After earning a good living in this enjoyable profession for a lifetime—and teaching it for another ten years—I thought I had a fair idea of what a photographer looked like. Recently, however, I have begun to fear that I need to revise that image drastically.
At an informational meeting recently, I met several young photographers who belonged to what I will call the 'internet generation.' They began photographing when digital photography was already commonplace and use the internet to market their pictures.
These colleagues spoke the photographer's language—the seasoned professional's jargon. They confidently handed out their cards and discussed their latest assignments, while technical terms flew around me. So far, this was the normal picture when meeting new colleagues.
After listening to them for a while, however, I sensed that something was wrong. A few cautious questions revealed that they all had regular jobs and did photography on the side.
Nothing wrong with that, of course; if you enjoy photography and earn some extra money from it, that is your business.
Is this a recent devaluation of the profession?
But then it dawned on me: earning money was not involved at all. In fact, the 'photographer' even covered the expenses of the shoots, while the product—the photograph—was delivered entirely free. Some did it under the illusion that they might someday be paid for their services; others had long since abandoned that hope or had never cherished it. Simply feeling like photographers was enough for them.
Do not assume these were all self-taught photographers. One of them had studied photography for years at two respected institutions. Most work entirely for free; sometimes they charge a token fee for their services. Even the cost of the rental studio is paid out of pocket without complaint.
Browse the many photography forums on the web and you will encounter conversations about 'placements' in various media or the use of photographs on television. Their tone suggests that major financial interests are at stake: participants discuss the ins and outs in professional jargon and offer one another advice on solving technical problems.
Reading between the lines, however, reveals that these too are unpaid services. Apparently, this is how the TV weather presenter gets his photographs, for example. Is this a recent devaluation of the profession, or have I simply not been paying attention? Perhaps I have become a contemptible antisocial figure because I still dare to charge for my photographs. Has photography become so enjoyable that you are simply expected to do it for free?
Free services are invariably perceived as having little value
In my experience, free services are invariably perceived as having little value. You cannot make a photograph for free and expect appreciation at the same time. The weather presenter generally talks about 'pretty pictures'; I have never heard him call them photographs. Yet appreciation is precisely what these people seek. They want recognition as photographers while simultaneously making it impossible by giving away their work.
It probably never occurred to them that they also make life difficult for photographers who must earn their living from the profession. Finally, they greatly reduce their own chances of ever earning anything from their photographs.
It is wonderful if you are so absorbed in photography that you want to do it for free. I can understand that; it is a delightful profession. But consider that it becomes even more enjoyable when you start earning money from it. That is simply the criterion by which our society judges you.
You will find that you can charge for your work—and that 'clients' suddenly value you much more highly precisely because they must pay for it.
