPOC Saskatchewan and my newsletter is looking for submissions.

May I do so?

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 24/07, 09:12 PM

Hi Darrol:
Yes, by all means, if you think something I have written can be of use to you please feel free to use it. After-all that was the point of writing it, to try and make a difference.
Cheers and thank you,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

bmrstudios

Apr 25/07, 01:52 PM

Hello all,
I don't mean to single anyone out but look at this example. This company, billing themselves as an advertising company, is selling product photography for as little as $22.00 per image (50 to 99 images) (http://www.tigeradvertising.ca/photo.html) (see a previous webpage from 2005 here (http://web.archive.org/web/20051215060606/http://www.tigeradvertising.ca/photo.html) which offered photography for a flat $350 per day) and with no mention of copyright or anything else.

I've found in the past that some businesses (mainly printers) will set up an in-house studio and hire student labor on a part-time basis. They shoot below what an independent photographer can shoot for because (1) they don't have a dedicated studio (2) they transfer many of the costs to the printing part of the estimate. The photography looks really low in price. With a large print run you can hide a lot and still remain competitive.

There also seems to be a trend towards shooting then "fixing" the image in Photoshop. Depending on how the work is split up this can make the photography look less expensive then it really is. Many of the casual part-timers don't understand the economics of the business. They look at what they are making (full-time employment day rate) and apply that thinking to their photography.

I have no problem with a competitive environment, what irks me is other individuals or businesses who don't play fairly.

Hey, I've got a car, maybe I'll moonlight as a taxi service. Or take my tools and do some electrical work (I'll charge less than union of course!)

Barry M. Robinson

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 25/07, 02:55 PM

Great idea Barry, you could charge by the rider instead of by the kilometer! No pick up fee and the more riders the cheaper the fare. You'll be rich in no time!

I know just how you feel and can not figure out why these people treat photography like a lost leader. It would be my approach to treat all aspects of the job as a potential profit centre, not as a way to short change the industry.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

DW Dorken

Apr 26/07, 09:26 AM

Peter:

The thing I really like about commercial photography is than anyone can get into it and call themselves a pro. If they can talk a great game, they can even get jobs.

But when you get down to it, the images they create is all that counts.

I've seen examples of Andrew's and Barry's and Alastair's work. I don't need to see their CVs to see that these folk are pros. They can make very good images every time they go out the door. Pretty much guaranteed that when you hire them, they are going to make the shoot look easy and will produce quality images.

A hobbyist with a gift of the gab may be able to talk one of their client's into giving them an assignment. But at the end of the shoot, the client should have a pretty good idea of whether the assignment was successfully completed.

Many of the best photographers I assisted weren't graduates of a photo school. Quite a few never assisted either – the usual apprenticeship route. A couple of great ones were self-taught. Few belonged to professional organizations.

Some started as part-timers and "hobbists".

It's not a "profession" like law or medicine, where there is a specific knowledge base required, an exam to take and a license to acquire. The cool thing is that there are a myriad of niches, all requiring different skill sets.

All you have to be able to do talk a decent game to get the job, then make very good images.

Every time I shoot, every time I quote a job, I prove my professionalism to my clients. I do lose jobs to folks who work cheaper and offer "work for hire". Usually, these aren't the clients I want to work for, anyways.

Honestly, I don't want a job that my dentist or banker can shoot. And I really don't want to work for a client that would hire dentists and bankers to make images.

One of the realities of professional photography is that it is perceived to be sexy and glamorous. That means there will always be tons of fresh blood entering the already over-filled pool. There will always be people offering to do the job cheaper. Many will be uneducated (or uncaring) in rights and rights management.

I think as a profession, the one thing we have to do is pass on the "rules" to the newbies, especially regarding rights and usage. And we have to educate clients into realizing that it's better to license images than buy them. EP wins little battles like this every day. I usually win one or two a month.

In my business, I've really scaled back on newspaper and editorial photography because of the rights-grabbing. I don't hold out much hope that this segment of the business will ever revert to a model that is fair for "image creators".

I'm trying to develop a client base that hires based on quality. And when I have time, I'm trying to help new folk be aware of the arcane issues of rights and proper business practices.

If they don't want to follow the rules, so be it. It really is their loss.

David
DW Dorken Photographer
Toronto, Canada
http://www.dwdorken.com

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 26/07, 10:29 AM

Hello David:
It is strange that what you really like about commercial photography is the fact that anyone can lay claim to your business mantle with out regard for credentials. I find that fact the single biggest thing I dislike about any field of photography. For as long as I have been one and probably, for as long as photography has existed, photographers in North America in particular, have been terrified of organizing themselves and becoming a governmentally recognized entity. The closest we ever came, was the creation of the ASMP and perhaps, to a much lesser degree, EP. Neither of which organizations have gone the distance, to become "officially" recognized, although the ASMP today, carries a great deal of weight as a lobby group in the United States. Germany has legislation, I believe, the UK has the NUJ and there are other such attempts, but here we are alone in the cold. Newspapers have the Guild, the entertainment industry has NABET, and ACTRA and the SAG, but one of the largest group of practitioners of a single discipline in the world, sits back and squabbles, bitches and whines, yet will not come together as a discipline. I am vehemently anti union, I have always been so, but at least a union is supposed to look out for the welfare of its members and can count on official recognition to back up their members. An official organization such as The Screen Actors Guild, can do so much more and can be democratic in the process. I fail to see why we should have to tolerate having no enforceable standards in our industry and letting the client determine who is or is not competent by means of trial and error, only further exacerbates the problems, misconceptions and negative attitudes both within and about our profession.
You are obviously correct, that we are not a recognized profession, like doctors, lawyers and accountants, which is why I prefer the term craftsman, but why can we not become legally recognized? Why are we afraid to set standards? The PPoA and PPoC have both been trying for years to do this, to little to no avail.... why is that? Elsewhere in the world similar organizations offer similar accreditations and they are highly respected, both within and outside of those organizations.
I strongly support your right to your opinion and I do not want to imply anything negative about you or anyone else ,here or elsewhere, who is currently earning a living from photography, but I equally strongly disagree with the concepts you put forward. We as a profession deserve to have control over our practitioners and our marketplace. It won't make us any less independent or less creative or less competitive. It will simply give us a voice in our own future that is unified and forceful and heard.

With all respect and consideration,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

Robert_Ottawa

Apr 26/07, 10:57 AM

I would go along with what David Dorken wrote. Once you try to invoke regulation, especially government supervised regulation, you have to make distinctions between professions, licensed trades, and everything else.

Acting professional in a business sense, paying taxes, acquiring a business operating license where required, insurance, etc. are part of what a pro brings to the table. But you don't need formal training or government registration to enforce these behaviours. Anyone can learn them and it's up to the legal authorities, when it comes to taxes for example, to police these issues. It would make me nervous if competitors assumed that role. And anyway, it's not just "weekend warriors" who can skirt these issues. There are lots of full-time people working "off books".

Doctors and engineers need to be "professions" largely because if they fail to meet the standards of their "profession", they could kill people. Licensed trades like chefs, butchers, electricians, plumbers, need to be watched over for much the same reason, though usually not scrutinized so closely because the nature of what they do does not require as lengthy and specialized knowledge as the "professions" do. (This is not meant to disparage people in those trades. Skilled practitioners are a pleasure to watch, no less so than someone who builds a bridge.)

What I called the "rest", which I think it's fair to say includes photohgraphers, are not in the same category, imo. A good one is miles above a bad one, but even the worst of the lot can do no worse than produce a bad picture. This would be upsetting to the people who paid for the picture, but there already are ways to seek redress in such matters. There is no need to invoke another layer of government bureaucracy to protect society against it. Even the most ignorant unsophisticated purchaser will know a bad picture when they see one and will know how to handle the situation, i.e., not pay, demand their money back, or sue in small claims court. It's a pain, of course, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal. (I understand that it may be tragic to not have good wedding photos; but the solution to that is that people select their photographer more carefully. It's not rocket science.) It is NOT like trying to sue an alleged incompetent lawyer where specialized knowledge, equal to that of the lawyer in question, is required in order to make the challenge.

I can see a purpose behind photographic industry associations. They can raise the profile of the group, lobby, look after the group's interests in many ways. They might even try to ensure, in some way, performance of their members insofar as they could throw out a member who failed to meet some agreed upon standards, much like the way a Better Business bureau works (or is supposed to work). But I think it's going a little too far when new people entering the field must undergo "formal training" or have to answer in some way to the people already in the industry. That, I don't think I can go along with. They do not need your permission or your approval, as I said before. (In fact, I find it problematic to have to seek permission from competitors who have businesses in place and a position to protect. Such a system is screaming to be abused.) I don't believe that it is justified, imo. Having said that, having industry associations educating the public and new practitioners in aspects of copyright, trademark etc. is a valuable service that they can and probably should provide. But government interference would not necessarily facilitate this.

I don't believe that it is at all the same situation as with doctors, electricians, or butchers (among others) where there are (almost) obvious generally agreed upon standards of behaviour. With photography, it's not so clear. I can see, for example, a group of photographers objecting to the presence of minimum-wage pseudo-photographers at big box super-stores. After all, they're stealing business from established practitioners, aren't they? (I know that those stores pay taxes and have insurance, but surely it must rankle that they actually specify "no photographic experience" when advertizing for those in-store positions.) One could make the argument that those minimum-wage flunkies don't know anything about photography and relatively-speaking that would be correct. But thousands of people buy those services every day and are happy with the results. It's going to be an uphill struggle to try to argue that those services are bad for consumers when consumers like those services. They may be bad for established portrait photographers, in a similar way that the weekend part-timers are, but I really don't see that there is any "public" harm here that society needs protection against.

I understand and even sympatize that some may not like the way the industry is going, and you're free to try and influence change, but it's a big step (and not a good step, imo) to try and create government-supported restrictions to trade. Besides, they won't work so time is better spent elsewhere.

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 26/07, 11:33 AM

Robert:
I seem to be fostering a misconception, which I will try to correct here. I do not want to be regulated by the government, I want an association to be recognized by them as a legal entity governing, if you will, it's members.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

andrewr

Apr 26/07, 11:37 AM

You can not be a plumber if you are not licensed, nor an electrician, nor, an auto mechanic, pipe fitter,machinist, baker, butcher, chef or chartered accountant. We should not be any different.

You are obviously correct, that we are not a recognized profession, like doctors, lawyers and accountants, which is why I prefer the term craftsman, but why can we not become legally recognized?

Hi Peter,

There are lots of trades and crafts people working in Canada that do not require certification or licensing. According to CareersInConstruction.ca I could start a business tomorrow, part-time or full-time, as a carpenter, cabinetmaker, tilesetter, exterior or interior finisher, roofer, floor covering installer, framer, brick layer, landscaper, etc, etc, without obtaining a license first. In fact, it looks like the majority of the 36 trades listed on that site do not require mandatory certification in most provinces.

As someone who is essentially self-taught, who assisted very little, who did not study photography in school (I studied journalism which included basic photography courses), and who held a part-time job for many years while I got my business off the ground, I might also object to a governing body like CAPIC or the PPOC telling me that I couldn't work as a photographer without obtaining their permission and presumably paying them a substantial licensing fee.

I can certainly appreciate some of your arguments and agree wholeheartedly that as an industry we need strong voices and organizations to promote and encourage sound business practices, but I honestly think mandatory licensing would be completely unworkable in our industry. How could you ever enforce it or come up with a standardized test for every segment of the industry? For example, there are some incredibly talented, and successful photographers working in the fashion industry who couldn't light a set themselves if their lives depended on it. Yet with the right support crews they can create stunning images because they know what they want, can envision the final product, and have the gift of the gab that gets them the work. I assisted a guy like this from Los Angeles a few years ago and he admitted he didn't know how to load his own camera or how to turn off the modeling lights on his strobes. He told me he didn't need to know that stuff because he "hires good assistants".

Conversely, there are lots of photographers who can create technically perfect images that are completely void of originality, spark, or that indescribable "something" that separates the work of the true masters from that of the rest us.

Which of these photographers has more of a right to call themselves a "professional" and who should decide?

I just don't see how it could possibly work.

Cheers,

Andrew

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 26/07, 01:15 PM

Hi Andrew:
Under Ontario law, you can only call yourself a Master Carpenter if you are union certified and have gone through their apprenticeship programme, which I find very strange. However, I realize your first point, which is why I listed those that I did. Every professional organization has dues, it is simply a cost of doing business and you write it off. You have to fund your efforts somehow and even to do what the ASMP does, costs many thousands of dollars. I don't really care if the authorizing organization sets the standards for everyone, or only for it's members, as long as the members themselves decide what the standards should be and that membership in the organization has overwhelming and positive advantages over operating outside the umbrella. I would prefer to see a programme such as that which ACTRA and SAG use and for that matter the musicians union, although it is the worst run of all the creative groups. You can act in Hollywood and elsewhere, for a short period of time, or perhaps it is for a limited number of roles, but then to continue you must become a member. I assume the idea is that you prove your ability before you pay your dues, though that may be altruistic. There is no reason for us not to do the same. I don't have all the answers and I do not necessarily believe that you need to pass a lighting quiz to be a professional, but you should be able to demonstrate some higher level knowledge and skill sets and have a grounding in copyright and business practices as they pertain to our industry. If expert proficiency in digital capture and post production were a prerequisite, I would fail miserably. Like your fashion shooter, I pay others to to that sort of thing, but I do know what is out there and what it is capable of and not capable of and I try to stay abreast of new developments, such as video replacing still shooting in the media.
As for the technician versus the creative genius, that is really a mute point. There is a place for both in the industry and I would hardly consider originality a prerequisite for being a professional in anything. There are thousands of heart surgeons in the world, but only a handful have ever invented a new surgical technique. Most of the very best only repeat what others have pioneered. I would still want one of them opening my chest as opposed to a first year surgical resident. I'm not even insisting on a license structure, I'd be just as happy with a set of standards that qualified you to put the word professional in front of photographer. There is no law that says you have to hire a journeyman plumber to do your work, but there is one that says you can not be a journeyman without doing the qualifying requirements. What the law says, is that a journeyman plumber must do certain aspects of plumbing work and no one who has not qualified as a journeyman may advertise themselves as being a journeyman plumber. In fact, if I am not mistaken, which I often am, it is the municipality that "licenses" a tradesman, the Province merely certifies them.
Regardless, I still feel we need to be organized and unified and that it can be done without excluding current practitioners and that it should be done. It should be recognized nationally and we, not the buyer should control the marketplace.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

bmrstudios

Apr 26/07, 02:43 PM

I do not want to be regulated by the government, I want an association to be recognized by them as a legal entity governing, if you will, it's members.

Hi Peter,
Do you want something like The Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario (RGD Ontario) (http://www.rgdontario.com/). Anyone may call themselves a graphic designer and do that job but only designers recognized by this association may call themselves Registered in Ontario.

I recall reading that in London (England) photographers in a guild had to pass proficiency tests. These tests were not related to the aesthetic aspects of photography but to the technical aspects. I don't know whether this still exists or not. An association that tested for minimum levels of competence in things like the law (contract and copyright) and technical (primarily safety and electrical) then grant some sort of official certification would be a good thing.

One thing that always rankled me was the Professional Photographers of Ontario and their qualifications (which were awarded by a points system and sounded a lot like a "degree"). I was a student member of the PPO and found that it was an organization that I really could not respect (the members of the commercial division I met and talked with didn't seem very bright).

Barry M. Robinson

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 26/07, 03:46 PM

Hi Barry:
Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I am looking at, thanks very much for pointing it out. I too believe that the testing you mention is the case in the UK, though I have not confirmed it yet. These are exactly the things I would like to see. Also, I couldn't agree with you more about the PPO, in fact I feel pretty much the same way about PPoC and PPoA despite having been a member. They are too much like an old boys club as opposed to a professional organization.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

DW Dorken

Apr 26/07, 05:50 PM

Peter:

Licensing photographers? Good luck. No disrepect, but I think you'd have more luck trying to license cats.

Talk to Christopher Morris at EP Canada about the ease of starting his group - an organization representing a minute number of Canadian editorial photogs. I know way more Toronto commercial photogs who aren't Capic members, than those who are.

We are, in my experience, not "joiners".

I spent a year at Westside, a collective of photographers who operate together because of a variety of needs. Westside works, although it has a huge number of ex-members, photographers who couldn't function in the organization.

We are, in my experience, rebels, not rule followers. We are more predisposed to anarchy than anything in particular.

I think that's part of what made many of us decide to join this industry.

Film is a big industry that requires an army to put out a project. Same with guys who build houses. And the folk who publish newspapers. It's in all these industry's interest to unionize.

I left newspapers because I wanted to be on my own. I like the solitary life of a freelancer. I like setting my prices, turning down clients I don't want to work with. I like being able to set and follow my own rules.

Like Groucho Marx said, I wouldn't join a club that would accept me.

DWD

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 27/07, 06:35 AM

Hi David:
Being a horseman, I can state this old adage with certainty, " You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." There are always going to be photographers who would rather be on the outside of a good thing than join anything that involved other photographers. I can not change their mind set, I can only explain the advantages and leave it at that. Being able to use a definitive terminology that reflects to the buyer an image of someone more than just your garden variety photographer, has to be a good thing, not a negative, in my opinion, at least.
Also, your life as a freelancer would not change in the least, except perhaps to become busier. You would still control your own business and therefore, set your own prices, choose who you will and won't work with, be as solitary as you wish and live by your own rules. Rules which I would assume contribute to your making a decent living? I'm not suggesting some kind of Co-op here nor am I wishing to restrict trade, which I believe is illegal, even in Canada, unless you are Stephen Harper. I am probably a lot more solitary and outside of the mainstream than the majority of members on this and a lot of other sites, including Christopher's. Certainly more so than any of my immediate peers. My politics are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, I believe in the right to bear arms and use them and I think democracy is probably the least effective and efficient way to run a country that has ever been conceived. However, I don't like any of the alternatives either, I realize that a society of gunfighters would be chaotic and unfortunately, we are too far down the path of socialist policy to turn back now, so I live within the bounds of quote, civilized society, unquote. Being a part of something that gave buyers the perception that these people are somehow more knowledgeable than other practitioners of their "art" would seem a good thing to me. Proving that perception true, would still require that the photographer in question actually be more knowledgeable. Something ONLY they would be able and obligated to do.
If we manage to get an organization like this off the ground, I sincerely hope that you would be a major part of it's success!
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

andrewr

Apr 27/07, 07:39 AM

Being able to use a definitive terminology that reflects to the buyer an image of someone more than just your garden variety photographer, has to be a good thing, not a negative, in my opinion, at least.

Isn't that exactly what the PPOC offers now with their Craftsman and Master Accreditation? And doesn't your previously expressed opinions about the PPOC point to the inherent problems with programs like this? How do you come up with tests and terminology that makes every one happy, who gets to be in charge, and what do you do when it becomes an "old boys club" or some other self-interested or exclusionary group?

I like the idea in principal and think it would be great to be able to use some fancy letters after my name, but I still don't see how it could be administered to everyone's satisfaction.

Cheers,

Andrew

Peter Wm. Richardson

Apr 27/07, 09:39 AM

Hi Andrew:
The PPoC awards are just that, awarded titles based on your scores in their testing criteria, unless they have drastically overhauled their programme. Check out the Graphic designers site that Barry sent the link to and read the about us heading. This explains the vision I have quite succinctly. As to who will and how to, I don't have all the answers but together with foreward thinking people such as we have on this list, I think it could be worked out along the same lines. The very fact that it will take an order in the Legislature to finalize it indicates the need for great thought and many minds.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

bmrstudios

Apr 27/07, 12:55 PM

Isn't that exactly what the PPOC offers now with their Craftsman and Master Accreditation? And doesn't your previously expressed opinions about the PPOC point to the inherent problems with programs like this? How do you come up with tests and terminology that makes every one happy, who gets to be in charge, and what do you do when it becomes an "old boys club" or some other self-interested or exclusionary group?

Hi Andrew,
The problem I had with the Professional Photographers of Ontario (PPO) was twofold. First, the titles they awarded were based on a points system; you would get a certain number of points for winning a regional show, points for giving a lecture on photography to Scouts and so on. What the system failed to address was core knowledge required to be a professional photographer. The way around this is to make the standards open; state exactly why and how each level is qualified. Have an independent body administer the tests. Give credit for approved courses at colleges and universities. Give the levels names that are distinct from "degrees" (i.e. don't use the term "Master" which has the connotation of a Master's degree). Make the standards useful; contract law, copyright law, safety, digital delivery. These are areas that help to separate the professional from the hobbyist.

Secondly, the PPO members I spoke to (full-time commercial photographers) did not seem to have a very good grasp of photographic technology. I was in first year at Ryerson at the time and I found their lack of knowledge troublesome. It didn't help, either, when I listened to a lecture (part of an advertising class I was taking) by a PPO member and former president. He came off as being rather boorish and unprofessional.

Barry M. Robinson

StarDriver

Apr 30/07, 10:26 PM

andrewr

May 1/07, 07:08 AM

I'd like to remind everyone to please keep your posts civil and on topic. Disagreements and strong opinions are fine, but these are professional forums and as per our Terms of Service (http://www.canphoto.net/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item#faq_terms_of_service) we expect "all members to be guided by common sense, professionalism, cooperation, and respect for others when posting content".

Thanks very much,

Andrew

Peter Wm. Richardson

May 1/07, 08:15 AM

My Dear Adam:
If your reference to,"your kind" was directed towards me, I suggest you elaborate on just what kind you think that is. To begin with,you know nothing about me, nor apparently have you read what I've written about week-end warriors, or you would not be so quick to call yourself one. Unless the "studio" you work for is a hair salon, I would like to think that it carries on business in a manner not devoted to destroying the industry it is a part of and I would likewise expect that it expects it employees to behave in the same manner. Assuming that that is so and that you adhere to that policy, you can not , by definition, be a week-end warrior.
As to your reference about your equipment, what's your point? Whether you own your gear outright or lease ten times your amount has no relevance to the subject at hand, nor to being professional, nor to being a competent photographer, nor to being a contributing member of this industry, nor to being a success in business.
Finally, I have little if any fear of your taking mine or anyone else's clients. There is a lot more to a good client photographer relationship than just money and there will always be another photographer who thinks they should have the same client, it's called competition. In todays marketplace, photographers are like buses, there will be another one along in twenty minutes, that does not mean that they are heading to where the client wants to go, especially if that client is already on the right bus!
You sound like an angry young man, I hope that you overcome whatever is causing that condition soon, and should there be anything that I may be able to assist you with in the furtherance of your career ambitions, please do not hesitate to ask. That is after all, why all of us are part of this forum, helping each other to be better at what we do and how we do it.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

Peter Wm. Richardson

May 1/07, 08:22 AM

Hi Andrew:
Thank you for reminding us of the rules of good conduct and civility. I apologize if my last post was out of line, however, I could not allow the remarks to go unanswered. I assure you though that I consider the subject addressed and overwith!
Respectfully,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com

ChrisP

May 1/07, 09:58 AM

---- should there be anything that I may be able to assist you with in the furtherance of your career ambitions, please do not hesitate to ask. ----

Here Here Peter - spoken like a true professional!

Cheers
Chris

Alastair

May 1/07, 07:29 PM

I am a weekend warrior. We have been here since film was invented. We are never going away.

Most of us have better equipment then your kind. My gear is PAID for (over $30,000), I work out of my basement. My clients are very happy.

Your stuff better be top notch, because I want to steal every account you have.

My gear is PAID for, too. Whole lot more than $30k, as well.

Glad to hear your clients are happy, I'm not too worried about my work - I would say it's top notch. One major difference, however, between the full-time pros and the not full-time pros is that I live and breathe photography, all day, every day. It's all I do in my working hours. Take your best shot, I'm ready.

:)

Toni

May 5/07, 11:14 AM

Peter,
As much as I agree with much of what youre saying, Im gonna play devils advocate. Many pros start out as weekend warriors. I dont know anyone who cleared a profit on their first wedding gig. Hell, I didnt even make enough on mine to pay for the film.
Photography has always held intrigue among the general populous and will continue to do so. From my experience, most weekend warriors started out with someone offering them a few bucks to shoot something quick...cityscape, kids pics, whatever. Hey I could use $50., so sure. Eventually they start to look for work. The problem doesnt stem from the warriors. I think the problem is the industrys lack of information regarding price.
I didnt start out as a weekend warrior because I didnt have a clue what to charge for anything. Having learned photography in a school setting as opposed to on my own, I was introduced to the principles of rights managment and fair market value and the importance of not undercutting the industry to ensure it remained healthy and stable. But there is no information available in the canadian markets about what those market values are. What image liscense rate are. What a portrait on location goes for. Who the heck knows? I was so scared to cut the bottom out of the market that Ive been working in retail since I graduated from my photography programs. I wish Id just figured it out the hard way like many weekend warriors and get the last 6 years of my soul back.
Its only been the last couple of years that you can find any info on pricing, and that only from the US, and only liscensing fees and not creative fees. So how relavent is it? I have no idea. Ive decided to finally put my education to use though, undercutting the market or not.
Canadian photographers are so scared to be undercut that they guard their rates like fort knox, but then rant about the state of the industry. What do you all want from us?
Toni

Peter Wm. Richardson

May 7/07, 11:11 AM

Hi Toni:
First, let me formally introduce myself, I am a professional photographer and my name is Peter Wm. Richardson, it is very nice to meet you. Now that we know each other, you know a photographer who made a profit on their first wedding gig.:D My problems with week-end warriors goes much farther than how they got started, but I've already been there and I don't want to go again. Suffice it to say that I will never see a true weekend warrior in a flattering light.
Industry pricing information is not that hard to come by. I started out in 1968, took a break and started again in the early seventies. If I wanted to know what a portrait cost, I called a portrait studio, likewise weddings , baby pictures and the like. Commercially, I asked other photographers in the field, or I read articles and contacted associations like ASMP or PPoC . Sure there were guys who blew me off or quoted me ridiculous rates, but I didn't, even then, just fall off the turnip truck yesterday!. It was pretty obvious that they could not be charging that and paying their bills. It isn't that different today. Most shooters are not going to tell you exactly what and how they will charge for a job, but most of us who care for the industry will put you on the right track. None of us want to see you under price a job, not be able to do a good job and therefore give us all a bad name. As to license rates, there are lots of price calculators on the web and in print. Extrapolating Cdn. prices from US data is not that hard, in fact, you can generally just start by charging the same rate ,in our dollars and negotiating from there if needs be. If you know what your CODB is you know what you need to do a portrait on location. If it costs $100 in a studio with everything controlled, then it is going to cost that, plus travel and set up time, tear down and something for aggravation as a rule.:) You are too worried about undercutting the industry standards. There are not that many standards and the range is very flexible. Just use common sense and you will be fine. A portrait is worth a lot more than $50 and probably less than $1000 to the average person, so look at your client, look at your costs and offer a price, if you break even, learn and charge more next time, if you make out OK and the client sends you their next door neighbour, you are probably where you need to be for that sector of the market. From there, it is more common sense and a close eye on your bottom line and you will find yourself on top of your game.
If you have been finding photographers who hide their rates, you need to keep looking. There are no secrets in photography, not even with pricing. A large part of what people charge depends on who they are and who their clients are, then the marketplace and then any special circumstances that should affect the price, such as danger, or travel, or restrictions on access etc. Each of us has experience to rely on as well, but that isn't something secret either, if you look hard. None of us are going to just hand you, or any other new person, our book of rates and procedures, that is just not good business sense. But most of the photographers I know who have been around the block are willing to talk to you, explain things and point you in the right direction, if you ask them. I certainly will and have and do, here and in private and on several other forums.
Cheers and good luck,
Peter
Peter Wm. Richardson
Photojournalist
peterw@journalist.com