PDA

View Full Version : ocala photographers -long



kevin
Feb. 21, 2003, 03:40 PM
Ok, I usually just come here once in a while and read posts. But now, I want to lodge a complaint against horse show photographers.

First, I previously read some posts on the "off course" forum about how horse show photographers charge. So, armed with that information, I approached the horse show photographer at Ocala about using some photos on our farm's new website.

First I asked, "Can I see your written policy on usage of photographs?" Both photographers who had booths at the show said they (it was their assistants, not the actual photographer)did NOT have one.

Then I asked, "What do you charge to use a photograph for selling a horse on a website?" I about fell over when one said $250 for 1 year's use. I asked the next one and they just said $250 period.

$250!!!!! per photo!!!! Our farm had about 8 horses they were going to put up. I asked a few more questions like quantity discounts, etc. I was told 'maybe' they could do a 'little' off for quantity and that "no" that price did NOT include using any photos for a farm brochure.

Holy you know what! I walked away a little peeved. Then I ran into another big barn who had their website designers WITH them taking their own photos. I picked their brain a little and basically came away with this:

#1, for the kind of money that the show photographer wanted, we could hire a professional photographer to either come to our farm or to the show for less money and we could keep ALL the photos and have all the rights. The web designers said they could give us a couple names of photographers who would do this.

#2, They showed us their equipment and some of the photos that they had taken outside of the ring and they were every bit as good as the ones the professional show photographer had taken - a couple were even better with sharper focus and better timing.

#3, the web designers said that they would use show photos if they were more reasonably priced but since they have gotten so out of hand, it was better economics to take their own.

I tell you, the show photographers lost out big time especially if you count our barn plus what the barn that had the web designers doing.

Unfortunate but I'll be making other plans to get photos from now on.

kevin
Feb. 21, 2003, 03:40 PM
Ok, I usually just come here once in a while and read posts. But now, I want to lodge a complaint against horse show photographers.

First, I previously read some posts on the "off course" forum about how horse show photographers charge. So, armed with that information, I approached the horse show photographer at Ocala about using some photos on our farm's new website.

First I asked, "Can I see your written policy on usage of photographs?" Both photographers who had booths at the show said they (it was their assistants, not the actual photographer)did NOT have one.

Then I asked, "What do you charge to use a photograph for selling a horse on a website?" I about fell over when one said $250 for 1 year's use. I asked the next one and they just said $250 period.

$250!!!!! per photo!!!! Our farm had about 8 horses they were going to put up. I asked a few more questions like quantity discounts, etc. I was told 'maybe' they could do a 'little' off for quantity and that "no" that price did NOT include using any photos for a farm brochure.

Holy you know what! I walked away a little peeved. Then I ran into another big barn who had their website designers WITH them taking their own photos. I picked their brain a little and basically came away with this:

#1, for the kind of money that the show photographer wanted, we could hire a professional photographer to either come to our farm or to the show for less money and we could keep ALL the photos and have all the rights. The web designers said they could give us a couple names of photographers who would do this.

#2, They showed us their equipment and some of the photos that they had taken outside of the ring and they were every bit as good as the ones the professional show photographer had taken - a couple were even better with sharper focus and better timing.

#3, the web designers said that they would use show photos if they were more reasonably priced but since they have gotten so out of hand, it was better economics to take their own.

I tell you, the show photographers lost out big time especially if you count our barn plus what the barn that had the web designers doing.

Unfortunate but I'll be making other plans to get photos from now on.

MyShadeOfPink
Feb. 21, 2003, 03:51 PM
Buy me a plane ticket and I'll come take all the pictures you want!! And you can use them for FREE!!! hehehehehe

::Jennie::
"Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everybody I've ever known."-Invisible Monsters

SpringBreak
Feb. 21, 2003, 05:02 PM
thats rediculous!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif

*Spring Break*
*Simon*
*Homie S*

been there
Feb. 22, 2003, 09:11 AM
yep! A lot of the photographers have gotten WAY out of hand and people are starting to wise up.

There are good ones out there and the more people start communicating with the show promoters, telling them what to look for in a show photographer, these kinds of business practices will hopefully disappear.

In the meantime, seek out and find photographers who will "work for hire" if you have them for a barn shoot - that means YOU own the pics, getting all negatives and rights. And write to your show promoters with a list of photogs that will offer reasonable pricing.

Hunterman1
Feb. 22, 2003, 09:14 AM
BOY... that is definatley something that had to be addressed. I am glad that at least someone had the nerve to speak. You have to let me know the results. I think it is crazy that they charge the fees that they do..YOU GO !!!

Gry2Yng
Feb. 22, 2003, 09:22 AM
About every other year a group at my barn gets a photog to do a photo shoot at the farm. They charge a "farm visit" fee, which we all split and then a "by the roll" fee. I get a 4x6 of all the pics shot from the roll for that fee. I order enlargments from the photog. It is very reasonable and I have many beautiful pics of my horses.

susan b
Feb. 22, 2003, 11:43 AM
This is interesting!

I too read a previous thread regarding photographers and the photographers participating in the thread wanted us all to believe that most of them have these so called written policy on usage. Anyone who said differently was basically blasted.

Now, we can see an example of 2 high profile photographers at a VERY high profile show where neither has the written policy.

So my question is that if the photographer doesn't bother letting the buyer know what the policy is, I guess one could use the photos for whatever one wanted to use them for - web, ads, brochures, etc without recourse from the photographer!!! Would serve them right in my opinion.

Flash44
Feb. 22, 2003, 12:09 PM
I'll have to look this guy up, but I had a pro photo I used for an ad, and he didn't charge me anything. He just said make sure he gets a credit in the ad.

Trixie
Feb. 22, 2003, 01:05 PM
as a pro photographer, a lot goes into each shot - but as a consumer, for the most part, prices are ridiculous. Here's your solution - fly me down, pay for film/lodging costs, maybe take me on a trail ride or something and I'll shoot whatever you want. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

kevin
Feb. 22, 2003, 02:45 PM
I'm glad I'm not just a small minority who feel this way.

Trixie - That is exactly what the web designers said. It is more economical to hire a private professional photographer under the agreement that all the film/photo rights belong to the horse owner than it is to deal with some of these equine photographers out there who seem to have a more than usually high opinion of themselves and their work.

horsephoto
Feb. 22, 2003, 03:07 PM
Just to stand up for my fellow photogs...not everyone charges the same rates for usage. And you should contact the photographer or owner of that business and ask them the rate, since it sounds like the assistants didn't actually know.
Onawa
Equestris Photography
http://horsephotography.homestead.com

kevin
Feb. 22, 2003, 05:21 PM
The were in the booths, taking money. I don't buy the excuse that they didn't actually know. They quoted the price very matter-of-factly and one said that the photographer was very strict about his price. So...they knew.

Lord Helpus
Feb. 22, 2003, 05:50 PM
WOW! I am in Ocala and just bought 3 pictures from one of the professional photographers here. In all honesty, it NEVER occurred to me that, if I want to use one to put an ad in COTH I would have to pay an additional fee.

What really irks me about these guys is that there are 2 groups here and they try to not duplicate rings. That would be fine if a photographer was really TAKING pictures in that ring. On Friday the Modified Adults were in ring one and the "Hi-Low Junior/Amateurs" were in ring 2. The latter group use this division for schooling before their A/O or Jr. classes on the weekend. They go in unbraided and practice. The Mod. Ammies often do not do another division, and are ALL nicely braided and dressed.

Guess which ring the photographer spent 75% of his time shooting? I moved to about 40' away from the professional to take pictures of a friend with my new digital camera and the man got up and walked away and stood at the ingate laughing and talking with friends. (Not turning around and taking pictures of the Mod. Ad. which he easily could have done).

And, in 15 out if 16 pictures that were taken of George, the picture was taken a millisecond too early. My trainer explained that George stalls off the ground and jumps a lovely round jump (which is why he won so much), but that photographers are just so used to snapping at a certain time after the horse gets to the jump, that they really don't even look through the lens anymore to see exactly WHERE in his arc the horse is. I will probably never get a good side view of G from a professional horse show photographer because of this. So I started taking my own One is attached.

But my REAL vent is about the video people..... So disorganized. So Expensive. I did not preview the rounds I ordered ($8/each to look once) because of their disorganization -- it takes forever for them to find the tape/round. But I probably should have since I heard people who were watching say several times "What happened to the first jump?" or "Where is the beginning of the course?"

So for my $170, I have no idea what I will get. Or when I will get it.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

been there
Feb. 23, 2003, 03:31 PM
Its true. Photographers throw big fits about their "art" and their "work" and their "copyrights" and how they "had to go to school to learn it" on and on and on - like the rest of us haven't and are just boring automatons.

But the vast majority don't bother to have a clear cut business way of operating and don't bother to communicate their usage policies. I really think some do this so they can come back to you with their hands held out for more money. It has happened to us several times - paid for photos under an agreement and then they want it changed after the fact...and more money.

Next time any of you buy a photo, if it doesn't say somewhere on the invoice that you are forbidden to use it for anything other than the one pic for personal use, USE IT FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT - ADS, WEB, WHATEVER, MAKE AS MANY COPIES AS YOU WANT. Then maybe these photographers will sit up and take notice - if they threaten you, ask them where it says in writing - that should shut them up! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

susan sexton
Feb. 23, 2003, 06:47 PM
Greetings, been there:

You said:
"Next time any of you buy a photo, if it doesn't say somewhere on the invoice that you are forbidden to use it for anything other than the one pic for personal use, USE IT FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT - ADS, WEB, WHATEVER, MAKE AS MANY COPIES AS YOU WANT. Then maybe these photographers will sit up and take notice - if they threaten you, ask them where it says in writing - that should shut them up!"

It says it right in the Federal Copyright Laws of 1976. It says you cannot use images for commercial purposes without the written premission of the copyright holder, who is ALWAYS the photographer, unless stated otherwise in writing. Easy to find online. I mention this only because I figure you'd prefer to be accurately informed.

Susan Sexton

been there
Feb. 23, 2003, 07:55 PM
yes, but Susan, if the invoice says the same thing whether you buy the photo for just personal use or commercial use and there is no set fee - all negotiated - and there is no written policy on usage, it is just the photographers word against the buyers word. ie if the photo was bought for say $50, whose to say that the agreement was for one time use, unlimited use, or whatever. The photographers are really dropping the ball on this one. You can't have it both ways and you can't expect the CLIENT to play 20 questions trying to figure it all out.

ponyjumper102
Feb. 23, 2003, 08:15 PM
$250????????? That's crazy!!!! I was the show photographer at a show today, and I made $250 total on just the on the spot purchases....not per photo! That's way too expensive! It doesn't costs very much to develope the pictures yourself!

If someone buys a picture from me, they bought it! It has my signature in the corner, and if they wanna use it in an ad, or a brochure, they can. Because they bought the photo and that's final! I'm not gunna charge extra just because I know they're using it to advertice! These photographers are just after the big money, whether they can take a good picture or not!

==========

With that said, I must say one thing in defense of photographers as well. Someone mentioned how photographers can't get a good picture of their horse because of the way he jumps. Unfortionatly, the photographer doesn't know your horse jumps that way, and even if they notice it the first time they see it, they probably won't remember because they see so many horses go in and out. So you've gotta give them credit for getting something half decent sometimes.

But still, I think the prices are getting outragous! Can you guess how much this picture cost for a 8x10?
http://www.geocities.com/bbdetour/VPDewyjumpnamed.jpg (copy and paste)
only $13!!! If you have the talent, you don't need the school, and you don't need to blow everyone away with your prices!

"It takes one to ride, but two to win."

"There is fate, but it only takes you so far. Because once you're there it's up to you to make it happen"

kevin
Feb. 24, 2003, 05:57 AM
Really Susan, as much as I admire your work, you can't really expect the consumer to check the LAW everytime they buy something?!!

Should a consumer, everytime they walk into a antique store, clothing store, tack shop, china shop, etc., look up the law first to make sure that they have a right to use whatever it is that they are buying!!!?

Isn't it the photographers place to put that copyright information ON THEIR OWN PAPERWORK? Come on Susan, don't pass the buck here. It's not flying!!!

arnika
Feb. 24, 2003, 06:27 AM
Maybe it's just me but I can't help thinking it would be easier to buy all the negatives. Then you could use them as you please.

Actually I don't mind buying from the photographer but it has gotten so expensive that I've begun to shoot some of my own and am getting pretty good at it now. I even take them for friends http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

susan b
Feb. 24, 2003, 07:05 AM
Well, if they are charging $250 for one photo for one year, what do you think they would charge to sell all the negatives?

We should start a list of good photographers and one of bad photographers!!

arnika
Feb. 24, 2003, 07:26 AM
So true. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ccoronios
Feb. 24, 2003, 10:27 AM
Wellll - as a videographer with a photographer S.O. ....

Susan is right about the law; and those of you who expect the professional to advise customers of it have a fair expectation. It IS up to us to make sure that you are accurately and completely informed.

To this end, our work should have a copyright symbol and our name and/or signature (ON the pic or ON the tape). When a customer sees this symbol, your responsibility (if you don't know what it means to YOU) is to phone (or e-mail) the professional to ask.

We are proud of our work, but we recognize that not everyone who shows does so with 'disposable income'. I surely didn't - and with that in mind, and believing strongly in the educational benefits of video (and the ego pats of stills), we keep our prices reasonable. We generally allow customers to use for their advertising a still (providing they've purchased an 8x10 from us of that photo) - but we DO request a copy of the ad (or article or whatever). We also generally allow customers to copy their tapes - although, in the case of shows where we dub from masters, we remind them that there is quality loss in successive copies.

www.ayliprod.com (http://www.ayliprod.com)
Equine Video and Still Photography in the Northeast

kevin
Feb. 24, 2003, 11:29 AM
I would be happy to purchase the 8x10 and then be able to use it on the website. That is very reasonable.

Unfortunately, the Ocala photographers were not so reasonable and lost ALLLL of our business.

We had someone take photos from the outside of the ring this weekend with good instructions on how each particular horse jumped with OUTSTANDING results. The previous photos from the Ocala photographers couldn't come close in focus, timing and quality. We retain all the negatives, paid the photographer an hourly fee, and can use them for whatever we want.

Next time, I don't even think I'll bother to take a look at the show photographers. If I want photos, we'll arrange it ourselves.

ccoronios
Feb. 24, 2003, 12:40 PM
Kevin - and others who are "hiring their own"...
I fully understand your feelings - however...

When we provide these services to shows, we have a contract which specifically states that we are the official video/photo-grapher(s), and as such, have the sole right to sell videos or photos at that show. Anyone may, of course, take video or pictures for themselves, but NO ONE is allowed to sell them.

Of course, who knows? But if I am made aware of a situation, I approach the person with the camera and/or the barn/individual who 'hired' them and explain my contract with show management. If they seem to be less than understanding of the meaning of a contract, I go to the show manager and ask him/her to emphasize it. In 8 years of business, I've had to do this only a couple times. Either word gets around and people are sneakier - or they respect the fact that I have many expenses, with equipment, product, help, advertising, travel, hotel, etc. - and act appropriately.

So, while I TOTALLY understand your frustration - as well as your lack of interest in paying what you feel are exorbitant fees - I would be VERY unhappy if you showed up at one of 'my' shows with your hired camera in tow.

www.ayliprod.com (http://www.ayliprod.com)
Equine Video and Still Photography in the Northeast

RodeoGirl
Feb. 24, 2003, 03:02 PM
Interesting.

If Kevin is paying the photographer by the hour and not paying for the photographs themselves, is that still a violation of the contract?

I understand where the photographers are coming from, but it would make me a bit miffed if I were informed that someone I hired to take pictures of MY horse were told they couldn't do so. Especially considering what it costs to show a horse.

mwalshe
Feb. 24, 2003, 03:44 PM
Of course if people really ARE that unhappy with show photogs (my one and only experience with one I paid my deposit and got no proofs or refund so I stopped using them) then they will approach the managers and ask them to stop giving exclusive contracts.

All the signs point to photogs needing to be a bit more customer-friendly.

kevin
Feb. 24, 2003, 05:03 PM
I'd tell you to kiss my a.s

jparkes
Feb. 24, 2003, 05:08 PM
A petition drive by exhibitors could do a world of good! A little competition amongst the photographers would be a good thing! Maybe better prices and less restrictions would follow.

Secretplace Farm
www.spfarm.com (http://www.spfarm.com)

GreystoneKC
Feb. 24, 2003, 05:25 PM
Good call Kevin... I just read this whole thread and I cannot even believe what I just read! You're not allowed to hire your own photographer? That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard! Contract or no contract. It's your right to be there and it seems as though it should be your right to hire someone to take your photos when you're not happy with the people who are.

There seem to be a few problems with show photographers noted here:
1) The photos are way too expensive
2) The photos are not good (timing off, not focused, etc)
3) The photographer isn't even taking pictures of your horse
4) Your usage of a photo you paid for is limited without paying more money

It seems to me these problems are solved if you hire your own photographer. Personally, I remember being extremely ticked off twice at photographers... One time was general when I couldn't afford to buy amazing photos of my horse at Devon because of the prices, and another was when a photographer told me he wouldn't take photos of my horse anymore because I wasn't buying any! My horse was a phenomenal jumper and my mom also takes incredible pictures so I would only buy them when they were really outrageous! That is so unfair...

...for there are wings on these hooves, the speed and power of foam-capped waves...
*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*
Proud member of the artists clique

susan b
Feb. 24, 2003, 05:45 PM
ccoronios, you'd have a tough time enforcing it. You can have the inside of the ring but anything done outside the ring is public domain and newsworthy. As a result, just as you couldn't stop someone taking and selling a photo to the local newspaper, you could not stop someone from taking and selling a photo to a horse owner.

How do you think people report on all this stuff? including people reporting for the Chronicle, websites like Saddletude, US Event Horse, etc.? You have NOOOOOO power!!! The Democrats haven't killed free enterprise in this country yet!!

Lord Helpus
Feb. 24, 2003, 08:14 PM
If there really IS such a "rule" that no one can hire a photographer to take pictures of their own horse (or of any horse), it sounds like restrain t of trade. When I sign the entry blank (or my trainer signs it on my behalf) I agree to abide by the rules of the AHSA.

I am SO GLAD the rules were finally changed to allow people to go off grounds to buy hay/bedding/feed and to bring their own farriers in. Since it was happening all the time anyway, it was an unenforceable rule.

And so is the *Show Photog" rule.

Open letter to all show photographers:

1. If you say you are taking a certain division on a certain day, then MAKE SURE to try to take every exhibitor. I real ize that, in the case of Pre-Greens or Low hunters, this can be an all day obligation, but these are the horses new to the show ring and the owners probably don't have a good picture of their horse already.

2. Do not avoid the 2'6" ring. Exhibitors in that ring want pictures also. They may not be as outstanding as a picture of a jumper over a 5' oxer, but we don't have the same level of expectation either.

3. Price the pictures fairly. At Ocala, a 4 x 6 "proof" was $25 (these are the pictures straight off the roll and straight from the developers). At that price OF COURSE I am going to go home and scan it into my computer and print out an 8 x 10 for myself. I might be more likely to buy your 8 x 10 if the price bore any relationship to the product purchased.

4. Be ready to mail proofs to people who request them. It is very frustrating to show for 3 weeks and not get a decent picture only to have the photographer take a zillion on my last day there. Since they will not be available to be seen until the next day, when I have already left, it is a waste of your time to take them and develop them. But if you would mail me proofs of the last day (upon request, and I would be happy to provide a self addressed, stamped envelope for this purpose), you might make some additional sales.

5. If taking pictures of every horse which enters the ring is not cost effective, then go back to the old way of taking a deposit (which will go toward a purchase) and giving out dots to put on numbers.

Pirating of copyrighted pictures will continue as long as it is so expensive to buy a picture. Remember the old days of computer software? It was SO expensive that law abiding people (yourselves possibly included) thought nothing of borrowing software from a friend to install on their computer. The software companies FINALLY realized that they made more sales, and more profit, if they lowered their prices to a level which was reasonable.

I know I have the right to scan a picture for my own use. It is only a small step beyond that to scan other people's pictures so that they can get enlargements, also.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

[This message was edited by Lord Helpus on Feb. 26, 2003 at 12:19 PM.]

Flashe
Feb. 24, 2003, 08:33 PM
I'd like to get brave here and chime a few things on this thread. I am a pro equine photographer and have been reading this thread with some interest, disgust, questions, and curiosity. I'm hoping not to get ripped to shreads here....

First off, not all show photographers are the bad guys, really. We do both equine events and private farm calls across the US, so believe me, we hear lots of comments good and bad from exhibitors about the previous photographer. And we try to use this to even better our own customer service~which along with quality photos is our number one goal. If you're not happy with us~I won't be around very long, now will I?

Having said that let me say a few things about the pricing issues~No, I don't even agree 100% with the $250.00 fee, but that is that particular photographers' pricing~not everyones. And if I'm guessing right that incidence happened at the HITS Ocala show didn't it? Not trying to entirely defend their pricing, but let me share something I know about that set up...having been approached to work as a photographer for that series I know what they are up against there. While you the exhibtor have the cost of your classes, stall(s), etc.. to be one of the offical photographers at this show the management charges us anywhere between $750.00 to $1200.00 a week for the space we occupy, plus a charge for each electrical hookup, plus the cost of an RV site there is at $150.00 a week,and that's if you have an RV otherwise you have to try and find a hotel (or apt) for several weeks, plus food and of course there's the travel exspense in just getting there. My point in all of this is that it would cost us close to $6000.00-$8000.00 just to be there to work on spec, which to insure that we made enough to cover that kind of output means I'd have to raise my print costs~example being an 8x10 would go for about $60.00 each. Guess what? I choose not to do that venue because I can't look my regular clients who show there in the face and charge them more for that same 8x10 they buy from me at other venues for my standard price. Granted the prestige of that series makes it tempting but again~we're not all bad guys here.

As for hiring a private photographer, well yes the contracted one would certainly be bothered after all he is there to make a living, but I'm not too sure much could be done aside from a bunch of folks throwing harsh words around. However, most of the real pro photographers in the equine world probably wouldn't feel right about taking that job for you out of professional courtesy to the offical show photographer. And most of the true equine professionals would cost you a pretty penny to spend on average 6-8 hours at a show with you. Truth is some will give you all the negs/rights and some will charge extra for those rights. Each photographer has their own pricing structure~meaning perhaps a slightly higher cost for an 8x10 with limited rights included versus lower print cost and purchasing rigths seperately as needed. And YES I agree that the photographer should have their copyright signature on the print and usage fees listed in writing for you the client. Speaking for my company~every photo has our copyright signature and every order form has a complete breakdown of all usage fee cost. While many of you may not agree with usage/copyright fees or maybe don't understand them, try to look at this comparsion~if you were to take your car to a consignment dealer to sell, you'd pay them a fee for their help in selling the car. The main idea behind the copyright is to protect the hard work of the creator from someone else profiting off of it. To be honest,if I'm out shooting a show in 98 degrees for a 14 hour day with little to no break, then take the time to crop, prep,process, and print you a gorgeous 8x10 for $40.00 after paying a vendor fee to show management, travel exspense, housing, etc....and you take that gorgeous image place it in an ad and make a few thousand off of it without paying me a modest copyright usage fee...well is that truly fair to me? I'll agree there are some "pros" out there who shouldn't call themselves "pros" and all I can say is "I'm sorry" to each one of you who has encountered one, but is that all you've experienced? Just those few bad ones? Honestly hasn't anyone of you met and dealt with a real pro equine photographer? I can very proudly say that my clients know we care and that we're there for them 100%. They would also freely tell you just how very hard they see us work and that it's no where near as easy as some think it is. We've even been known to help a person standing outside the ring with their own camera get a great shot. And we are not the only ones who care about you the exhibitor, there are many pro show photographers that feel this way and work just as hard for you. Most of my regular clients aren't that anymore, they're friends too and in some cases like family, especially with the traveling we do.

All I'm asking here are three things; One,please not pass judgement on us all, try to put yourself in our shoes sometime~(really) offer to apprentice for a pro one weekend. Second, if you want to help a show photographers prices come down~work on the show management about the absorbant fees they charge the photographer to be there. Management believes they're providing an opportunity for the photographer and a service to the exhibitors but they want a piece of the profits~Business 101. And third, don't give up on the show photographer....most of us really do care and are there for you the exhibitor.

Thanks for allowing my two cents worth everyone.
RM

LCR
Feb. 24, 2003, 09:32 PM
Many of you feel you are getting ripped off by photographers!
These are business people who have spent a lifetime learning how to capture that split-second image that will sell your horse or become a signature image for your farm. These same photographers have invested many thousands of dollars in equipment and education.
BUT
I don't hear about "your trainers" who find you a horse and then do a shell game behind your back and collect commissions from you and the seller, often many thousands of dollars!

This makes your complaint of $250, paltry indeed!

www.shagya-arabian.com (http://www.shagya-arabian.com)

RodeoGirl
Feb. 25, 2003, 04:36 AM
LCR,

You must not be looking. There are multiple threads right now bashing trainers for everything under the sun, including what you're talking about.

And, I can only speak for myself but $250 is $250 no matter what you compare it to, its an exorbidant price for the use of a photo of YOURSELF.

Liverpool
Feb. 25, 2003, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Posted by Flashe:
To be honest,if I'm out shooting a show in 98 degrees for a 14 hour day with little to no break, then take the time to crop, prep,process, and print you a gorgeous 8x10 for $40.00 after paying a vendor fee to show management, travel exspense, housing, etc....and you take that gorgeous image place it in an ad and make a few thousand off of it without paying me a modest copyright usage fee...well is that truly fair to me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can appreciate many of the points you made, Flashe, but I do think this particular point is worth discussing.

My own feeling is that if I use a purchased photo to advertise a horse for sale, that it is the HORSE that is generating those "thousands of dollars," not the photo per se. I am showing off his conformation, his jump, his gorgeous eye, or whatever... (which, let's remember, cost me thousands to acquire, house, feed, train and show.)

I appreciate what goes into creating a great shot, that it takes training and equipment and just plain hard work. And I am happy to pay for all that when I buy the photo.

However, I think there is a real difference between say, using a purchased photo of my horse in a sale ad for that horse, and creating a coffee table book (which is selling the PHOTOS, not the object in the photo.) In my experience, most pro photographers do not draw any distinction between the two, and I think that is what rubs people like me the wrong way.


Now let me ad, I do believe that the photographer should ALWAYS receive the photo credit and that it is my responsibility to make sure that the credit is included when the ad is laid out. In that sense, while I would not pay for the photo a second time to use it in that ad, I am highlighting the work of the photographer - ie, advertising the quality of the photographer's work at no charge.

And, in answer to your other question - yes, I have met some great photographers. And, naming names, I think Gary Parkin at Sporting Images is one of the greatest I have ever met - his shots are fabulous, he does LOTS of candids in addition to shooting in the ring, and I LOFF him. Hope now that I am back to showing again I will get some more of his shots!

"It's a funny thing about life: If you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it." ---W. Somerset Maugham

Flashe
Feb. 25, 2003, 09:02 AM
Liverpool~

Ok, let's chat about this. First off, I respect your opinion completely..so with that said and understood, here's mine.

YES, it is the horse and all his wonderful talents that are bringing in the money. BUT what is it that helps attract the prospective buyer to the ad and horse in the first place? The perfect image chosen to highlight all those great attributes. You know as well as me, that today's savy buyer tends to look more seriously at an ad with great imagery verus just the typed out info ads or even an ad with a so-so image. When a pro is covering an event, spending those 12-14 hour days in all kinds of weather and such, generally the print cost the exhibitor is paying is simply to cover our cost in being there, our time, and materials. The average exhibitor is purchasing a print as a momento to enjoy viewing privately and most of us base our pricing with that in mind. Copyright/usage fees are generally a seperate item, and again the purpose is similar to that of a patent to protect the creator/owner of intellectual/creative property from others making a profit without the knowledge, written permission, or due compensation for their work.

Not trying to sound crash here,but as you said Liverpool; you've spent multiple dollars aquiring-housing-feeding-training-showing and such to "create" a spectaculor horse that someone in this country just can't live without and when you sell him/her you hope/expect to make a good profit for all your hard work and services, right? The same holds true for me too. Besides the obvious equipment investments I invest so much of myself and time in each image, striving for the perfection that the client envisions~whether it's a performance shot at a show or private farm call or doing the actual ad layout for someone. I look at it this way~all your time in training, showing, and prepping that horse has an innate value, as does mine.

Thanks again for listening and the thoughtful insights.
RM

ccoronios
Feb. 25, 2003, 10:58 AM
Thank you, Flashe, for elaborating on what I was trying to get across - and doing it so eloquently.
It'd be fun to run into you sometime.

www.ayliprod.com (http://www.ayliprod.com)
Equine Video and Still Photography in the Northeast

kevin
Feb. 25, 2003, 12:12 PM
Ok, lets face it MOST people DO NOT make a profit off of a horse. Yes, there are trainers out there who buy and sell sometimes making a profit, sometimes not. But the AVERAGE horse owner out there, once you factor in training, boarding, vet, showing, lessons, etc., will not make anything and will in fact, lose money off of most horses.

That said, MOST horses are sold through word of mouth, seen at shows, trainers, etc. NOT OFF OF A ONE PICTURE AD. There are many posts on this forum about how horses are not selling and the ones that are selling HAVE to be at the shows where people can see them. You photographers are totally over inflating the WORTH of your mostly mediocre horse show photos. Newflash, a horse that wins sells, not your photo.

Also, if you are not business savy enough to negotiate a deal where you can make money at a horse show, maybe you should re-evaluate your decision to be in business for yourselves...just as many here are re-evaluating the WORTH of your photos as being NOT worth $250 and making other arrangements.

Ok, you went to school to learn a trade... is there a point to that? Many here have learned a trade also. Isn't that part of growing up and being an adult? It was your decision to enter an occupation where you might have to stand in the sun all day. Don't complain about it now...or change jobs!

So you had to buy equipment. Well look at some occupation examples: Printers - they buy HUGE EXPENSIVE pieces of equipment, pay office space rent 365 a year but it still only costs $25-$50 to print off 100 business cards - something that is UNDENIABLY important in doing business.

Yes, I have run across good equine photographers and, now I will only use the ones who work for hire.

The TWO, not one, Ocala photographers that are charging $250 for website use, were selling the regular photo for $25.00 - that is a huge jump and unwarranted. So you are telling me that they make money off of the $25 photo but can't make money unless they charge $250 to use the photo on the web? Not likely.

And to the poster who says that no one is complaining about trainer's antics - jeeze! Open your eyes - horse trainers are probably right up there with sleazy used car dealers in reputation!

wimbsy
Feb. 25, 2003, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ccoronios:
I would be VERY unhappy if you showed up at one of 'my' shows with your hired camera in tow.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kevin:
I'd tell you to kiss my a.s<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HA HA HA HA... I haven't really been completly involved in this discussion, but that's funny!

Liverpool
Feb. 25, 2003, 01:01 PM
Flashe, thanks for the response.

If you consider the issue from the point of view of an exhibitor, I expect that you have priced your product fairly at the outset and have covered your cost in what you charge me for the initial photo. I buy the photos at your asking price if I like them well enough, and you get whatever you consider to be a fair profit (or at least what the market will bear.)

Your cost structure doesn't change if I use the photo somewhere later - charging me more to use it in an ad is just additional profit to you - and you want it whether or not I even sell that horse.

Kevin is right, by the way, that most horse owners lose money when they sell. I think one of the most unfortunate things about this sport (and this is a general comment, not specifically directed at you, Flashe) is that people think "oh well, if they have horses and can afford horseshows, they have plenty of money... what's the big deal if we charge a few hundred more in the greater scheme of things?"

I have to say that I have seen very few really fantastic shots of my horses. Most are reasonably well composed, and timed well - but they are not spectacular; they're just good clear photos. I often get equally good shots when I use my own camera - I just get fewer of them per roll.

"It's a funny thing about life: If you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it." ---W. Somerset Maugham

mwalshe
Feb. 25, 2003, 02:04 PM
I too am curious as to where all these fantastically composed, and timed horseshow photos are. Most of the ones I see are mediocre.

As for the "years of training and equipment" peruse this board- you will see lots of photos taken by total amateurs that, timing and composition wise are similar to an average horseshow photographer. I can't comment on sharpness etc. b/c they're all jpg.s but most seem reasonable.

I HAVE seen gorgeous stallion ads, magazine shoots etc. and would be willing to pay big $$ for that kind of quality shot but the average show photo... ???

Flashe
Feb. 25, 2003, 04:15 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kevin:
That said, MOST horses are sold through word of mouth, seen at shows, trainers, etc. NOT OFF OF A ONE PICTURE AD.

You're right and you're wrong Kevin~ however,I did not say horses sell off a one picture ad but I will say again that when dealing with an ad good imagery does help attract attention. Which is in fact the purpose of the image, to attract a prospective buyer, after that the rest is in fact up to the horse. And yes, horse shows are an excellant place to see a prospective horse but they are not the only place people look...if so we wouldn't be having this discussion about the cost of images in ads, would we?

Now before you rip me to shreds again, please read carefully what I am trying to convey...I am respectfully listening to you (and anyone else's) opinions-problems-questions and simply ask for the same courtsey. Fair enough? Again I tell you that "we" (pro photographers)really aren't the bad guys and again apologize to each of you that sadly has encountered what you deem a bad one.

I don't recall saying that we don't make a profit at a show, in fact I seem to remember stating how I have in fact-by choice turned down a very prestigeous series because I did not deem it fair to my clients to raise my prices in order to cover the show managements absorbant fees. Don't worry Kevin~with very reasonable pricing, good quality images, and most important a very strong client base we're doing just fine. And I have certainly never stated my photos cost at $250.00, although some of our paintings have actually sold for more than that. The perseption of value differs from one person to another, one market to another, one print to another. Where I might "value" a simple print of a little girl and pony at $25.00, the mother at that "first show" might value at priceless. And again there is a distinct difference between the cost of a print for the shear enjoyment of the memory if preserves and the use of someones work to turn a profit~any kind of profit. I do hear and understand that most of you don't agree with this distinction, and I can respect your opinions, and only ask that you try to respect ours. Sadly this is a subject that may never be agreed upon. We can only try to enlighten and educate without offending as we try to make a living just as you do.

Oh, Kevin, I didn't say I went to school or had any formal training. In fact I didn't, but I've had a camera in my hands since I was 11 years old and lets just safely say that's over 30 years now. And Liverpool, I actually do look at issues from the exhibtors point of view (and shoot from it too)as I was a Grand Prix Jumper Pro (and Olympic hopeful) for a little over 20 years myself. A good many of the equine pros I know either were or are riders in the venue they cover. Now I do have to be honest here and say that the level of shows we cover are mostly "A" and "AA", but I make it a point to allow time in our schedule to come home and cover the local 4H and Pony Club shows. I believe in those programs, grew up in them, and also know that at that level of show not many real pros cover them. (And I do give a nice discount to them). As for a profession standing in the sun~who's complaining? I love what I do Kevin and half my joy/success is in the clients/friends I'm standing in the sun with/for. Besides I keep a great tan year round!

Kevin and others, I'm not trying to argue or get slammed here. I just happened to have a half day off and thought I'd try to shed some light on questions/concerns. Have a nice friendly chat. I'm happy to answer your questions honestly and openly, as I think most reading my posts have seen, but I'm not going to get in any bad mouthing or bashing discussions. And Liverpool, "Thank You" for your input and for listening. I'll be checking in for questions throughout the night if you'd like to continue chatting. Right now though...it's dinner time!

Thanks again!
RM

jparkes
Feb. 25, 2003, 05:44 PM
I think the answer to all these problems is free enterprise. Shows should be open to any photographer who wants to take pictures and sell them. A good photographer with a good reputation should have nothing to worry about.

Secretplace Farm
www.spfarm.com (http://www.spfarm.com)

prophoto
Feb. 25, 2003, 06:12 PM
Kevin wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ok, lets face it MOST people DO NOT make a profit off of a horse.... once you factor in training, boarding, vet, showing, lessons, etc., will not make anything and will in fact, lose money off of most horses....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of whether an owner makes money off a horse or not, the use of a photo to sell that animal (or promote training or breeding or other equine services)is a COMMERCIAL USE and as Susan Sexton noted, federal US Copyright law states that commercial use may ONLY be granted in writing by the copyright owner, which 99% of the time is the photographer. All professional photographers should be marking their prints with copyright information and include this on their paperwork but it is still up to the consumer to know the law. No court in the land will accept the excuse that you didn't know you could not legally reproduce an image or use it for advertising or other commercial use. As US citizens we are all expected to know the law and ignorance of them is no excuse. Pros should be providing this information for customers but we cannot force them to read it... and with as much clearly written detail that I provide still sometimes I get the response that they just don't understand so I have to assume they are not reading it and educate them one on one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That said, MOST horses are sold through word of mouth, seen at shows, trainers, etc. NOT OFF OF A ONE PICTURE AD. .... You photographers are totally over inflating the WORTH of your mostly mediocre horse show photos. Newflash, a horse that wins sells, not your photo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite sure if this is true ... a good friend (who also happens to be a client just to piggyback on what Flashe said about caring for our clients and developing close relationships with them as part of our way of working) just found 3 warmbloods in FL from pictures on the internet. She flew with 2 trainers to go see the horses - of course she had also received videotapes and talked with the owners before going. It ended that she bought none because they were not as represented and had flaws/inadequacies the owners had omitted in their promotinal materials. The owners were all just owners - not trainers, so the point is twofold: 1. Yes, the pictures on the internet garnered enough interest to pursue possible purchase and 2. sometimes owners are not upfront in their promotional efforts either, intentionally or not -- that is not to say that there are not many owners who are perfectly honest and who disclose all, just to note that there are a few "bad apples" in every bunch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, if you are not business savy enough to negotiate a deal where you can make money at a horse show, maybe you should re-evaluate your decision to be in business for yourselves...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the same could be said for horse owners: why don't they get out of horses if they can't make money? The answer: because they love horses which are their passion and hobby and passions and hobbies do not necessarily mean you will make money off them unless you are serious about making the passion a business and are willing to do what is necessary to be a successful businessperson which includes charging for goods and services that have a value to the customer and making sure all your costs are covered and that you make a margin for your own salary. The same can be said for professional photographers: they love horses AND they love photography AND in many cases they love the people who they serve and wish to help them chronicle the best, move to the next mount or level and retire the champion that needs a break. Sure there are amateurs out there, or even some who call themselves pros but do not run their business with an intent to make a living but instead are hobbyists who get a kick out of getting a few bucks in their pocket that offsets just a tiny fraction of their real costs to provide photograhpy services. Many of the real pros began like this, but it becomes clear very quickly that you must charge enough to cover all the expenses or else you'd better have a rich Aunt Sally who can subsidize your photo hobby.

All the pros I know are not gouging customers - they are trying to make an honest living and are fully within their rights to charge additional fees for commercial uses. And guess what --- they are making a living and many of their customers are paying their prices without complaining or hiring a hobbyist. This means there is a market for professional photographers and also that there will always be some portion of the market that feels they "just can't afford" pro work. This is no different from riders: some will pay for the luxury tack, high end supplements, boarding at the fanciest barn and farrier services from the creme de la creme farrier while others will limp along with beat up old synthetic saddles, put their horse in the cheapest barn or pasture they can find, use the cheapest farrier in town, etc. And what is most odd about all of this, is that it doesn't necessarily equate to how much money they have in their pockets but more it is all about what they find value in. I know some very well to do that spend like misers and others who are pinched for money but who bar no luxury for their horse or their riding.

Just some thoughts on this topic.... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

One footnote: someone said pros do not distinquish between use in an ad to sell a horse and use in a coffee table book. That is probably not true as most pros are keenly aware of the different types of uses (editorial, advertising, commercial product) and understand that pricing licensing for these different uses is done differently. Also as Flashe noted, most pros shooting at lower levels offer some type of discount or pricing strategy to allow lower level riders and owners to also have pro photography. Why? Because most pros love horses and their riders....and recognize that there are vast differences from the top end to the bottom of the market.

Flashe
Feb. 25, 2003, 10:10 PM
For Kevin in particular~

Was just browsing through some of the other areas of the forum and came across an interesting thread that you might just want to take a look at. Under the "Off Course" section there was a very interesting discussion titled "Photo Ads..." and it seems the main topic was, people using bad photos taken themselves for the purpose of selling various horses at several thousand dollars. Also one person noted seeing an ad in a magazine, 1/4 page at $160.00 for one issue, for a Stallion that had a horrible image and wouldn't spark any desire for them as a prospective client.
Please forgive this, but given some of the discussions posted here, I just had to laugh.
As one lady put it why bother posting a photo ad if the seller doesn't take the time to groom, set up the horse, and get a really good photo of them? Seems alot of those folks said exactly what I was trying to express earlier~that they are turned off by a bad image and wouldn't have much interest in the horse. Quality images in ads do attract attention and draw in prospective clients, and again, after that it is all up to the horse. If you the seller have a good eye and talent with the camera, great do it yourself and be creative. I support your efforts 100 percent, truly, but for those of you who need help~talk to a equine professional. We're here to help you.

Off to bed for now! Thanks everyone for listening.
RM

Whitehedge Farm
Feb. 26, 2003, 07:36 AM
Plllllllease send me an email about the photographer you are using if they would consider takeing any other business....My horse is showing in the First Years this week and next.

I ran into the exact same problem with both photographers with the $250 web usage. They would not even tell me what they would charge for a print ad......depends on what I was advertising, etc......depends on who you talk to, etc..very unprofessional IMO. I really want some good photos of my stallion showing- they have some decent shots there but not great for the $$$ they want.

Anne
whitehedgefarm@aol.com

jparkes
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:10 AM
Flashe, if a seller isn't going to take the time to clean a horse up, what makes you think they are going to call a professional photographer to come and take pictures?

I hate to say this but any knowledgable horse person with a camera can take a decent shot of their horse if they want to receive a good response from a sales ad.

Geez, I need to get back into photography and become a photographer hired by individual farms. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Secretplace Farm
www.spfarm.com (http://www.spfarm.com)

Flashe
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:26 AM
jparkes~

You're right, that individual probably won't call a pro, although maybe they should just for some insight. I was just trying to illustrate what a good image does for an ad. Be it a pro's shot or that of a caring owner/trainer, etc..
Believe it or not I have been more than happy to simply give advice to horse owners and trainers doing their own ad photos on what angles or lighting or background or performance would work best in their concept for an ad~no charge, just a simple "Thank You" as payment! Alot of true pros are more than willing to help you~just ask. I promise we don't all bite!

Have a good day "j"!
RM

headsup
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:36 AM
I honestly have real issues with the photographers that charge a fee(usually $35-$45) before they will even take a picture...and of course that's non refundable. The photographer at Raleigh does that...he did do some pictures of everyone at one of the last shows and I must say...I would have been quite upset had I paid a deposit as I found all the timing to be off, etc and never would have bought one. Perhaps another suggestion to photographers would be to print their policy and pricing for additional usage and POST IT at your table so it's common knowledge for people. I find my fiance can take better video than most of the show videographers and my mother can do just as well with her professional grade camera...and neither will charge me a months salary to advertise with it http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I don't have a problem with paying for usage if you take the time to say what it is and costs. If you want me to pay you for it...shouldn't you be a little proactive and let people know right off the bat? Perhaps you will head off some issues that way. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

My ponies don't listen when I yell at them...why the heck would I bother whispering?

kevin
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:52 AM
Prophoto, I believe most of your points are completely without merit.

As I said, most horse owners don't make money on a horse - this was said because another poster/photographer stated that if the horse owner is going to make thousands of dollars selling a horse, why shouldn't the photographer get a part of it. I was just pointing out that most don't and most accept that - so, again, your point is without merit.

Regarding your point on ignorance of copyright law doesn't absolve the consumer - again your point is without merit because the point was that the 2 Ocala photographers DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING and would not GIVE anthing in writing even if i DID PURCHASE THE $250 RIGHT TO USE FOR A WEBSITE, so if I have an invoice saying I bought a photo, it is my word against theirs that I bought it for a website, brochure or not.

Regarding your example of your friend looking at warmbloods in Florida, I would probably be correct that it was the video of the horse that got the buyers down to Florida, the photo was a very small part of it.

And last, do you really think that the alternative is as you put it - to hire "hobbiest"? How totally vain on your part. The web site people who were taking photos that I mentioned in my first post are extreme professionals, very well regarded in their field with an extensive portfolio of equine sites and other commercial sites. And the photographer that we ended up utilizing this past weekend, was also a professional and the photos were much better than the ones that I originally considered buying from the show photographers.

Don't give us "crap" about being misers or pinched for money. I don't people trying to rip me off. Period. And why should I pay more for a LESSOR service? It is NOT a matter of the "crappy pasture or the super show barn", I recieved BETTER PHOTOS for LESS money - your analogy is false.

You sound like the kind of photographer we should all avoid.

kevin
Feb. 26, 2003, 09:04 AM
Whitehedge farm, the photographer I used will not be back in town until week 5, by that time I will be already heading for the Classic in Conyers, GA.

Call around to some photographers to "work for hire" - that is the key phrase. Some won't but a LOT will.

Flashe, this was never a topic about if a nice photo attracts buyers. Usually all that is needed is a photo that shows what the horse looks like - cropped in and clear - a $250 photo is definately overkill. The topic is about getting a good photographer at a decent price and hopfully blackballing the ones that are unreasonable, unprofessional, mediocre and/or with unrealistic fees.

Prophoto wants us all to believe it is a matter of having "crap" or the "really nice", but he or she is so far off the mark...just out in left field is all I'm going to say. It is about hiring a professional who does a GOOD JOB and has good prices with a reasonable usage policy.

And prophoto, if you are listening, it is up to ME, THE CONSUMER, WHO DECIDES WHAT IS REASONABLE OR NOT - NOT YOU AND NOT THE PHOTOGRAPHER(S) IN QUESTION. IT IS MY DECISION IF I WANT TO SPEND MY MONEY AND HOW I WANT TO SPEND MY MONEY. nuff said.

Lord Helpus
Feb. 26, 2003, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by prophoto:

All the pros I know are not gouging customers -

....

Also as Flashe noted, most pros shooting at lower levels offer some type of discount or pricing strategy to allow lower level riders and owners to also have pro photography. Why? Because most pros love horses and their riders....and recognize that there are vast differences from the top end to the bottom of the market.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive me, but pricing photos higher at an A show than at a "lower level" competition seems to me to be the very definition of price gouging. Your time is the same, your equipment is the same, your background/training is the same, your development costs are the same.

But you do not charge the same amout for your finished product. WHY? Because you know that people who go to A shows, in theory, have more money. Would a gas station be allowed to charge more per gallon of unleaded for filling up a Mercedes than a Honda? Or a brand new SUV than an old rattle-trap truck? Of course not. A gallon of gas = a gallon of gas.

Just as a 4 x 6 picture straight from the developers cost the same. If you are going to say that an A show charges you more to be there --- that does not fly, since there are many more horses, therefore much more opportunity to sell pictures at an A show than at a lower level competition. Just as a huge gas station on a busy corner can sell gas cheaper than a tiny gas station on a coutry road. More customers = more efficient pricing.

And, funny how both photographers at Ocala charge the same amount. Coincidence? Nah! I call it price fixing --- they *think* they have a monopoly and so that people will have to pay whatever they charge to get a picture. I say, GOOD FOR PEOPLE WHO BRING IN THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHER. Competition is the essence of the free market. Perhaps losing business to 'photographers for hire' will cause the show photographers to market their product realistically. Then, let the best photographer make the most sales.

Kevin: I will be at Conyers also. Would love to share the cost of a photographer for hire with you if you are going to get one there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

Flashe
Feb. 26, 2003, 10:19 AM
Kevin~

I've been trying to answers questions and concerns as well as take in the insights folks here have expressed, and again I've tried to be very respectful and honest. I read the post carfeully and respond to direct statements/quotes. I asked the same of you, and will ask that you please reread some of your own post~the wording you've used. Truth is you did tell me in one post:

"That said, MOST horses are sold through word of mouth, seen at shows, trainers, etc. NOT OFF OF A ONE PICTURE AD. There are many posts on this forum about how horses are not selling and the ones that are selling HAVE to be at the shows where people can see them. You photographers are totally over inflating the WORTH of your mostly mediocre horse show photos. Newflash, a horse that wins sells, not your photo."

To which I explained that good imagery does help atract attention. I have also tried to express that not all of us are bad guys. And Prophoto wasn't implying that your web site design friends were "hobbyist", again please read the post carefully and with an open mind. What she actually said (again) was:

"Well the same could be said for horse owners: why don't they get out of horses if they can't make money? The answer: because they love horses which are their passion and hobby and passions and hobbies do not necessarily mean you will make money off them unless you are serious about making the passion a business and are willing to do what is necessary to be a successful businessperson which includes charging for goods and services that have a value to the customer and making sure all your costs are covered and that you make a margin for your own salary. The same can be said for professional photographers: they love horses AND they love photography AND in many cases they love the people who they serve and wish to help them chronicle the best, move to the next mount or level and retire the champion that needs a break. Sure there are amateurs out there, or even some who call themselves pros but do not run their business with an intent to make a living but instead are hobbyists who get a kick out of getting a few bucks in their pocket that offsets just a tiny fraction of their real costs to provide photograhpy services. Many of the real pros began like this, but it becomes clear very quickly that you must charge enough to cover all the expenses or else you'd better have a rich Aunt Sally who can subsidize your photo hobby."

You keep referring to $250.00 for a "photo", (which again, even I have said I don't entirely agree with either)but it is not the photo you are paying for, it is for the commerical usage rights to someone else's work. And again~that is just those particular photographers pricing structure partly based on the current location they are at and it is their choice to charge such. Just as you said it is your choice not to work with them. No one here would dispute that choice, but in one post you're bashing us all as a group and in the next you're telling me how you even hired one and then correcting me on the topic matters posted here. I give up. You've oblivously got your mind made up, sorta, and seem to want to only go on the attack rather than have a calm rational chat. I stated earlier I'm more than willing and open to answer questions or concerns but won't get into any bad mouthing or bashing discussions. Hence~I give up on you Kevin. To others who may have been reading these posts with an open mind and intersts, I do hope you've gotten some insights on both sides of the discussions. Am still happy to "chat" with anyone who wishes.

Thanks to all who have listened.
RM

Flashe
Feb. 26, 2003, 10:57 AM
Lord~

I don't believe it is price gouging on my part as you implied, but you are partly right in the cost factors. The "A" and "AA" shows that we (my company) cover generally are multi week series and do in fact have some hefty vendor fees per week, along with my other exspenses, so in all honesty no I don't do any type of discount pricing there. I also do not raise my prices for or at any event that we cover. Now, allow me to explain the other side of the coin here please...yes, I do sometimes give a little discount to the local 4H and Pony Club show. I also make a hefty donation to each club. Why? Because first off, these two shows are right here where I live and I have (when not traveling)watched these kids growing up, it is personal. Besides which the park where the show is doesn't charge me a fee of any kind, I don't have travel cost, and I happen to know for an absolute fact that these two shows never have any kind of photographer unless I volunteer to cover them. So the real reason for why I treat this "lower level" different is strictly personal, selfish as that may be. I don't change my pricing at any other show, nor do I change my quality at either level. If that's really price gouging, then maybe I am guilty, but at least it's done out of pure love for the kids and I won't apologize for that.

As for your analogy of the gas stations, got to be honest, I live outside of the biggest tourist area in the country, so it's quite backwards here. The better the location, the higher the gas. I actually drive 20 miles from home to get gas, so that one was lost on me. Sorry!

Not saying that no one has a right to hire who they wish, but I must tell you that hiring a photographer privatley won't necessarily solve your grips. You still have to pay them a day rate and if they shoot film probably a per roll cost, and unless you check out their work first hand in advance you have no way of knowing what you'll get. Besides which whether you agree/like it or not the offical photographer at most upper level shows does have an exclusive contract and if show management finds another pro photographer (private hire or not)they, management, have the right to charge them the very same vendor fees. I know this first hand and got to tell you I will no longer do private hire at a show if that risk exist. Again~I'm simply trying to give insight here and help. You are all free to make your own choices, just think them through and research carefully.

Thanks!
RM

Liverpool
Feb. 26, 2003, 01:00 PM
I would be very surprised if the show management would really charge vendor fees to a privately hired photographer at a show whom they have NOT contracted with to provide services. (I am not saying it isn't true, just that I would be amazed if they could get away with it.)

Would the "private" photographer then have the right to compete with the "official" pro and offer photos to all exhibitors? Hmmmm.

Thank goodness Mr. L has gotten so good with our camera. His shots are generally as good as the ones I see offered for sale at the shows I have been to, and he takes a lot more of them, (Not to mention that he takes direction well: "Let me remind you, there are to be zero shots of MY butt,... thank you." LOL)

I guess in fairness it is hard to make the adult horses look too spectacular - and his are not - but then, neither are the pro's.

I will do thirds with LH & Kevin at Conyers if the pro is really terrific, though. I'd love some *really fabulous* photos.

"It's a funny thing about life: If you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it." ---W. Somerset Maugham

susan b
Feb. 26, 2003, 02:32 PM
Flashe, I think you are being pretty unfair to Kevin.

Most of what Kevin addressed was to prophoto, not you, so why are you getting offended? The only thing Kevin posted to you was the one point of this thread not really being about having a good photo or bad photo, but rather the out of control prices and usage policies that many are charging. I agree with Kevin and many here obviously do to.

Also, I don't see the contradiction that you are speaking of. As I see it, the other point is not whether to use a pro or not, but it is to use a pro that does "work for hire" instead of getting paid on on-going royalties fees.

Either way, yes you need a proficient photographer and either way you still "might" get a good photo. In my opinion, assuming you have done your homework and hired a photograher you know does good work, you have a better chance of getting ALL the photos you need for ads, fliers, & websites at a better price with a "work for hire" than dealing with a prima donna photographer who wants to charge you for what they consider their "precious artwork" and then charge you again, and again, and again, and again, for basically doing the same one-time work.

been there
Feb. 26, 2003, 04:33 PM
Flashe, I agree with Susan, Kevin hasn't done anything to you for you to be so offended. I don't get it.

Also, this post of
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well the same could be said for horse owners: why don't they get out of horses if they can't make money?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is laughable. Most horse owners aren't into horses as a business!!! But you photographers - here and in previous threads - have complained and insisted over and over again how being a photographer is a business, which it is. So the two really don't compare.

Then, you post <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>it is not the photo you are paying for, it is for the commerical usage rights to someone else's work.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well aren't all businesses utilizing someone's work for commercial usage? Isn't just about everyone's job - from the manager at Coca-Cola to the guy working at Wal-mart - all their work is "commercial". For that matter, how about private schools? They educate my kids but I wouldn't expect my kids to, after they become adults, to HAVE to pay them everytime they get a paycheck!

prophoto
Feb. 26, 2003, 05:26 PM
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin.... you sound so bitter and unhappy and narrow minded and uninformed in your post. None of my post was confrontational or meant to be rude yet that is the response you give back. You do the same to Flashe who has also tried to give positive and informational feedback. Why is that?
I wish you some good vibes in your life, something wonderful to help you past all this anger enveloping you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As I said, most horse owners don't make money on a horse - this was said because another poster/photographer stated that if the horse owner is going to make thousands of dollars selling a horse, why shouldn't the photographer get a part of it. I was just pointing out that most don't and most accept that - so, again, your point is without merit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I understand your point that most people don't make money on horses but message boards are for many people to make their points, not just for you to have only yours acknowledged. MY POINT was that horses are a hobby and hobbies DO NOT usually make an income for those involved in them. On the contrary they usually cost money to be involved. Businesses however are structured to make money for their owners - otherwise they'd just be hobbies, so there is a big difference between the two.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regarding your example of your friend looking at warmbloods in Florida, I would probably be correct that it was the video of the horse that got the buyers down to Florida, the photo was a very small part of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't really matter what finally sold her on going to look - she was ATTRACTED BY THE IMAGE she saw initially. If there had been no image, it is quite possible she never would have even found these horses. Don't kid yourself, good images are important to marketing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And last, do you really think that the alternative is as you put it - to hire "hobbiest"? How totally vain on your part. The web site people who were taking photos that I mentioned in my first post are extreme professionals, .... And the photographer that we ended up utilizing this past weekend, was also a professional and the photos were much better... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanity had nothing to do with my response - reality did. You are correct - there are more than just hobbiests out there providing photography services. Some friends, parents, siblings and significant others do it for free. Some web designers do it so that they can then charge you to put it on a web site for your farm/stallion. Others might do it at a discount over going rates because it is just a bit of bonus revenue for them while their main income is derived from charging fees for their design work. Some very hungry newspaper photographers or student photographers might do it at a low fee because they don't know what they are really worth or are being squeezed by all the big conglomerate papers and magazines who are trying to rip them off and pay them less than they did 20 years ago (adjusted for Cost of Living) while insisting on perpetual rights to use forever when traditionally editorial photography (reporting in mags) is sold as a one time North American use in the publication and additional uses cost more. (Read about the Tasini case or the National Geographic case for more about this.) Any of these might be great photographers or not-so-great just as is true with all professions and all groups. But the reality is that none of these has the costs of the show photographer to recoup, none has the contract to be sole photography provider to exhibitors and those doing for-hire work for you or others might find themselves removed from the show grounds by show management.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Don't give us "crap" about being misers or pinched for money. I don't people trying to rip me off. Period. And why should I pay more for a LESSOR service? It is NOT a matter of the "crappy pasture or the super show barn", I recieved BETTER PHOTOS for LESS money - your analogy is false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kevin, the analogy was about the differences in people, some who pinch pennies and others who spend lavishly and ALL the various types in between these two extremes is not crap -- it's about real life. Look around you, people choose different kinds (which means quality and pricing and features) of cars, homes, clothing, food, and all else. This is just a fact of life and one that is very apparent to anyone who is willing to look for the truth. Why do you think there are McDonalds and also Olive Gardens/Chili's and the 4 star eateries of our major cities? Because there are different markets to serve and a company positions itself to serve the market it is targeting, not all the markets available. This is just simple economics, not rocket science and my example was just to point out these basic true to life differences, NOT to indict you or anyone else as a miser. I think you are taking this way too seriously. If you can get what you want at the price you want, go for it (remembering that your work for hire person may be ejected from a show because of contractual obligations). If pro photographers can get what they want at a price they want, they should also go for it. It's a free world, Kevin, and while you are free to do as you please and vote with your wallet, so is the professional business person free to structure their business and their pricing as they wish. If we were all so out of line, none of us would be able to continue in business -- but we do, so we must be doing something right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Regarding your point on ignorance of copyright law doesn't absolve the consumer - again your point is without merit because the point was that the 2 Ocala photographers DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING and would not GIVE anthing in writing even if i DID PURCHASE THE $250 RIGHT TO USE FOR A WEBSITE, so if I have an invoice saying I bought a photo, it is my word against theirs that I bought it for a website, brochure or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kevin, you seem to have a real wall blocking you from accepting that US COPYRIGHT LAW states that a creator is not required to have their policies in writing nor even to show the copyright symbol on their work. (I happen to think it is good business practice to provide your policy in writing but it's not "required".) Each work is copyright protected at the "moment of creation" and the owner is the person who creates that work unless there is a written contract for other arrangements. The LAW states that YOU as a consumer MUST HAVE A WRITTEN SPECIFIC RELEASE OF RIGHTS FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER IN ORDER TO USE THE PROPERTY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER COMMERCIALLY. Your argument that it would be your word against theirs as to what you actually purchased is not a valid one and if you use work that you do not have a written release for, you risk prosecution for copyright violation. That is the law, simply, and not my interpretation. Hopefully, this post will help to educate you on the law - if not, that's your loss and your risk because also as noted, ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law. Instead of continuing to argue on with ridiculous false assumptions of what you can and cannot do under US copyright law, you would be wise to go read about it at the government's website.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You sound like the kind of photographer we should all avoid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a news flash for you -- my clients love me and I love them. They regularly call to tell me how much they love my work and send notes of appreciation while referring others to me. I give them what they want at a decent price and I am fair to them in every way, just as I wish to be treated when I am a consumer. I have made more good friends, lifelong friends, from my clients than you could ever imagine. For those riders who do not choose to be clients, that is their choice and they are welcome to it. After all, it's a free world and one size does not fit all.

Flashe
Feb. 26, 2003, 05:38 PM
Susan and Been There (great name by the way!)~

I apologize if my writing came across as sounding offended, wasn't meant to really. Perphaps I too am guilty of having read a post wrong~I was just trying to suggest that maybe Kevin should reread some of his own wording as well as rereading other's post more carefully, as he was misquoting some things that had been said, both of mine and others. And while the quote you're referencing about horse owners and business wasn't mine, all ProPhoto was doing was using the illustration of horse owners/breeders/trainers who are in the equine business~again breeding or training or professional riders, that don't necessary make alot of money at it but continue to do it because it's what they love....and the same is true for pro equine photographers. Some folks in the equine industry, whatever sector they fall in, do make a nice living though because it is their sole business and they work very hard at it. Speaking for myself, yes equine photography is my business 24 and 7, but it's also my passion. I'm just blessed to be able to combine the two. And yes, Been There, I (and other pros)know that not every horse person is in the horse business. We weren't trying to imply that was the case.

You may not believe this but I really do understand where you're coming from, as I mentioned earlier, I myself was a compeitor for 20 years. I started as a kid in 4H and Pony Club, the foundation I got there took me all the way to the Olympic Trials. I remember what it was like to get a photo from a show, some of my fondest memories in life are hanging on my walls still. And most pro equine photographers could share a similar story of passion for both horses and photography~that's why we do this for a living. Want to know a little secret of mine...the very best "paycheck" I get is when we arrive to set up for an event and before I can barely get out of the truck am greeted by a hug from an exhibitor saying how glad they are to see us again! That's what makes my event a success! And on the flip side~guess who has the challenge of winning you fine folks over when we come in and replace the previous photographer? For the record I can proudly say we're batting 100%

Um, regarding Been There's analogy for commerical use, honestly I'm not too sure I followed your example. When I refer to commerical use of a copyrighted image, that is the use of one's copyrighted photograph in a commerical publication (magazines, books,etc..)or placement on an internet web site for the purpose of advertising a stallion, selling a horse, training, etc..to make a profit/sale for the client licensing the image. And again, each creators/photographers copyright usage fee can in fact vary based on numerous factors, and yes some may in fact be a little high for your budget, but that's not going to be the case with every photographers pricing. And again, YES I totally agree that each photographer should have a written policy on their copyright usage fees available to you the client. We do and all the pros I work around certainly do.

And lastly to Kevin~if I offended or picked on you I do apologize. Perphaps I just got a little frustrated in trying to reason with you, and felt a little picked on myself. I really am just here to try and chat in a friendly manner about your questions and concerns. I am a professional equine photographer by choice~by love of the two worlds.

Just my two and a half cents worth.
RM

been there
Feb. 26, 2003, 07:27 PM
Wow, prophoto. From your last post, I'd avoid you like the plague. - narrow-minded? Bitter, uninformed? I should remind you that none of kevin's posts resorted to name-calling as yours has.

You know, anytime you go into a conversation, business agreement, friendship, or anything with another person and they immediately resort to quoting the law, you KNOW you are in trouble with that kind of individual!!!

Prophoto and flashe, in my opinion, this thread is the about the difference of photographers who work for hire and those who don't. I choose to use one that works for hire and again, many here seem to want the same thing.

I really don't think photographers who do this are as hard up as prophoto makes them sound. I think that is just their business model, it makes their clients happy and they are more successful at making money this way whereas some of the others who don't do this apparently are not as successful and have to try and suck what they can out of what little business they are getting. I really believe it is as simple as that.

Flashe
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:10 PM
Hello Again~

I'd like to try something different here...you guys game? I've tried to answer your questions/concerns as best as I can and have been thinking about some of the postings alot this afternoon. So I'd like to ask you all some questions, sorta like a survey, based on various comments I've read over the past couple of days. All I ask is that you be honest, the questions are meant as a tool for us both to learn something from, so again please answer honestly. They are geared towards horse show photos, and since Ocala was mentioned I'm guessing mostly Hunter/Jumper shots, so if it's a jump shot please reference at what height the jump is.

1)How do you define a mediocore photo?

2)What's your idea of a great shot?

3)And a bad shot?

4)In the last 6 months have you met a pro photographer you would deem good? If so where and what made him/her good to you?

5)In the last 6 months have you purchased a photo from a show? And why?

6)Do you work a fulltime job? And believe you're entitled to a fair wage/profit?

7)Do you agree that a good pro equine photographer who's sole business is photography (meaning not a part time job or hobby)is entitled to make a fair profit for their work?

8)If you were putting together an ad for the purpose of promoting your stallion or selling a great horse, and you had no camera skills(I know everyone can point and shoot, but "pretend" for moment)would you work with a good pro photographer and be willing to pay a fair copyright usage fee for a quality image?

9)How do you define the term "value"?

10)Imagine you're doing my job~you're outside the jumper ring, or inside for a halter class, you bring the camera up to shoot~what do YOU see?


I appreciate your playing along here and again I only ask that you give real honest answers. If anyone wants they can certainly direct any of those questions to me as well. These are the same questions that not only do my clients but magazines ask me in interviews.

Thanks again!
RM

Flashe
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Prophoto and flashe, in my opinion, this thread is the about the difference of photographers who work for hire and those who don't. I choose to use one that works for hire and again, many here seem to want the same thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should know that most pro equine photographers actually do both show photography in the official capacity and private hire. I do private work every week almost and cover events across the country too. I also freelance for several magazines. So I certainly don't see anything wrong with private hire work, nor do most pros. The only concern would be in a show situation where the show management has a contracted photographer for the event, because there would be the risk of being asked to leave the grounds (and yes the show management can do that~it's their show afterall), in which case you'd still have to pay the private pro for their time whether or not they shot one photo of you. I realize that sounds a bit unfair to you, but a written contract between a show manager and his vendors-photographer,tack, or food is going to take priority. Especially at the upper level show series. So I would recommend that you check with management before making that kind of arrangement. Whereas you may have the means to hire a private pro, please remember there are many more exhibitors that can't do that and rely on having a show photographer there. And again, we're not all big bad wolves! Promise!

Thanks!
RM

prophoto
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>- narrow-minded? Bitter, uninformed? I should remind you that none of kevin's posts resorted to name-calling as yours has.....they immediately resort to quoting the law, you KNOW you are in trouble... in my opinion, this thread is the about the difference of photographers who work for hire and those who don't.....
I really don't think photographers who do this are as hard up as prophoto makes them sound. I think that is just their business model, it makes their clients happy and they are more successful at making money this way <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Been There,
Yes, Kevin's posts SOUND bitter, narrowminded, angy and uninformed, even Flashe picked up on this -- I never said that is what he was and I certainly did not intend those words as name-calling or as a rude assault, I only called it as I saw it and this is how he comes across: so angry at EVERY pro photographer and no matter that we have gone to great lengths to try to explain the intricacies of our business, the whys and the hows, the legalities, the reasons for certain policies, even agreeing with him on the need for pros to make written policies available and charge fairly. But still he rants on about how terrible we all are, apparently because he can't get over his one unpleasant experience with photographers in Ocala. Truly I meant what I said, that I hope something good comes his way because that kind of overwhelming anger is not good for anyone.

As for sharing information on copyright law - that is my obligation as a pro because it is part of my business and that of all other photographers. It is incomprehensible that this information is just skipped over here and still Kevin rants on about how he can do as he wishes and "they have to prove what they sold him" not to mention now even the act of sharing this information is looked on as threatening. The information given on copyright is for your benefit and all others here - not to threaten or otherwise assault you. It is the law and it affects all of us in the photography business just as it does in other creative industries. Copyright law affects everyone - think of books, videos, artwork, music and so much more. It's just a part of life and so education on it has been presented to benefit all who will accept it. If you don't (not you personally BT), you can always go read up on it yourself if indeed you want to be educated.

Yes, this thread has been about the different types of photographers and how they do business to which both Flashe and I have contributed our views as working pros. I would think that knowledge seeking individuals would want to hear "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak, rather than denigrating us when we try to explain how the biz works.

As for "making other photographers look hard up", that was not my point at all - if you had read and understood my words you would see that I was trying to explain the reasons why most do work for hire. This is something working pros understand because we have to - it is an integral part of our world. And if you'd read my first post, you'd also know that many will work themselves right out of business using the work for hire model if they are not charging enough to cover all their expenses and for the value they are giving clients. That is a business 101 basic premise: make more money than you spend.

In closing, I agree with you: everyone has the right to do as they wish and they usually do just that all along a broad spectrum of possible actions, another point I made in both posts. Really, I am not here to fight with anyone, only to help people understand what our business is about. That means I am offering something of myself and it sure would be nice to not be met over and over again with rudeness and remarks like yours and Kevin's -- "you are the kind of photographer we should all avoid". Actually, I'm not and I too could tell you stories I've heard from my clients of others that probably should be drummed right out of the business - I certainly could not support their shoddy tactics or practices. But what would that solve, the complaining & moaning I might contribute here? Nothing. Who learns anything of value from it? No one. And so I came to try to share something of value, of knowledge of an area that you most likely have no real knowledge of unless you too are a pro photographer. You can believe it or not, most of us in this profession have a real love for our customers or we wouldn't be in this business. And many of our customers love us right back.

Flashe
Feb. 26, 2003, 08:56 PM
Thank You ProPhoto~

I was beginning to feel like I was/am on a desrted island with no search crew enroute!

I keep telling them we're not the enemy here~that we truly do care or we sure wouldn't keep trying, now would we?

Thanks again!
RM

susan b
Feb. 27, 2003, 06:44 AM
Flashe, you and prophoto "may" not be the enemy, I don't really know as I don't think I have ever met you or tried to buy photos from you. But, I have to tell you that many folks are angry at the way photographers have treated them. This has showed up on this thread and the before mentioned one too.

As far as Kevin is concerned, prophoto, I didn't take it that way at all. He does sound angry at the Ocala photographers but he apparently went out and hired another professional quite successfully and sang praises about that photographer. Maybe you need to reread his posts before you try to phsyco-analysis his state of mind and say that he seems angry at ALL photographers....or is narrow-minded....if that isn't an assault or name-calling...well I'm sure most will draw their own conclusions.

As far as the getting kicked out of a venue. I don't think so. I personally was at Dressage at Devon one year and someone had their own private hire photographer. The 2 "official" photographers "hung out" with the private hire during some of their free time and seemed not at all concerned with the fact that the person were there. The private hire couldn't shoot in the rings buta couple of THE SHOW ORGANIZERS directed them to some good places to stand outside the ring based on where the horses were going to be entering and exiting (when the rings were halved). And again, I was at a kuering once where they had an "official" photographer. There were at least a couple of other photographers and/or website people there taking photos for their clients right there in the very small environment of an approval site. No one seemed concerned at all. And NO ONE was asked to leave.

Lord Helpus
Feb. 27, 2003, 07:27 AM
The Ocala photo situation WAS very frustrating. Two sets of photographers --- charging the exact same prices (no one has followed up on this aspect of price fixing) taking mediocre pictures, at best. Or, more often, saying that they would be taking pictures of a certain class, and then, the next day, having a total of 15 shots from a huge class of pre-greens or Schooling hunters.

I will answer the quesation of what, to me, is "mediocre" picture taking:

1. The show photographer stands only at the end of the ring, so that he can take pictures of 2 rings simultaneously. Therefore, virtually every shot taken is a close up of the front end of the horse coming at the camera. No side views.

2. Because of covering 2 rings at the same time, and standing at the end, no thought is given to background -- be it a pole or an ugly tent, the picture gets snapped.

3. Not looking AT THE HORSE --- as stated before, my horse stalls off the ground before making his jump. He won 13 classes in 3 weeks doing this, so I consider this a positive trait. And yet picture after picture taken by the pro's get him still rising to the jump. I have a digital camera which takes 15 frames/second at the highest resolution. When I would be taking pictures of my horse, I woud see "the frame" that the pro's kept snapping. But it was the next frame, 1/15th of a second later, that was the good picture.

A pro should be able to adjust his timing, IF HE CARES, to snap at the right moment. Seems like these guys didn't care -- talk about photographers for hire. These guys were probably paid by the day to work for the company that had the contract with HITS. If they were the owner of the company, I can't see them making a living doing this.

4. This is not part of the "taking" but part of the frustration with Ocala: If a good picture was taken, there was no way to get multiple copies or an enlargement in a timely fashion. 2 weeks, Thank You. If you needed extra copies in a hurry, your only recourse was to go to a K-Mart or Eckerds and make a copy yourself. (Note: Picture had no "C" on the front and was not signed. Yes there was a sticker on the back, but, once the original had been copied, there is nothing to indicate who took the picture). When it takes 60 seconds to make a copy and the Show photographer cannot get you one for 2 weeks, I will look into using my own photographoer next time.

And having an absolute policy about not sending proofs, even with a stamped self adressed envelope. This is EXTREMELY frustrating because the only day MY ring had pictures taken of it was the day before I left.


----- Yes, I did buy a picture from Ocala. Would I have bought more if better ones had been taken? OH YES! (Even at the exorbitant price asked.)

Yes, Professional photographers deserve to make a living. But they also have to be good enough to call themselves "Pro's" before they deserve it. Both in the actual taking of the pictures and in servicing their customers. I don't think that the 2 outfits in Ocala qualified under these criteria.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

Saddith
Feb. 27, 2003, 08:10 AM
I have been reading this thread with mixed feelings.

I agree that photos seem outrageously priced. Very rarely do I sell photos to riders - if I do it is through and at the request of the magazine that I shoot for. I don't charge what the "official show photographers" charge only because I am not in it to make money - if I was then it would be different, and I would have to charge the same prices.

But I know what goes into taking and printing each photo. So on that end, I can understand why they charge what they do. Big venues are not the place to make money really. It is very hard to clear profits when you have on average 1500 horses, showing multiple days in multiple rings. Overhead at larger shows, is well, larger. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Like Indio for example, there are 8 rings running at once? Now, lets say you found some friends to help you out by taking pics (and those aren't pros) and you hired 7 of your friends, you would still want to float them $50 bucks a day (which in my mind is very low) that would be $350 bucks a day, times 5 days that would be $1750 a week just to pay photographers! Lets hope you don't have to equip them - if they have there own that would be great, but even then you have 7 photographers (plus yourself) taking pics, that is rolls and rolls of film, to buy and develop.... and most do not have their own labs. Jumpshot does, but they are in the minority. So you pay for film and processing and reproductions... It adds up. Quick. And even if your timing is spot on, maybe the horse doesn't put his ears forward, maybe the rider ducks, maybe you are one the off side and the braids don't show... So you take all these pics, just to have the customer pick one photo - maybe. There are no guarantees that anyone will buy anything, even if they are the best photos you have ever taken!! Photographers take a big risk by just mass shooting. I think that is why some photographers have begun sign ups - it is hopefully a guarantee of a sale. It also cuts down on the need to have to hire additional photographers.

And when it comes to commercial stuff - it is just the business to charge more for photos to promote your product. There isn't a set fee schedule - each photographer makes their own - as people have had experiences with. But as a professional photographer, I would have to reevaluate if I noticed my potential customers going out and hiring personal photographers instead of using my photos. Either its a price issue or a quality issue.

That is the main reason why I do not get into that side of the business. That and I enjoy taking pictures - it is my hobby. I am afraid that once I started doing it full time that it would become work and I wouldn't enjoy it anymore. I see what these people go through and I am happy that I can shoot what I want pretty much, when I want. And, I don't feel too much pressure if I screw up a shot, because there is a real pro taking back up photos. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LoriProphoto
Feb. 27, 2003, 08:54 AM
Lord Helpus said :
I have a digital camera which takes 15 frames/second at the highest resolution.

I am curious as to which digital camera it is that takes 15 frames per second in high resolution?

Lori Schmidt

Lori Schmidt
Equine Prophoto
http://groups.msn.com/EquineProphoto

Flashe
Feb. 27, 2003, 09:59 AM
Thanks "Lord" for your answers~ (sorry for delay in responding had to work this morning!)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1.Therefore, virtually every shot taken is a close up of the front end of the horse coming at the camera. No side views.
2. Because of covering 2 rings at the same time, and standing at the end, no thought is given to background -- be it a pole or an ugly tent, the picture gets snapped.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can't honestly answer that one, because I don't know if he was working on reservation request in one ring while trying to do a general coverage of the other. I do agree that background is important (I hate poles myself!!), however I will have to say (not defending here)there are venues I've worked where the background was less than desirable but because of lighting issues, ie..direction of the sun when shooting outdoors, I had little choice in changing my angles. What I then try to do is change the depth of field on my camera settings so that the "junk" is somewhat hazed/blurred out in the background. I will also say that if that little trick isn't possible to utilize then yes, I would opt to shoot a more tight in frame on the subject, ie..a closeup.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3. Not looking AT THE HORSE --- as stated before, my horse stalls off the ground before making his jump. He won 13 classes in 3 weeks doing this, so I consider this a positive trait. And yet picture after picture taken by the pro's get him still rising to the jump.A pro should be able to adjust his timing,...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again speaking strictly for myself here~no arguement from me, watching the horse is key in knowing the time to shoot him/her. We study the jump course just as the riders do, find our best fences to target (taking in all the usual factors-light, background,angles,etc..) and whenever possible we watch the horses in the warm up. Now one advantage I have going for us is that we shoot digital and can "preview" our shots as we go so to speak,along with watching the rider over the first jump or two that we may not be focusing on for a shot. I am familiar with your horse's "style" and will admit that I have had it throw me off, but as soon as I see it the first time, we make the necessary adjustments for the next jump. With the Hunters, it's a bit easier given that you'll have multiple trips we can work with. Most of the pros I work around pretty much do the same.
(And "Congrats" on the 13 wins~very impressive!)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 4. This is not part of the "taking" but part of the frustration with Ocala: If a good picture was taken, there was no way to get multiple copies or an enlargement in a timely fashion. 2 weeks, Thank You. And having an absolute policy about not sending proofs, even with a stamped self adressed envelope. This is EXTREMELY frustrating because the only day MY ring had pictures taken of it was the day before I left. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a hard one for me to respond to because as I mentioned we shoot with digital cameras and have our own production trailer, which enables me to do prints and proofs on site. I know one of the photographers in Ocala was/is shooting film (don't know about the other)and I don't believe he has the ability to process anything on site, so his two weeks is probably to allow time for processing and shipping. Don't really know what to say about the no proofs being sent out,most film pros I know either send proofs or have them on their web site. Again with myself we do proofs two ways~on site, our viewing stations are updated every couple of hours and then within 24-48 hours after an event ends they're all posted on our web site for approx 3 weeks of viewing. And in the circumstance that someone doesn't have internet we will create proof sheets for them.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes, Professional photographers deserve to make a living. But they also have to be good enough to call themselves "Pro's" before they deserve it. Both in the actual taking of the pictures and in servicing their customers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I can possibly say to that is "Thank You" on behalf of real pros everywhere. And I hope that some of responses here have been helpful, I know yours have been to me. I'll make a deal with you on behalf of my fellow pros~you don't give up good pros and we'll give you our best!

Thanks again!
RM

Lord Helpus
Feb. 27, 2003, 10:19 AM
The camera that takes 15 frames/sec in continuous mode AT FULL RESOLUTION is the Olympus 100rs.

It was made for professional photographers shooting action shots but has been discontinued now. You can still find new ones on eBay or at large discount stores. It has a 7x optical and 3x digital zoom, plus a mount for adding a telescopic lens. But I can take pictures of any jump in a hunter ring with the 7x zoom.

Make sure, if you want one (latest price I saw was about $500 -- the original price was $2000), it is made in USA, not a gray market camera. Olympus USA will not honor foreign made cameras.

The best feature is that it takes pictures before you start to take pictures! And then it saves the last 5 frames once you fully depress the shutter. So, with minimal practice, you can get a horse from take off --&gt; starting to land which = about 8 frames. And one frame will almost always be at the right moment.

At Ocala, both photographers were taking with film. I asked why they didn't use digital and the girl at the booth looked at me as if I was not speaking English.

I finally brought my camera out the last week when I realized that I was not going to get good pictures from the Pro's. If I haven't already posted one of mine, I will do it now. (NB: I could not move around the ring since I was taking care of the horse at the ring and had to stay relatively near the in-gate to be available when he came out. So the pictures I took were ones I could get from near the ingate. When I get home to my digital editing program, I will remove the poles behind the horse)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

[This message was edited by Lord Helpus on Feb. 27, 2003 at 01:27 PM.]

Flashe
Feb. 27, 2003, 10:41 AM
Hey Lord~

Is the rider in your shot by any chance Lincoln?
And what's your horse's name? He looks very familar to me~he's very handsome by the way!

RM

kevin
Feb. 27, 2003, 10:54 AM
Ok, made some phone calls and found out this:

#1, when hiring a private hire photographer, the business transaction is considered to take place at the photographer's place of business. The business is agreed upon either at their business or over the telephone located between the client and photographer at their business - NONE OF IT IS CONSIDERED TO TAKE PLACE AT THE SHOW GROUNDS.

#2, Even if this private hire photographer "bumps" into someone AT the showgrounds and the person also wants to hire them, the BASIS for the business transaction is still at the photographer's place of business - ie, the client will be billed with point of sale equipment at the photographer's place of business, proofs will be mailed from the photographer's place of business, and the photographer will be further contacted at their OWN place of business.

The distinction is that the photographer is NOT doing business out of a paid for booth ON THE SHOWGROUNDS. The point of contact is NOT AT SAID BOOTH, proofs are NOT PICKED UP AT SAID BOOTH, get the drift?

Therefore, the show management at Ocala (or anywhere else) has absolutely NO control over anyone taking pictures for "hire" and has no basis to "kick" anyone out and could in fact be held liable if they did so - "torturous interference with business" is the legal definition.

That should put this particular discussion to rest and allow us without problems to continue to find the best solution for our needs.

GreystoneKC
Feb. 27, 2003, 11:03 AM
I think part of my bias against show photographers comes from the fact that my mom is a photographer for fun and life and is very good. I see her with her camera, shoot am awesome shot, get it developed and/or enlarged, and we have great shots for nothing... I think sometimes I get *annoyed* almost that it's not that easy when it's not Mommy taking the picture...

1) A mediocre jumping shot to me is when one of the following is present: timing off (landing, takeoff), colour bad/poor lighting, out of focus, distracting backgrounds, horse is not centered. While the jumping form of the horse being bad is not the fault of the photographer, I will not buy a photo where the form is bad. So while it is NOT the photographer's *fault* to me, I will pass up a photo just for the sake of not liking the look fo the horse.

2) A bad jumping shot is one where there is one or more of the above in the shot.

3) A good jumping shot is one where the timing is good, colour and lighting is good, it is crisp and in focus, the background is nice and not cluttered. The horse and rider should be the focus of the photo and the jumping form of the horse and/or eq of the rider is also good.

4) Over the year or so I have mainly dealt with Gary @ Sporting Images (the man who I like him and his work, just not the fact that he wouldn't take pics of my Junior Horse cause "I never bought them", JLP (waaaaayyy too expensive and big for his britches but good at what he does), and Gallop Prints (who took just OK pictures, but seemed reasonably, very nice, and pleasant to work with).

5) Yes, one photo because Gallop Prints got one really good shot of my large pony who wins EVERYTHING and yet jumps pretty blah and we've never gotten a realy good shot of him, and they got one. My mom has taken most of my photos.

6) I live on a horse farm...I work 24/7/365... And I'm entitled to a hell of a lot more than I make for it! lol

7) Of course they are as long as they're not ripping off the sustomer because they can. Hold on, that wasn't the question. Yes, they deserve to make a fair profit. I don't agree with excess on top of that to a large extent.

8) No, because my mother would take a phenomenal photo for nothing... But if I HAD to, I only would if the prices were within reason for usage fees...no $250 $hite.

9) The value of something can be seem as it's worth to a particular person or an items value to a general public.

10) A chance to make life into art... but hey, I am an artist...

I LOVE this thread. I am learning a lot from the photographers, even if they are :::dendendenden::: the enemy... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

...for there are wings on these hooves, the speed and power of foam-capped waves...
*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*
Proud member of the artists clique

werty
Feb. 27, 2003, 11:43 AM
I'm at Ocala and have been very disappointed in my proofs so far. I think flashe was the photographer at Jacksonville and I was super pleased with his work - it almost broke me b/c I couldn't resist buying almost every photo and he was managing to get as many as 4 great shots in one jumper round - amazing! And you could view them soon after the class! And the prices were comparatively reasonable. Anyway, I just thought I'd weigh in on what I think makes a great shot that I want to buy. I do the 4'3" jumpers. I like shots of the most impressive and attractive fences on the course - I like the whole jump in the picture (chopping off the bottom is a major pet peeve), and I prefer a side view or say, 3/4 view (horse going slightly towards the camera). In Ocala at one booth I have like 4 proofs from different classes that look almost the same - front view, poorly timed, bottom of the jump chopped off, yellow jump. I am eager to buy good photos - and the GP ring in Ocala has some really nice looking jumps - all the close ups of the horse and a couple of rails is a bummer! And in one class the photographer picked a nice jump, semi-side view (finally) but the entire camera side of each horse was in shadow - what a waste.

Flashe
Feb. 27, 2003, 12:25 PM
Starting with Greystone~

Regarding your answers to questions 1-3, I almost blurted out "you're hired" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm assuming your answers are based on seeing the final print not the proofs, right? With proofs some of the issues you mention can be corrected~color corrections, lighting, centering/cropping, etc...but the major issues like timing and focus~well those are what we want to avoid in the first place.

And "Thanks" for sharing some nice comments in questions 4-5. As for question 6-working on a horse farm, I'll second that notion! Whatever you're making isn't enough-I've been in your shoes before! (But truthfully loved it!) Question 7-just another "Thank You". Now on question 8-use your own talented mom as the example, you'd think she deserved a fair price for her work right? Key word of course being FAIR~for all concerned parties.
Question 9- Value~great answer and exactly what I had hoped to express earlier! Everyone precieves value differently as it relates to their own needs/desires.
Question 10-I like the way you "see" Greystone. With me, I look and see a moment in someone's life captured for cherishing or bragging as the in the case of a great jumper!
Thanks for sharing Greystone!

Now to Werty~

I plead the 5th on Jacksonville (but "Thanks! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) and I read your note to my other half...he's still grinning!

As for your description of a great shot, not much I can say as that is our goal each time! Sorry about Ocala, but if you see the photographer prior to going in the ring "try" asking him for a "full" jump shot~can't hurt to try.

Thanks much for your input-hope to see you soon!
RM

Ben and Me
Feb. 27, 2003, 12:31 PM
So wait...

Does all of this mean that I cannot take a picture that I have purchased and post it on the COTH BB? I thought that if I had purchased a copy of the picture that I was free to use it...

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Well it's a marvelous night for a moondance" ~Van Morrison

laurens
Feb. 27, 2003, 12:37 PM
I too have not been pleased with my proofs in Ocala. There have been lots of poor pictures, all taken over the same jump or the same angle. As for the videotaping, I attempted to view a round of mine but the line was so long...that I left. I heard that its VERY expensive to to purcahse the rounds.

ccoronios
Feb. 27, 2003, 01:11 PM
Flashe and Prophoto - please e-mail me!

www.ayliprod.com (http://www.ayliprod.com)
Equine Video and Still Photography in the Northeast

susan b
Feb. 27, 2003, 02:00 PM
Ok, question for all you photographers.

If you have to charge upwards of $250 for rights to use a photo for a website just to earn a living - what did all you photographers do when there wasn't all these farms websites and internet photo classifieds? Did you go out of business and are just now making a comeback with their popularity?

I don't think so. See, a regular photo costs somewhere between $25 - $50. What if NO ONE buys a photo from you for "commercial" use? Do you lose $$ if you only sell the "base price" photo? I think you are making your regular living off of your base price photos. Charging extra for commercial use is just gravy for you, not something you have to have to stay in business. I don't mind you making money but I am taking offense at the extreme difference in the two prices that the Ocala photographers are charging - $25 for one and $250 for the other.

It also bothers me about the attitudes of the photographers who say they would try to "protect" their contract by having other hired photographers banished from showgronds. This smacks of price gauging and price fixing. I am glad that we found out that isn't possible!!

RodeoGirl
Feb. 27, 2003, 02:10 PM
Flashe,
I'll answer your question to Lordhelpus,that's not Lincoln, its Don Sheehan.

SMKR
Feb. 27, 2003, 02:13 PM
I was shocked with the unprofessional attitude at the video booth.
For $8/round (or $10 for previous weeks) I expect:

1. you will be able to find my round within a reasonable amount of time (ie less than 1 hour...yes no exaggeration... that's how long it took.
2. I should not have to keep saying...No, that's not me. No, not that one either. Ah, this looks like a hunter round and my class was jumpers.
3. OK , so we finally find the rounds and pick one (so difficult since some started after the first jump and some ended while landing after the last....let's not waste any tape, right? and try to order one. First you are not sure of which round to put on the order form (remember, its the one we JUST WATCHED!!) Then can't remember what the counter said. OK, hopefully you have that figured out right. Now you ask for my check. When I ask about delivery info we realized you have put our order on SOMEONE ELSES FORM. You insist that you have it right. I think I know that I DONT LIVE IN OHIO.

Well, the tape has been ordered and paid for. I am just praying it doesn't come to me with a grey gelding doing a hunter under saddle http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

If I weren't in desperate need of a tape for a college coach I would have walked really fast.

Lord Helpus
Feb. 27, 2003, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flashe:
Hey Lord~

Is the rider in your shot by any chance Lincoln?
And what's your horse's name? He looks very familar to me~he's very handsome by the way!

RM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, my trainer is Don Sheehan. And the horse's name is Vintage. But Ocala was his first series of shows, so unless you were there, you would not have seen him. I hope the horse he reminds you of is an incredibly fancy and expensive hunter http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

Flashe
Feb. 27, 2003, 03:22 PM
Susan~

First off, I'm going to ask for a little patience as I do my best to go over your points and questions, as I'm trying to make it easy to follow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you have to charge upwards of $250 for rights to use a photo for a website just to earn a living - what did all you photographers do when there wasn't all these farms websites and internet photo classifieds?....What if NO ONE buys a photo from you for "commercial" use? Do you lose $$ if you only sell the "base price" photo? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In regards to usage fees in general,these are used by most every professional photographer,artist, author, inventor, and so on/so forth in the US, not just the equine industry, who's images are licensed for advertising in print or internet use or any other form of commerical promotion. Fees can and do vary depending on the type of usage for the image, the length of time for usage, and each creators (in this case photographer's)pricing structure. Example being the Ocala photographer chooses to set his licensing fee at $250.oo for the usage of an image on a website for a one year time frame, again that $250.00 is not for the photo. I am not trying to justify his cost~just stating that is his price for that type of service.

Before the internet and web sites, we worked with print ads and magazines, billboards, cutsom designed flyers, brochures, etc...print work. Pretty much the same as today, the internet is just another avenue of advertisng.

Again, each photographer sets their own pricing structure based on the market they serve. Some photographers print price may be set slightly higher than others but it may include limited copyright usage. While some photographers, like myself, prefer to set my print prices based on the markets I serve seperate from my copyright usage fees, because not everyone purchasing one of my images is in need of such usage. My copyright usage fees are set up "ala cart" so to speak, because that's how I choose to do it. If a client needs an image for promotional purposes, I work very closely with them to ensure they get exactly what they need and at a fair price. Now to be honest, the equine industry actually has some of the lower licensing fees available...really, here's an site link for you to look at and try out. It will show you (under advertising)what the industry(not just equine!) standards are cost wise for licensing images to a magazine, book, brochure,etc..pick the media, pick the size of the image, and the cirrculation size then hit calculate. Very few of us in the equine world take advantage of the standard pricing and if you try that link out you'll be very glad we don't! The address is: http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It also bothers me about the attitudes of the photographers who say they would try to "protect" their contract by having other hired photographers banished from showgronds. This smacks of price gauging and price fixing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What pro photographer here said that? Certainly not me. I said that I would recommend checking with show management, so that you wouldn't encounter a problem, which I still stand by that recommendation. Again, I'm not here to bicker, I really do wish to be a friendly source of help. And again, I say all pros are not the bad guys you think! I'd love to work a show you were at just for the challenge of winning you over http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks!
RM

[This message was edited by Flashe on Feb. 27, 2003 at 06:34 PM.]

Flashe
Feb. 27, 2003, 03:38 PM
Orginially posted by Lord~

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>my trainer is Don Sheehan. And the horse's name is Vintage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually we were at Ocala last week~JUST VISITING (no cameras!)a few of our clients...in the hunter rings and I do believe I may have watched your boy go! Nice mover!

And he does remind me of a great hunter we work for from time to time!

He really is lovely Lord!
RM

been there
Feb. 27, 2003, 05:12 PM
flashe, Maybe you didn't catch it, there are other photographers posting here and I beleive one of the others did say that a private hire photographer was at risk of being asked to leave. It was posted several times. It is good to know that that can NOT happen.

As far as on-going royalities, as someone who has been in design for quite a number of years, I can tell you that MOST photo work done to create brochures, catalogs, fliers, etc. are not done with a royality arrangement but are under "work for hire". Next time you get some junk mail in, look over any number of the fliers and brochures. The only copyright you see on ANY of them is the company's, absolutely NOT the photographer's.

Here is a site that explains work for hire:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the
property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

* (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
* (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
a contribution to a collective work
a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
a translation
a supplementary work
a compilation
an instructional text
a test
answer material for a test
an atlas


I think most will agree that most brochures, etc are specially commissioned and photography is only one part of an overall piece of work - someone writes the text, someone takes the photos, someone lays it all out, someone "approves" it. You don't see the writer getting a copyright, you don't see the layout artist/graphic artist getting a copyright and you DON'T SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHER GETTING A COPYRIGHT ON MOST PROFESSIONALLY DONE GRAPHIC DESIGN WORK. = work for hire is the mainstay business practice for most commercial photographers.

Lord Helpus
Feb. 27, 2003, 05:21 PM
Thank you for the nice words about Mr.George. But, so as not to confuse me with someone who is religious http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif, why not shorten my name to LH? It sounds a tad less grand.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

Flashe
Feb. 27, 2003, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by been there:
[QUOTE]there are other photographers posting here and I beleive one of the others did say that a private hire photographer was at risk of being asked to leave. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Been There I am the orginial person who said there was a "risk" (not me or anyone else used the term "protect" the contract) of the private hire being asked to "leave" (not the term banished"). I am also the one who said nothing wrong with having a private hire, but suggested that it might be wise to double check with show management so as not to encounter a problem, I am not a lawyer so I won't persume to quote the law on that matter. I also do private work myself, but out of shear professional courtsey I would want to check with show management~but that's me. My remarks at the end of my last post were simply to clear up being misquoted~"Protect" and "Banished" . Not trying to be rude by any means, but I don't wish to be misunderstood or misquoted please.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as on-going royalities, as someone who has been in design for quite a number of years, I can tell you that MOST photo work done to create brochures, catalogs, fliers, etc. are not done with a royality arrangement but are under "work for hire". /QUOTE]

You're right, as a photographer I don't get on going royalities, nor have I ever said I did for that matter. I have not been discussing on going royalities, but copyright licensing and there is a difference in the two. I have been hired by many a client-private and commerical to provide images for advertising in various forms; sale ads, brochures, product packages, and such. The client is purchasing the copyright license for use of my image. The most common licensing agreement is for one time, non-exclusive use, for a limited time and/or print quantity. Using an image for a lengthy period of time, across multiple media formats, in a wide geographic area, or to the exclusion of other buyers are all factors that might increase the cost of the license. In return, clients receive an image that is tailored to their specific needs, for an agreed-upon period of time, and do not have to worry about seeing the same image that they are using to promote an environmental cause show up on the outside of a tube of particularly fresh-smelling underarm deodorant.

[QUOTE]I think most will agree that most brochures, etc are specially commissioned and photography is only one part of an overall piece of work - someone writes the text, someone takes the photos, someone lays it all out, someone "approves" it....you DON'T SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHER GETTING A COPYRIGHT ON MOST PROFESSIONALLY DONE GRAPHIC DESIGN WORK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even I agree with that~most ads, brochures, etc are commisioned and yes, the photography or image is one part of it (by the way for the record my company does complete ad layout work too) and it is the client-private or otherwise that hires me for said image and the rights to use said image. I am not an employee of the client or other parties, and depending on the need of the client, they either license an image I already have in stock or I am paid a day rate to go somewhere and shoot what is needed. In the day rate quote I include the licensing usage as it applies to whatever particular needs the client has.

As for getting a copyright as a photographer, I have that the very moment the image is created by me. Just as your own quote says: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No the image in the ad itself may not physically display the copyright symbol © but it is not required to in order to be copyright protected by law. That is what signed licensing agreements are for. Commerical photographers may in fact do things differently especially if working directly with an ad agency for example, however most pro photographers who don't derive their entire income from commerical photography don't usually. And most all pro photographers maintain full copyright ownership of their images.

Thanks again.
RM

ccoronios
Feb. 27, 2003, 08:21 PM
I am the professional videographer (whose SO does some photography) who said
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> When we provide these services to shows, we have a contract which specifically states that we are the official video/photo-grapher(s), and as such, have the sole right to sell videos or photos at that show. Anyone may, of course, take video or pictures for themselves, but NO ONE is allowed to sell them.

Of course, who knows? But if I am made aware of a situation, I approach the person with the camera and/or the barn/individual who 'hired' them and explain my contract with show management. If they seem to be less than understanding of the meaning of a contract, I go to the show manager and ask him/her to emphasize it. In 8 years of business, I've had to do this only a couple times. Either word gets around and people are sneakier - or they respect the fact that I have many expenses, with equipment, product, help, advertising, travel, hotel, etc. - and act appropriately.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

We don't do HITS-size shows - most of ours are single ring, indoors. And we don't concentrate on h/j - we do it all. However, our contract with show management is explicit.

You are absolutely correct - if competitors don't like our work or our service, they should 1. let us know, so we have the opportunity to improve and 2. tell show management they don't want us back. In 8 years, most of the shows I don't still do are MY choice, so I guess most are at least satisfied with our work. Many are delighted. We'd like everyone to fall in that category.

You may feel strongly that show management shouldn't agree to our contract terms - but they do, and, just as they expect us to bide by their terms, we expect ours to be honored.

You may feel that I'm arrogant. Trust me when I tell you that I'll never quit my day job for what I make with video and stills. I got involved in this business with one of the largest video companies in the country (at that time) and I have NO DESIRE to follow in its footsteps. On the other hand, I attempt to give my customers superior quality and outstanding customer service for a fair price. I can for sure tell you that my booth coordinators are friendly, courteous and knowledgable (or they radio me for the answer to a question) and can find your ride within a couple of minutes; and if a show proves to be too large to be accommodated with one viewer, the next time, I'll have two available.

www.ayliprod.com (http://www.ayliprod.com)
Equine Video and Still Photography in the Northeast

been there
Feb. 27, 2003, 08:56 PM
ccoronios, I thought there was someone else posting about this other than flashe. One thing you need to keep in mind, though ccoronios, is that you may have made a contract with the show promoters but as an exhibitor, I didn't sign your contract. So, unless my entry form says that I can only use show vendors - food, hay, shavings, photographers, videographers, etc - and the couple that are currently sitting in my file don't have that on them - I am not in breach of anything and you have no control over who I hire. I say this not to be snotty, or not to say I wouldn't use you, but to point out that your contract is 1) unknown to me 2) doesn't apply to me unless I am required to sign it as an exhibitor.

As for flashe, you need to read the rest of the copyright law. It states that YOU ARE NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER if you are acting as an employee OR (and here is where you are missing it) are "work for hire". Under work for hire, the photographer does NOT hold the copyright, the one commissioning it does.

prophoto
Feb. 27, 2003, 10:53 PM
Dear Been There,

You wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As for flashe, you need to read the rest of the copyright law. It states that YOU ARE NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER if you are acting as an employee OR (and here is where you are missing it) are "work for hire". Under work for hire, the photographer does NOT hold the copyright, the one commissioning it does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A WRITTEN contract transferring ownership of the copyright is REQUIRED according to Andrew D. Epstein, Esq. at his page here --
Common Questions and Answers About Copyright (http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html)

At this site you can read the interpretation of copyright law by an intellectual property attorney as a Q and A format that is easy to understand. The first paragraph of each answer to the following questions are particularly helpful in addressing some of the topics that have surfaced here:

"Q. Who owns the copyright?

"Q: If I buy a photograph or painting from a photographer or an artist for display purposes, can I use the image for any other purpose?

There are several other questions addressed at this site which are enlightening. Within his text, Mr. Epstein also notes that most independent artists, photographers and other creators will not engage in work for hire because they will be deprived of their right to fully use their creations and because as independents, they realize it is unfair for them to be treated as employees just performing a job for hire yet to receive no benefits such as insurance, job security, etc. that most other hired employees enjoy. As Mr. Epstein has 25 years of practicing specialized law in support of visual artists such as commercial photographers, writers, etc., I tend to believe all he has written. I am sure as a professional he would not be publicizing inaccurate information when he is presenting himself as an expert in his field.

prophoto
Feb. 27, 2003, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...that you may have made a contract with the show promoters but as an exhibitor, I didn't sign your contract. So, unless my entry form says that I can only use show vendors - food, hay, shavings, photographers, videographers, etc - and the couple that are currently sitting in my file don't have that on them - I am not in breach of anything and you have no control over who I hire. I say this not to be snotty, or not to say I wouldn't use you, but to point out that your contract is 1) unknown to me 2) doesn't apply to me unless I am required to sign it as an exhibitor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be true but I believe there is a concept in law referred to as something like "at the pleasure of" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif only it's a phrase in latin of course! My recollection of this is that anytime we go to any public facility, we are there "at the pleasure" of the hosts which could be either the owners or lessors of the facility, in other words those in control of the facility and function being attended. Further this concept stipulates that there doesn't need to be any contract written or oral of allowed behavior at this facility or function but that when we go there, we are agreeing to be bound by the rules and stipulations that the hosts put upon us. This covers things like: we won't smoke in the movies, we won't bring our dog in the restaurant and let him lift his leg on the table cloth, we won't go into the store and remove all their merchandise from the shelves and put it on the floor, we won't bring our hotdog cart into the store and try to sell to the customers there without permission and other things of this nature.

For the life of me I cannot recall this exact expression but I believe that this concept of law would cover when riders go to a show they are expected to go by the management's rules *especially since they signed the entry form which usually states somewhere that they would follow the rules* for the activities that are allowed on the show grounds regardless of whether every single possible activity allowed or prohibited is stipulated in writing or not.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone can come up with the latin version!

Lord Helpus
Feb. 28, 2003, 08:56 AM
As an attorney, I cannot think of any Latin phrase which translates to "at the pleasure of". But it doesn't mean there isn't one.

However, the relevant law which you are trying to think of may be the concept of "third party beneficiary" which means that a third party who is not a direct party to a contract may still be bound by it IF HE BENEFITS FROM IT.

Of course, what were are discussing here is, specifically at Ocala, has the exhibitor BENEFITTED from the contract signed by HITS and the show photographers? Were I to be sued for hiring a private photographer, under this theory, I would argue that I have not benefitted since the desired pictures were of less than professional quality or were not taken at all.

I have no idea who would win in such a case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

prophoto
Feb. 28, 2003, 09:27 AM
LH,

Thanks for your feedback and nice to know it comes from someone versed in law. It *may* be third party beneficiary but I'm not sure because I keep thinking this concept of law covers situations where we choose (or pay) to go to a a private funtion or property that may be open to the public but is effectively privately owned (not by the government and therefore not a true publicly owned space) and just by the action of our choice to attend then it is implied that we are agreeing to abide by the rules laid out by our hosts (within reason and obviously only rules that could be legally upheld of course).

The example here would be that by entering a show, a rider implicitly agrees to abide by the rules that the hosts have for the event which may include things like no dogs, no soliciting or providing certain types of services for which the show management has already contracted for the event (photography or food and beverage), no property damage, no
lunging in certain areas, etc. This could also be illustrated by the example of a shopper entering a store implicitly agrees to abide by store rules which (for a wild example) could include agreeing not to remove all the stock from the store shelves and put it on the floor. (I was looking for a wild example because I think this was the "commonsense" type of scenario which was presented when I first heard of this concept of law.)
Maybe there is another precept I am blending with third party beneficiary in my recollections? Implied consent?

jparkes
Feb. 28, 2003, 09:49 AM
Let's look at this from another vendor's standpoint. The food vendors. I don't show anymore and it's been many years since I've evn been to the bigger shows, but I remember we could take our coolers and our own food to the shows instead of having to eat what the vendors had. Do the food vendors have the same rules as the photographer now? Buy from them only?

Secretplace Farm
www.spfarm.com (http://www.spfarm.com)

Heather
Feb. 28, 2003, 10:47 AM
If I am grasping this properly jparkes, I think the analogyis, you can bring your own food coolers, just as your sister/mother/spouse/brother can stand at the ring and shoot pictures of you. However, you could not come in and sell food yourself out of the barn aisle, or have a caterer come in to sell food to your barn or other competitors. Does tha make sense.

Now without getting into a right and wrong thing let me relate a story:

As a fledgling equine journalist who was required to take pictures at a show, I remember distinctly going to a competition, getting my little press pass, and going to the ring to shoot. However, it was cold, and I put my jacket on, covering up the pass. I had noticed the show "hired" photographer sort of walking back and forth glancing at me out of the corner of their eye, and as the first horse came in the ring, this person came and stood directly in front of me. I mean directly, when I moved, they moved, finally I said, sort of nicely, "Is there a problem?"

I was told that they were the official photgrapher and that I was breaking the rules of the show by being there to shoot, and that their assitant had gone to the show management to have me escorted off the grounds. At which point i began to sputter, "but I'm press." And the photgrapher, now joined by the assitant and a manager said, basically, "Oh yeah, where is your pass?" At which point I realised that it was under my jacket, I flashed it, and everything was cool, pro photgrapher went to adifferent spot, management went back to the office, etc.

So, I don't think it's that outlandish to think their are some photographers and some managers who will ensure that no private hires are accomplishing anything at a show. Others probably won't care either way. Just something to be aware of, so I would second the suggestion of checking with the show management ahead of time.

equienne
Feb. 28, 2003, 01:32 PM
When we charge for those little 4x6 shots you scan after paying that ungodly $25 fee for, we're covering our losses for all the shots you're not buying, but we were hoping to sell, because we need to for pay our rent/mortgage,
utilities, kids sneakers, babysitters while we were enjoying 14 hours in the sun and a week of sorting negs, working late into the night on hundreds of photos, retouching the shadows off your faces under hat brims.

We're not independently wealthy, and we needed those sales to cover our farrier's charges for our horses' shoes (we can't photocopy them or talk him into cheaper prices, and he needs to
pay his living expenses) then there are those trailer repair bills and vet expenses for that nice mare we had booked to your stallion and hoped would produce our next show winner... (she colicked last year, had to pay the vet
and couldn't get him to do that for free... and lost her foal anyway....)

We understand that not everyone wants to decide what our living expenses should be. We know it's cheaper for you to scan our proofs and buy that photo paper for the home printer at Staples than an 8x10 from us, the pros.
And you can make copies for free. And if we can't stay in business and still cover our living expenses, we understand that you'll be just fine with photos your friend will take, because she's free.

Maybe you'll use our shots to sell that stallion we referred your customers to last year. And maybe those shots will be featured in a special magazine section on breeding in some annual stallion issue, the biggest market for your stallion, and of which that ad will bring you probably a couple of breedings and maybe a foal sale or two, easily worth thousands apiece.. (Of course, the name credit we got - without payment - for that photo won't help pay the business loan we took out to start a business... . and needed all
that equipment to produce your photo, or our electric bill that comes every month.)

Who do you folks deal with that you're used to telling what they can charge for their services? I don't get to tell a plumber what he can charge when my pipes need to be replaced, or the construction company when my roof needs a patch. And I wouldn't dare tell my vet his fees are too high when he spends
his Sunday pulling my good broodmare through West Nile so I can breed her to your stallion next spring. Go ahead and tell your vet he's living a cushy life and needs to buy cheaper sneakers for his kids or you'll go elsewhere!

And while you're at it, why don't you just hop on over here and renegotiate a cheaper lease on my property, cause frankly, I think I'm paying too much money for my rent.

And who among you is a doctor, nurse, or lawyer???? WANNA GO THERE???

Unbelievable. I don't do shows anymore, and you folks are why. Do you have any idea how many photographers are reading and discussing these posts right now, and how many are deciding to decline your shows this coming season? Of course not, nor do you care, and yet you will whine to your show manager asking why they can't get a decent, professionally organized and skilled photographer at your shows!

&lt;sheesh&gt;

ccoronios
Feb. 28, 2003, 02:07 PM
Been there and jparkes - my contract specifically doesn't preclude an individual taking pictures or video (or bringing food, if I were that vendor). The contract protects my investment from interlopers (other professional whatevers), and it would be they who would be asked to 'cease and desist'.

I have been asked numerous times by various clients to come to [a couple of BIG primarily h/j shows which also have saddlebred divisions] because the [h/j] videographer 'doesn't get' saddlebreds. My response is always, "I'm sure the show videographer has an exclusive contract and I wouldn't do to them what I wouldn't want them to do to me." Trust me when I tell you, my saddlebred customers are REALLY GOOD and I hate to disappoint them, but professionalism is professionalism.

www.ayliprod.com (http://www.ayliprod.com)
Equine Video and Still Photography in the Northeast

kevin
Feb. 28, 2003, 02:57 PM
ok, prophoto - I looked at the link you provided and it says specifically that under a work for hire situation:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Generally, the person who creates a work is the owner of the copyright...The only exceptions to this rule occur when a work is ... created under a written "work-for-hire" agreement.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the work for hire agreements can be very simple documents that masquerade as invoices or receipts<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That pretty much covers what I said and I take it to mean that the "document" (ie invoice, etc) only has to say "work for hire" NOT an assignment of copyright, being that the person HIRING would automatically own the copyright if the "invoice/document" said the work was for hire.

As to whether an exhibitor has to abide by a contract between a photographer and show promoter - I don't believe your analogy works because:

#1) Show grounds are NOT public places. You have to sign a "contract" (ie, entry form) to have your horse there, even if you don't show.

#2) The example of the person shooting IN THE RING with the press pass covered up doesn't apply because we are only talking about shooting OUTSIDE the ring. Yes, the show promotors can kick someone out of the ring but not off the grounds. With the great camera equipment you can rent or borrow nowadays along with manipulation on the computer, that doesn't matter to me!!

kevin
Feb. 28, 2003, 03:00 PM
and equienne, I don't get your post at all. No one here has complained about paying $25 for a show photo. Quality of the yes, but not the $25 price!?

What I have complained about was that to use the same $25 photo on a website to sell a horse, the price then jumps up to $250. Quite an increase, don't you think?

bluemoonfarms
Feb. 28, 2003, 03:21 PM
I am jumping in this late but I have a simple question. If a photographer can sell a photo to be used on the web say for $125.00 wouldn't at least twice as many people purchase them? Also evertime a photo is put on the web or in a magazine there is a credit for the photographer and that is advertising for the photographer. It seems to me in simple business terms if you lower your price you would sell more pictures for the web and magazines and at the same time get more great advertising for yourselves?

Denise Higgins www.bluemoonfarms.net (http://www.bluemoonfarms.net)
Domestic & Imported Warmbloods

Kryswyn
Feb. 28, 2003, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Who do you folks deal with that you're used to telling what they can charge for their services? I don't get to tell a plumber what he can charge when my pipes need to be replaced, or the construction company when my roof needs a patch. And I wouldn't dare tell my vet his fees are too high when he spends
his Sunday pulling my good broodmare through West Nile so I can breed her to your stallion next spring. Go ahead and tell your vet he's living a cushy life and needs to buy cheaper sneakers for his kids or you'll go elsewhere!

And while you're at it, why don't you just hop on over here and renegotiate a cheaper lease on my property, cause frankly, I think I'm paying too much money for my rent.

And who among you is a doctor, nurse, or lawyer???? WANNA GO THERE???

Unbelievable. I don't do shows anymore, and you folks are why. Do you have any idea how many photographers are reading and discussing these posts right now, and how many are deciding to decline your shows this coming season? Of course not, nor do you care, and yet you will whine to your show manager asking why they can't get a decent, professionally organized and skilled photographer at your shows!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The primary diffence (and it's a biggie) is that in the scenarios described above YOU the end consumer have a choice about WHICH plumber, contractor, vet, or landlord you deal with. If I call one vet whose farm call is $50 and another vet's is only $25 I can choose which vet comes to my barn. Now maybe the one who charges $50 is a better vet. Maybe not, perhaps he has a new clinic that needs paying off.

The issue here is with show photographers who have exclusive rights via contract with the management. When I go to a show, I do NOT have a choice of photographers. I have to use the pro they contracted with or make do with my own less than stellar shots.

Basic economics. Competition sets a fair price. If the shows would hire 3 outfits, you could chose one based on the shots they took and their price lists. Is it as profitable for each of the 3 outfits? No, but it might make them more sensitive to taking better photos, competivie pricing and faster service. The law of the marketplace would prevail: the photographers taking better shots, with the best prices and best service would survive, and prosper. The others might have to find another line of work.

~Kryswyn~
"Always look on the bright side of life, de doo, de doo de doo de doo"

cehilton46
Feb. 28, 2003, 04:38 PM
posted Feb. 28, 2003 06:21 PM Feb. 28, 2003 06:21 PM
***I am jumping in this late but I have a simple question. If a photographer can sell a photo to be used on the web say for $125.00 wouldn't at least twice as many people purchase them? Also evertime a photo is put on the web or in a magazine there is a credit for the photographer and that is advertising for the photographer. It seems to me in simple business terms if you lower your price you would sell more pictures for the web and magazines and at the same time get more great advertising for yourselves?

Denise Higgins www.bluemoonfarms.net (http://www.bluemoonfarms.net)
Domestic & Imported Warmbloods ***

Hi Denise,

I am Charles, a professional photographer. I don't shoot shows anymore by my own choice. Your question is a good one. The problem is that there are so many different photographers, each charging a different prices for the purchase or use of their work. If we were to get together to set prices, we would be in big trouble wit Uncle Sam and the Attorney General's office.

Not everyone charges $250 for web use or even $125 as you have said would bring more buyers, may-be. I think that is one of the points every one who has tried to be reasonable has pointed out. People would still complain even if we charged an additional $5.00 for web use or for shipping and mailing out the finished work. I don't know the conditions or the terms of their contract with the show management, neither does the person who brought it up.

You said that every time a photo is put on the web or in a magazine there is a credit for the photographer and that is advertising for the photographer. If everyone who buys our photos would do that there might not be such high usage fees to you all. Everyone doesn't do it for what ever reason the have. Some are intentional others just don't think about doing it. Most of us don't get a lot of business from having our names credited, I get mine by satisfying my clients who give my name or pass it to others. I think we all want to please you the client, we do need to earn a living.

I am going to pick on you but I don't want to offend you now. I looked at your site, you have a nice site and looks like some really nice horses. There are three or four photos that does have a name on them, but I could only read one for sure the others are so blurred or small that they are unreadable. I didn't see photo credit given on you site. Not to just pick on you but there are many photos used in the major magazines where the names of the photographer has been removed and no credit given even when that is the stated policy of the photographers and part of their agreement.

I am sure you haven't tried to cover up the photographer's name on your site but you didn't include it to make your statement totally true for you. Please if you want to be specific and critical and you haven't been critical and your question is reasonable, but others are using only part of the whole truth not only disregarding the answer but are when cornered changing the question.

Again, I didn't use your site to criticize you, it is an example of how easy it is to not do everything one should. I make those kinds of mistakes and try to correct them when possible. If the photos I take or anyone else doesn't please you the owners, you don't come back. I can't and neither can anyone else stay in this business long that way. It is difficult enough as it is. When photographers can't make a reasonable living from their work, they will get jobs elsewhere or move to a different specialty and you won't have one good one to pick from. We can help each other by honest discussions with realistic and respectful attitudes with each other.

Thanks,
Charles Hilton

elizabeth
Feb. 28, 2003, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:
As an attorney, I cannot think of any Latin phrase which translates to "at the pleasure of".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ad Libitum?

I'm an attorney, but I know that phrase from music. . . .

Flashe
Feb. 28, 2003, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kevin:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Generally, the person who creates a work is the owner of the copyright...The only exceptions to this rule occur when a work is ... created under a written "work-for-hire" agreement.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kevin~seems you left out parts of the actual text, allow me to help you out~especially since the part you omitted is the part that actually applies to us "independent" pro photographers...

Who owns the copyright?

" Generally, the person who creates a work is the owner of the copyright. Thus, independent artists, photographers and writers own the copyrights to their works. The only exceptions to this rule occur when a work is created by an employee as part of his or her job duties or when a work is created under a written work-for-hire agreement."

Please take note of the phrase "independent"~~furhter down you'll understand why I point it out.

And while there are photographers who will do private shoots for you say at a show(with show managements okay) for a set day rate, cost of film maybe, and perphaps sell the copyright with the images to you for a price that may or may not be "cheap" as you want it to be. I do have a question that's been in the back of mind for a couple of days now...you're hiring a photographer (I'm assuming this person is actually an Equine Professional?)to come to a show to shoot your rides/jumps and then provide you with the photos, so what I'm wondering is are you telling this photographer you want all the copyrights to their work to use in ads or whatever? Did you actually specify the intention of the photos? And is this an actual Equine Photographer or a general photographer or a friend starting into photography? Just curious on my part.


Then Kevin has this snippet of the actual text:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the work for hire agreements can be very simple documents that masquerade as invoices or receipts<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What it fully says is this:

"The copyrights to works created under written agreements as works for hire belong to the employer. The law requires that there is a written agreement between the parties. Unfortunately, work for hire agreements can be very simple documents that masquerade as invoices or receipts. Most independent artists, photographers and writers will not operate on a work for hire basis. They feel that to do so, would deprive them of their right to fully exploit their creative talents. Also, they feel they will be treated as employees without having job security or getting any employee benefits."

Notice the that it plainly states what most of us pros have been trying to get across~most "INDEPENDENT" photographers WILL NOT operate on a work for hire basis! Very few real Professional (Equine or other)Photographers do not sell their copyright...period. A "Commerical" Photographer is very different in the way they do business, most of them work directly with ad agencies. When a magazine wants to use one of my images for the cover or in an ad they are merely licensing the use...they are not buying the copyright.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>#1) Show grounds are NOT public places. You have to sign a "contract" (ie, entry form) to have your horse there, even if you don't show. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly Kevin, and guess what that entry form/contract says you agree to abide by show mangements rules. Have you ever read the entry form ? It does have a general set of rules regarding entry fees, stalls, attire, dogs, parking,etc...there is also this "rule": Should any question arise that is not specified in above rule listings, the same question shall be referred to the show management/committee whose decision shall be final. Around the upper levels that's known as the "vendors" protection clause. Which is exactly why I have recommended that anyone thinking of doing a private hire "of a professional" to please check with management first. I'm not trying to be the bad guy here, quite the opposite, I'm trying to save you possible embarrassment and loss of money.

Look guys, this is my last night off for awhile, as we head back out on the road tommorrow and I just want to say this~get your blast in now! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just kidding~what I really want to say is that despite getting bashed a few times, I have enjoyed this "chat" time and only hope that some of you reading these post have gotten some helpful information along the way. I'll be checking in throughout the evening if someone would like to ask any questions---friendly fire please!
Again let me just say, the real equine professionals out there truly do care about you and your horse....in a sense your horse is our passion that's why we're in this profession. Don't believe me? Ok, then I'll tell you all why I've not posted anything here all day~I got a call from a lady whose only met me a few times at various circuits, she could hardly talk, the vet was coming at 4PM today to put her beloved 4 year mare down due to cancer and she wondered if there was anyway she could order photos from a previous show (last year). We chatted a little and cried a little. In talking I learned she didn't really have any portrait type shots~then I learned where abouts she lived, about an hour from me. I ended the conversation by saying I'd be happy to look those proofs up and got her address for mailing. Hung up the phone, cried a little more, thought about her pain~then packed up my equipment and drove for about an hour. I was met at the barn door with tears and a hug after introducing myself, she was a beautiful mare and I think I'll cherish these shots almost as much as the owner. Oh, yeah the bill was paid in full~I got another hug.

Thanks for listening.
RM

kevin
Feb. 28, 2003, 05:35 PM
flashe,

The part that you said I left out had already been posted once - I was just posting the part that pertained to "work for hire".

Can you point out where it says that if the photographer is an "independent" photographer that the "work for hire" status doesn't apply? No, you can't because it doesn't exist. An "independent" photographer can work for hire with a simple document such as an invoice or reciept saying "work for hire" and the photographs are automatically the one commissioning the photos - not the photographers - with no additional assignment of copyright. It says it in black and white in both the government link I posted as well as the independent opinion of the other.

Also, the photographer that was hired is a professional photographer as well as graphic/web artist with several years of experience, a huge portfolio of mostly commercial work but a very good amount of equine work too in ad design, web design and photography. He had some photos shot at a 3-day event that were out of this world - horses going through the water jump with every drop of water crystal clear with the light sparkling off of it - very dramatic. You could see every vein and muscle line of the horse. Just really good photography.

About show rules: I already posted about what I found out by making some phone calls and asking. I thought I made myself clear. I also would like to say that my hired photographer was basically shooting outside the ring at time within just a few feet of the show photographer. The ring stewards were within talking distance. No one minded, no one said a thing and I really believe this particular part of this topic has been brought up to try to scare people from hiring their own photographers so DON'T FEED INTO IT FOLKS!!

As far as most photographers not wanting to work for hire, I agree that there are a lot that won't and they have gotten away with it for a long time. But times a-changing! The market it OBVIOUSLY getting pissed about it and there are many photographers who will work for hire. All you got to do is insist on it and if they want to work, they will do it...put it in writing - "WORK FOR HIRE ONLY"

equienne
Feb. 28, 2003, 05:37 PM
Responding to various comments:
Kevin:

You said no one here mentioned $25 4"x6" proofs. Check out:

Lord Helpus
Just like Merry. Only cuter.
posted Feb. 24, 2003 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3. Price the pictures fairly. At Ocala, a 4 x 6 "proof" was $25 (these are the pictures straight off the roll and straight from the developers). At that price OF COURSE I am going to go home and scan it into my computer and print out an 8 x 10 for myself. I might be more likely to buy your 8 x 10 if the price bore any relationship to the product purchased.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'nuff said there.



Kryswyn,
You said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Basic economics. Competition sets a fair price. If the shows would hire 3 outfits, you could chose one based on the shots they took and their price lists. Is it as profitable for each of the 3 outfits? No, but it might make them more sensitive to taking better photos, competivie pricing and faster service. The law of the marketplace would prevail: the photographers taking better shots, with the best prices and best service would survive, and prosper. The others might have to find another line of work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I highly doubt you will find three professional photographers who are available on the same dates in the same area to shoot a show, particularly if that means the profits will be split three ways. Shows are hard enough ona photographer (and assistants if we are lucky) and they don't pay well enough as it is. You really are not looking at this from the photographer's viewpoint. Untiil you do, you will not be able to grasp the points made to explain to you why your wishes can not be met by a majority of professional photographers.

Go back and re-read my post and see why I no longer do shows. The investment of time, money and energy is no where near equalled by the "chance" of getting paid by enough people that will actually pay for an order rather than scan the proofs. And I can guarantee you that there are a great many people who are quite capable of paying my modest prices and more, yet some people will still copy my proofs and avoid paying. Not everyone does- I have never said that. But enough do that there is a loss.

If people are going to be dishonest and steal something, lowering the price is not going to make them honest. This is a sad but true point. Ask anyone who works the doors at Walmart.

One of the things I do here is offer my private farm as a setting to clients to bring their horses in and I'll set up jumps, trail shots or whatever they like... and they haul in and use it like a show ground. I'm sure if you ask around, you'll find many photographers who will work hard to help you create the images that you will cherish for a lifetime.

That's what we love to do; not argue about how important our vision or skill or talent is, or what it's worth.

The point overall is that none of you know our expenses; whether someone is naturually talented and did not go to school, or someone else spent four years at RIT with $60k in loans, they **still** need to exist while they work. We eat, need shelter and transportation, and have daily lives like each of you. If you do not wish to use our services, that's fine. But please do not tell me how much I should be charging to cover my expenses! I don't tell you what to charge for the work you do. If you want a cheaper photographer - or a free one, go for it. But you have no right to assume what our personal expenses are, and no right to be telling us what we ought to charge.

I'd be willing to bet that of those of you who are arguing the value of photo usage, prints and rights, not one of you have ever shot a show; not one of you has ever sat up nights prepping for it, and afterward, sorting negatives, matching lists of names and numbers; and not one of you would work for pennies on the hour, as we often do when the shows are long and the expenses are high. We do this not only to continue to do what we love, and are proud of, but what we do best, and try to survive on the occasional windfall because the rest is simply not even breaking even. That, my friends, is often the life of anyone who creates- art, music, photography- because people in general are not willing to pay a decent amount of money for a creator to live "well." They do not appreciate what it takes for the many hours of work and focus, worry and dedication that are required to give you that one simple 8x10 you'll cherish, or for the stellar shot in the ad campaign that sells your $25,000 hunter.

We do what we love, and we do it for you at prices that are fair in each of our situations.

Bottom line is this: It is not up to you to decide what our personal needs are.

jparkes
Feb. 28, 2003, 05:40 PM
Kryswyn, I wholeheartedly agree with what you say, but I have yet to see any of the photographers post a response to that type of comment.

Like I said and others, let free enterprise rule!

As to the photographers, do you charge the same whether you use digital or film?

Secretplace Farm
www.spfarm.com (http://www.spfarm.com)

Flashe
Feb. 28, 2003, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kevin:
"Can you point out where it says that if the photographer is an "independent" photographer that the "work for hire" status doesn't apply?"[QUOTE]

Kevin~
I don't recall stating that at all, and apparently you didn't read my post very carefully either. What was pointed out is this:
[QUOTE] Most independent artists, photographers and writers will not operate on a work for hire basis. They feel that to do so, would deprive them of their right to fully exploit their creative talents. Also, they feel they will be treated as employees without having job security or getting any employee benefits."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is precisely what I said, most Professional (equine and other) Photographers do not work for hire in the sense of ad or promotional work. Your work for hire clause in copyright is geared more towards 1)EMPLOYEES of the EMPLOYER commisioning said work or 2)COMMERICAL Photgraphers who tend to work with/for ad agencies. I do private work all the time, I also license images for national magazines, multinational corporations, and little Joe Smoe's farm ads....and not any of these am I 1)an EMPLOYEE or 2)COMMERICAL photographer for anyone. I am a Professional Equine Photographer who owns my own company~I work for me~~~and my mortgage comapny, electric company, business loan holder, truck loan holder, etcc..but I own my copyrights!

Look Kevin, I don't wish to continue this back and forth mess. I'm not one to argue and you're wasting your time trying to "piss" (borrowing your word)me off. Yes, you are reading the copyright information/law correctly but you certainly are not grasping the differences. You can bash me and my fellow pros all you want~I'm over it. Here's the bottom line: This is MY profession, not yours and I work in this profession every day of my life, I think I'm a little more qualifed to state facts on copyrights as they pertain to my business than you are. Or have you recently had an ad layout meeting with Practical Horseman? Dressage Today? Or a two page spread in Horse and Rider perphaps? A full ad image in Quarter Horse Journal? No? Well I've had all four just this week. None of which are "work for hire" or require selling/giving up my copyrights. I have tried so hard to stay respectful, kind, and open with you in the hopes that you might come to understand some of what a real pro is like and how most of survive basically. Only to be met with your ugly attitude and insults. I said it once before, but got sucked right back in, now I'm saying it with meaning~ I GIVE UP Kevin. You win, believe whatever you care to. I'm very sorry for your bad experience in Ocala, truly I am, but I can't seem to defuse any of your anger with explanations or honesty. So I'll only wish you the best.

RM

AKDragooPhoto
Feb. 28, 2003, 07:03 PM
Jparkes -

Just because digital allows for quick veiwing and reuse of flash cards does not mean it is any less expensive.

My professional lab charges more for digital prints from it's state of the art printer, than for hand printed images of equal size from negatives. These are images printed photographicly, not inks.

I split my shooting between digital and film depending on the needs of the client(s). If I am shooting for prints as the final product I still prefer film. And many of the people I encounter are pleased to still be getting non digital images. Yes, the turn around is slower, but archiving is eaiser for me and it keeps the prices down for you the customer.

Amy

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=934

bluemoonfarms
Feb. 28, 2003, 08:21 PM
Charles:

I have received permission from the photographers of the pix on my website that I have purchased and I did not pay anywhere near $250.00 for them. You will note that no pictures are from Devon. I have some very nice pictures from Devon that I purchased prior to making my website but the price to be on the web was ridiculous. Those pictures will never be seen by the public or the photographer credited. My pics are small and the credits are small but some names ar not readable on the originals, not my fault. I purchased a digital camera and the great majority of the pics I have taken myself. I will continue to take my own pics at shows where the show photographer charges more than I feel is reasonable. I never said that all photographers should charge the same price but I feel that sales would be better if the prices were reasonable. As you can see I do purchase pictures when the price is right and will never buy another picture that I can't put on my website reasonably.

Denise Higgins www.bluemoonfarms.net (http://www.bluemoonfarms.net)
Domestic & Imported Warmbloods

Kryswyn
Feb. 28, 2003, 08:57 PM
equienne said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I highly doubt you will find three professional photographers who are available on the same dates in the same area to shoot a show, particularly if that means the profits will be split three ways. Shows are hard enough ona photographer (and assistants if we are lucky) and they don't pay well enough as it is. You really are not looking at this from the photographer's viewpoint. Untiil you do, you will not be able to grasp the points made to explain to you why your wishes can not be met by a majority of professional photographers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it would be easy. It was an example of the free market system. BTW three Equine Professionals may not be available, but it a horse show ran an ad saying, "Wanted 3 photographers for horse show on 5/6-7/03, submit folio" I bet they'd be overwhelmed with people just starting out and/or people who said, I can do that! The point being the 'best' of those photogs would be rewarded by the free market system and the ones w/ bad shots & high prices wouldn't make enough $$ to come back and do it again.

And as for not looking at it from the photographer's viewpoint http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'm the consumer I don't HAVE to look at it from your viewpoint! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif YOU have to understand mine - YOU'RE offering a service, but because of your exclusivity contract, I have no choice but to accept your prices and conditions if I want a picture on that day. I think that is wrong. Because you don't have to compete w/ other photogs on the day, you can set a price that is higher than what the market would normally bear. You can explain *why* you deserve to set your prices so high, but it doesn't change the fact that if you had competition for the same customers during a show, you'd drop prices, set up a package price, or promise faster delivery to get clients.

Furthermore, there is a photographer who I don't believe is posting here who is notorious for not sending proofs or the finished images out for months. They have a well deserved reputation as an excellent equine photographer, but an equally bad rep for non-timely delivery. I maintain that if that person had to compete against someone else for business, those proofs would fly out of there!

~Kryswyn~
"Always look on the bright side of life, de doo, de doo de doo de doo"

msf
Feb. 28, 2003, 09:01 PM
In response to a previous comment:

Free enterprise does rule and I am glad for it! Show management hires the photogtrapher(s) of their choice and exhibitor input goes a long way in helping to make this choice. I have been awarded show contracts based largely upon the references of happy exhibitors. Knowing I have pleased my customers and pleased the show committee is a great feeling.

Suzanne Fischer
Blind Eye Photography
www.BlindEyePhotography.com (http://www.BlindEyePhotography.com)

equienne
Feb. 28, 2003, 10:01 PM
Kryswyn,

I belong to a large group of equine photographers which is actually made up of two groups. One is open to amateurs and beginning photographers, whom we encourage to learn about all aspects of what we do, whether they are interested in making it a profession or just want to know more about it for personal interest; and the other for professionals, exclusively.

We seek to educate each other and the public on the law and copyright issues, business operations, and technical photography skills. In fact, we recently hosted our first international conference which included top level seminars by some of our internationally known members.

I believe I can speak for all members (exceeding 400+) when I say that there is a real shortage of show photographers, and those willing to shoot a show of any size are growing smaller all the time. So don't be too quick to assume that a "call for photographers" would result in a deluge of people willing (and skilled enough) to take on the enormous challenge of a show, particularly if one is new, and is to stand beside other, more experienced professionals. There are not many people willing to risk the embarrassment if something major goes wrong. For instance, under pressure, it's easy to lose a roll of film when it doesn't catch on the roller, and you shoot 36 blanks in a championship class. Those are the kinds of things best practiced under less stressful conditions, not learned on the fly.

Anyone who's been in center ring for those un-re-creatable moments can tell you how they dread the possibility that a flash misfires, spooks a horse, causes a fall, doesn't light up far enough in an indoor, flattens a photo, or a myriad other possibilities that competitors as yourself assume a pro will handle. A beginner who just wants to get wet feet is going to garner more mayhem than applause and center ring is baptism by fire. Most people - no matter how much they want to learn - grow a healthy respect while considering those opportunities, even fear them, and rightfully try to get experience in less stressful areas. That would be my advice, as well, especially if you're suggesting this person should compete for business against seasoned pros.

I can anticpate that a client going for price in such an event might be very surprised, even disappointed, when the newbie trying their very best, stresses out and misses the shots. In that case, who would have been the better shot? The pro who caught the action for a price, or the newbie who missed it for a deal?

Show management does not always get the photographer of their choice, by the way. Often they're disorganized or pressured, with political dissent at the board level, budget constraints to work through, etc. They are frequently too late in asking for the date and the date is booked. I have had the sad luck of being called at the last moment by panicked show organizers, telling them I do not do shows, finally giving in to their desperation, only to have good reason later to understand why no one asked before me would touch those shows. Live and learn.

Sometimes there is difficulty in reaching agreements between management and photographers as to who pays whom, what is provided (backdrops, etc.) Anytime that occurs, and it often does, booking the date can be delayed and the date lost.

As to particular photographers and their business habits, there are as many ways of handling that as there are photographers, and our group is trying to bring that issue together so more consistency is observed. We have come a long way in two years, from being totally isolated individuals to being very much integrated, but we have a lot more ground to cover.

One comment on your website:
The shots you have posted which you say have credits too small to read ("not your fault") can be titled below them with the photographer's name, thus giving a small credit rather than none. This is one of the issues Charles was making... and a very good one.

[This message was edited by equienne on Mar. 01, 2003 at 01:12 AM.]

SupaGoo
Feb. 28, 2003, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msf:
In response to a previous comment:
I have been awarded show contracts based largely upon the references of happy exhibitors. Knowing I have pleased my customers and pleased the show committee is a great feeling.

Suzanne Fischer
Blind Eye Photography
http://www.BlindEyePhotography.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it is obvious why so many customers are pleased. I received quite a few photos from Suzanne today in the mail that were of a horse I rode that recently passed away due to the viral outbreak at me school. She so very very generously sent me these pictures at no charge. Talk about customer service!

-Kristen

Kewarra
Mar. 1, 2003, 03:42 AM
It's obvious that so many of you are not even thinking from a photographers viewpoint.

Go do photography, all day, at a show, and THEN come back and tell us how easy it is.

Oh no, I'm not talking about a few digital snapshots or with your compact camera.

Try and take decent photos of every competitor. And oh, move the sun to exactly where you want.

Honestly, get a grip. Before you criticise, step into an equestrian photographer's shoes. I don't know about in the US, but here, we certainly don't make thousands out of shows (some might) and sometimes, the whole show photography thing doesn't seem worth it. Reading this makes me realise how ungrateful comeptitors are. Maybe photographers should leave them to take oddly angled, under-exposed, out of focus shots?

Lord Helpus
Mar. 1, 2003, 05:45 AM
I am sorry that this thread had become a mutual bashing thread, when it started out as a focused discussion of one show: Ocala. And I have not seen anyone, from either perspective, come to the defense of the photographic sitation at that series of shows.

Would it be possible to get back to the initial discussion, and, hopefully, include exhibitors AND the photography outifts who are at that show?

Many generaliztions have been assumed when I do not believe they were meant. I have been showing since the 1950's and have encountered ALL kinds of photographers. Some good, some bad. The last time I showed at the National Horse Show at Madison Square Garden, the photographer sold the negative (and all rights assocoated thereto) for $20. This was in the 1980's. I mention this only to point out the incredible discrepancy between ways of doing business, and the difficulty in generalizing.

It is NOT fair to make blanket statements, by either side.. The photographers who have responded to this thread are probably fine professionals. That does not mean that ALL photographers live up to their efficiency and artistry.

Three of us who have been at Ocala have all had gripes about the situation there. I have not read a post from someone who has been there and is pleased with the professionalism of the companies at that venue. Perhaps we can leave it at that, unless THOSE photographers/videographers choose to join in. Otherwise, we are all spitting in the wind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

AKDragooPhoto
Mar. 1, 2003, 09:29 AM
Lord Helpus - Have you expressed your feelings to show management? At Ocala or any other show? The tone of this thread was set with the second sentence.

"But now, I want to lodge a complaint against horse show photographers."

This lumped all photographers into one group.

Shows are not going to turn away vendors who are paying for the booth space. Just because they are there does not make them the official photographer, as every horse show has an Offical. If you (I use "you" as an individual reading this, not you being just Lord Helpus) have problems with the offical photographer talk to management. But if you have problems with an independant vendor I doubt the show will care. The show is making it's money renting the booth space and the vendor does not represent the show.

So my question is, whay are you here on the boards griping anonymously about all photographers you have lumped together when you have not gone directly to the source. Each photographer here has been explaing their own practices, situations and federal copyright law. This is as much defending of the photographic situation at shows as we can do, as we are all independant.

It's rather simple. If you have problems with a specific photographer, go to that photographer.

Amy

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=934

kevin
Mar. 1, 2003, 04:35 PM
Well, true colors are showing for you flashe. I give up on you.

My original gripe was about the Ocala photographers, thank you lord helpus. And even though I went on to say that I then had a great experience with another photographer I hired, I'm told by several posters that I am "bashing" photographers everywhere. Well, listen up and see if you can understand English! I am only bashing the ones that have the same or similar operating procedures and prices. I am advocating "work for hire" situations which is a growing trend in YOUR *!^&gt;#* industry. Don't start quoting your precious copyright laws at me, I basically can throw them right back as I demonstrated.

And I am the CONSUMER. I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND A DAY BEING A PHOTOGRAPHER TO "UNDERSTAND" YOUR LIFE. IF YOU WANT TO STAY IN BUSINESS, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSUMER! I could say that your statement is extremely arrogant but you are probably too arrrogant to realize it. Do you have to spend a day with a surgeon before you hire them to operate on you? NO, but you would want to hire the best you can and that doesn't mean the most expensive.

Again, LISTEN UP! I HIRED A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER FOR LESS MONEY. I GOT MORE PRINTS THAT WERE BETTER AND COMPLETE RIGHTS TO USE THEM FOR WHATEVER I WANT THEM FOR. GET OVER IT PHOTOGRAPHERS! MAYBE YOU SHOULD SPEND A DAY WITH MY PHOTOGRAPHER AND LEARN HOW TO MAKE MONEY AND MAKE A CLIENT HAPPY - SOME OF YOU SEEM TO HAVE NO COMPREHENSION ON HOW TO DO IT.

I would say that I'm sorry that you feel like another photographer has shown you up, but today I don't feel like it and from your attitudes, I'd say you deserve it.

Northbeach
Mar. 2, 2003, 09:05 AM
Man! I can not believe the way some of the pro photographers have responded to this thread!!! Completely unprofessional!

How would you pro photographers like it next time you have poor service at say a restaurant and instead of the waitstaff responding to your complaints, they instead yelled at you that you needed to spend a day waiting tables to understand?

Or the next time you order something via a catalog or Internet and received poor service, they told you that you needed to spend the day taking orders at their company to "understand"?

That is the one of the most ludicrious things I've ever heard.

But, just to go on the record, my graphic company has made it a point to hire photographers under a the work for hire clause too. It is a fact that work for hire is a growing trend driven by the market demands.

Also, that link from the "expert" stating his opinions on copyright law - how old is it? Maybe it was written before work for hire starting becoming more in demand.

susan b
Mar. 2, 2003, 12:49 PM
equienne, I think you took lord helpus's post out of context. We were talking about the Ocala photographers and how the quality was so bad and delivery is poor.

I agree with the others - I don't think anyone here minds paying $25 for a "good" photo taken at a horseshow but why would anyone want to pay $25 or even $10 or $5.00 for a bad product?

Molly99
Mar. 2, 2003, 03:38 PM
Kevin,

You keep saying that you hired an independent photographer to come to Ocala and take pictures for you and only you. Did you clear this with show management?

Just like any non-official vet and farrier, must declare themselves, a photographer that has not bought vendor space, should do the same. The show may not care, but they should present themselves as they are making money off of the show, even in an indirect way.

So they are not in the ring, big deal, the majority of photographers seem to want to be outside the ring, unless it is a huge field.

It is not the stewards responsiblity to keep track of the photographers. A show photographers is not a REQUIREMENT, but a luxury that most shows try to provide and yes the shows do PAY the official photographer to be there.

I have had requests from other photopgraphers to come to shows I run and have turned them down, because I was already paying a photographer to be there. That is one of the perks of being the official photographer at a show. It is also a drawback, as exhibitors seem to forget that you have to take pictues of all the other exhibitors as well.

If you had a problem with the official show photographers, go to MANAGEMENT and express your concerns. Venting on a BB will not solve the problem. If they do not know, they will not do anything about it. They may not even after you tell them, but then you at least know how management feels about the situation.

I know of many shows that have changed their official photographers based on complaints from exhibitors.



Repeat after me: I will not feed the trolls, I will not feed the trolls.....

kevin
Mar. 2, 2003, 06:42 PM
Molly99, go back and read my posts. I said I made the phone calls and have already posted what I have been told - the show officials say they have no recourse.

Also, according to the other photographers who have posted here, the shows DO NOT pay the official photographer to be there. The photographer is paying them.

And who says that I have not complained to the management? I have indeed and the reason I have posted on a public BB was not to solve my problem but to let everyone know there are other options when looking for a photographer - work for hire - and to let their wishes be known to any other show organizer to do the same - HIRE ONLY WORK FOR HIRE PHOTOGRAPHERS!!!

I am not sure why you think I was trying to solve a "problem" here. I don't think I expressed that anywhere in any of my posts. BB's can be a source of information about something good....or something bad.

cehilton46
Mar. 4, 2003, 09:51 AM
posted Mar. 01, 2003 07:35 PM Mar. 01, 2003 07:35 PM
**Well, true colors are showing for you flashe. I give up on you.

My original gripe was about the Ocala photographers, thank you lord helpus. And even though I went on to say that I then had a great experience with another photographer I hired, I'm told by several posters that I am "bashing" photographers everywhere. Well, listen up and see if you can understand English! I am only bashing the ones that have the same or similar operating procedures and prices. I am advocating "work for hire" situations which is a growing trend in YOUR *!^&gt;#* industry. Don't start quoting your precious copyright laws at me, I basically can throw them right back as I demonstrated.

And I am the CONSUMER. I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND A DAY BEING A PHOTOGRAPHER TO "UNDERSTAND" YOUR LIFE. IF YOU WANT TO STAY IN BUSINESS, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSUMER! I could say that your statement is extremely arrogant but you are probably too arrrogant to realize it. Do you have to spend a day with a surgeon before you hire them to operate on you? NO, but you would want to hire the best you can and that doesn't mean the most expensive.


And who says that I have not complained to the management? I have indeed and the reason I have posted on a public BB was not to solve my problem but to let everyone know there are other options when looking for a photographer - work for hire - and to let their wishes be known to any other show organizer to do the same - HIRE ONLY WORK FOR HIRE PHOTOGRAPHERS!!!**


Hi Kevin,

As a photographer that does WORK FOR HIRE almost all the time could you give me your definition for work for hire? That might help me to understand exactly where you are coming from on this and could clear up misconceptions that I am having.

When I do a work for hire it is for a specific time frame and a specific purpose in which my client, IE the one doing the hiring and I discuss the terms of that contract. Rights for the photos are negotiated and my fees are negotiated accordingly. If we don't agree the shoot never happens, I move on and the client moves on. I don't get upset because they didn't want to pay what I was asking, hopefully they wouldn't either. I produce the photos and they pay my price for the rights that we contracted only anything else will cost more after we have agreed on the terms and singed the agreement. It is a contract.

I have also worked as a monthly salaried photographer in which case, I was paid for the days I worked given insurance, all the benefits of being steadily employed. That employer provided all the equipment, appointments everything I needed for the job. All I did was commit to 8 hours a day with overtime for more than that. The employer did own all the copyrights for the work I had done. I went home afterwards and forgot about all the hassles of doing a work for hire, like taking all the responsibility for equipment, taxes, all the things that a business has to do play a part in even a WORK FOR HIRE photographer. If you are able to get all rights from a photographer calling it a work for hire and pay them very little, more power to you, but that photographer will not stay in business very long if he/she can't meet the bottom line. Our families get hungry too and want to do a few things to enjoy life as well.

I have shared the above because I think there is a misconception in the definition of WORK FOR HIRE. I do that a lot and to get all rights from what I shoot will cost you a lot more than $25 to $250 that you are talking about here. As someone has pointed out earlier when a show photographer shoots a show they are selling in my experiences only for personal use like hanging the photo in your office or home not for hanging a full color full page ad or for posting on a web site to advertise what ever you are advertising it with. As long as we control the copy rights on our images, meaning we haven't gone to work for you as an employee with you providing all the necessary tools of the trade for us to work, then we have the right to determine how every image we create is used, even at a horse show. We set the show prices for those who just want a personal photo, anything more and most photographers charge and set their prices.
As an Equine Professional Photographer we can't even meet to discuss how much we charge without facing problems with price fixing. We all charge differently and some do call themselves professionals and charge professional prices but don't produce professional work, they will be weeded out by you the clients but voicing your complaints as you have stated. Sometimes a photographer can have a bad day just as you or your horse don’t always perform up to your best some of us fail as well. When we fail to meet certain standards, we usually don't get a second chance.

As for the shows giving a work for hire contract, I might consider one if they provide enough to meet the expenses and guaranteed a profit for what it takes to provide every rider to have a choice to pick from. That would be heaven for photographers. There may be some as indicated that pay the photographers to be there but most shows don't even help with expenses at all and a few charge the photographer to be there. The vast majority of the shows do allow the photographer exclusive rights to shoot the show and that is all we get, when that is taken away, you will see fewer real professional even attempt to shoot a show.

Kevin, had you named the photographers in question most of us wouldn't have objected, we don't like it when the customer is taken at a show or at their own place, it is bad for us all. I think that the reason you have seen the input from the photographers, myself included is because this forum does reach many readers that aren't responding and we are only trying to let them know there are many, many more Professional Photographers who care and want to give our clients a product they can first be proud of and second that meets their needs. We just want to be compensated appropriately for the use of our products. I understand your frustration when that isn't met by someone who is the official at your shows especially at a large event. You the horse owners and we the photographers can make a difference by doing the right thing ourselves. I am not defending the guilty and you shouldn't condemn the innocent. This doesn't have to be us against you, it could be we, working together the make it better for all.

Again help me to understand you definition of work for hire. I have stated what it means to me. Lets try to level the ground and do something productive.

Thank you all who are listening and taking place in this discussion, you are reaching the professional equine photographers and we are listening. Many will work harder because of this to help solve the problems as far as we can as a group and individual. I don't think any of us have complained about how difficult it can be to take that wonderful shot that will cause you to part with your hard earned money. When have you seen a post here from photographers blasting some of the customers that are stealing images even to the extent of not even removing the big PROOF from show photos to advertise their horses. All you have to do in some cases is to look to see that it is happening. Nothing was even purchased. I hope you understand that this is our living and we do care about it. We do care about our customers and if we didn't we would be out of the business.

Thanks,
Charles Hilton

kevin
Mar. 4, 2003, 12:43 PM
Charles, thanks for your post.

There are 2 professional photographers booths at Ocala. One is Parker. I can't remember the other one's name but I have their card somewhere & will try to find it. Both photographers have a slew of "assistants" actually taking the photos.

As for work for hire, when I hired my private photographer, I am paying a day rate, food, film & development. They were already in Ocala so I did not pay lodging though I understand that I would have to if I was somewhere else. In exchange, I get all the negatives and all rights. With multiple sale horses, this is much more economical than paying a per photo rate. For someone with 1 or 2 horses, maybe it would not work or one could go in with someone else and split a photographer.

I don't really care if there is an official show photographer or not if the fees to actually USE your own photo are going to be so extravagant. I really believe that photographers are causing some of their own problems and here is why: MOST horses at some time will be bought and sold. Yes, some die hard softies (I have ONE that will always have a home) will never sell an "old friend" but MOST MOST MOST horses will be sold at one point. With that in mind, saying a photo you buy at a show -especially a big "A" show - can only be used to hang on your wall....well, it is setting the photographer up for future problems, almost guaranteed.

So, if the show photographers are "just selling photos for wall-hanging only" , it only makes sense for the consumerto hire someone who is going to meet the different need of horse for sale photos/stallion photos - advertising in general.

JBO
Mar. 4, 2003, 02:45 PM
James Leslie Parker is not at Ocala - he is at WEF. Todd Sutherland/Flying Horse and Lillian Weiks (unsure of the spelling) are at Ocala.

kevin
Mar. 4, 2003, 03:24 PM
The assistant said repeatedly, "Parker is very strict....Parker charges a lot of web photos...Parker probably won't come down on his price...." This was at the photographer booth near the big balloon.

Is there another Parker she could have been referring to?

London Fog
Mar. 6, 2003, 06:17 AM
I think all the Kevins in the world dig their own graves and live in unmarked plots.

susan b
Mar. 6, 2003, 07:17 AM
London Fog, since most of us, and there are many, AGREE with Kevin, that doesn't say much for you.

London Fog
Mar. 6, 2003, 07:42 AM
Meditation my dear, it will help.

London Fog
Mar. 6, 2003, 07:48 AM
Pied Pipers and Rat Races is how I see it!!!

London Fog
Mar. 6, 2003, 07:49 AM
Pied Pipers and Rat Races is how I see it!!! and you see Kevin as Mickey the good mouse!!!!

SMKR
Mar. 6, 2003, 08:03 AM
Ok

I am totally confused by the posting going on now but since I did cast aspersions at the videographer I thought it only fair to let you all know that I recieved my tape one week early and it is the correct horse and class! It is not the best quality and does pick up a millisecond before the first jump and fades out at the landing of the last jump but I am pleased with the prompt service and my worries about getting the wrong tape were for nothing.

Tiki
Mar. 6, 2003, 09:11 AM
Well, after reading all this I'm going to post my own problems with Professional Photographers. I paid $50 to have a set of photos taken. Took 9 months to get 'some' of the proofs, none of which were identified by number or any other code that I could see. Never could get the proofs of the head shots I had ordered. Never could get any information on how to order any of the prints or how much they would cost. Lost $50 bucks and a lot of phone calls and emails and wound up with no photos, no refund and LOTS of frustration.

Last year at Devon I got 6 proofs. In 1 the horse was being backed up into position - not real attractive. In another the pose was good but the handler's arm completely blocked the lower half of the face. Two others were at very bad angles and the horse looked like it was about to fall down. The other 2 were good, except that the photographed side on one was completely in shadow from the ribs forward - couldn't even see the eye. In the other the horse blended in so well to the background I could hardly make out the outline of the horse. It cost another $50 to have the shots taken. It would cost a minimum of $30 each to print them. It would cost $100/hour to lighten them up/edit them/take away the extremely busy background. The response to the background problem was "Oh well, it IS Devon". The photographer was very defensive about the work. There would have been a charge of $250 to put each (if I had bought them) on my website AND I had to give credit. How about if I reciprocate and charge $250 for advertising on my web site. I've now lost $100 and have nothing to show for it. The 1st photographer's ( 2 different 'professionals') pics were fabulous, but I couldn't get any of them. This is a flat out ripoff as far as I'm concerned. If I had wanted one single picture to hang on my wall, it would have cost about $180 and the face, head and neck still would have been indistinct!

GreystoneKC
Mar. 6, 2003, 09:25 AM
Can anyone give me information on how to contact Al Cool Photography? Thanks

...for there are wings on these hooves, the speed and power of foam-capped waves...
*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*~v~*
Proud member of the artists clique

elizabeth
Mar. 6, 2003, 09:35 AM
Question for the professional photographers:

Why couldn't I pay you $60 per hour plus cost of film to come to my farm, take shots of my horse, give me the film, and leave?

I've done that before. The only stipulation, actually, is that I give the photographer a set of the prints I have developed myself.

been there
Mar. 6, 2003, 09:50 AM
apparantly London Fog is operating from a different dimension from the rest of us - I'd just disregard his/her post(s) as trollwork.

Sorry to hear about the other 2 posters bad experiences with photographers but I think that it is not uncommon.

Elizabeth, your experience is what we should be striving for - pay an hourly or daily fee, get all the negatives and all the rights.

London Fog
Mar. 6, 2003, 10:10 AM
LOL

equienne
Mar. 6, 2003, 10:46 AM
been there...
I understand your frustrations, but I think maybe negotiating for "all rights" will be costly and more beef than you really need. Most professionals have a price range for individual uses such as posters, magazine ads, web use, brochures, etc... all broken down by circulation rates and exposure. Remember that these photos, when used comercially, have a differing value for each use. Many owners will never want or need comercial rights, and it would be so prohibitively priced that they would find us all to be "greedy" or worse. What you are better off doing is defining exactly what your needs and use will be; getting a contract in writing with a photographer on that, and then paying only for that. Once you receive your prints, remember what you paid for and stick to that. Fair is fair, and using it beyond those limits is a good reason for your photographer to be angry at you, too.

For those who have had bad experiences with a photographer, remember that a photo contract is as enforceable in a court of law as one for renovations on your house. As a client you are entitled to a full description in writing of what you are paying for, including a delivery date. Business is business and it should be conducted as such. Bad shots happen but should be the exception not the rule. And non-delivery on a paid order shouldn't happen at all.

However, there is a flip side as well. Don't pay for a single print and then plaster it all over the world and expect not to be billed. The Arabian Nationals recently had a number of posters hanging on stall walls from professionals and not only were they not contacted or paid for the shots used, they were not even given credit. That amounts to theft any way you look at it. Incidents such as this and many magazines erasing names off photos, and using them in ads which create income for them - well -. you can see why so many photographers aren't happy about things either.

This creates a lot of confusion and unhappiness on both sides, and people start getting very defensive.

I'm sure we all would like to work together to create the images which will show both our horses and our talents off to their best. As in every business, it's best to talk your needs out and give the service provider the opportunity to meet them at a cost which works for you both. Signed contracts work for both sides. If a check bounces several times a photographer should have the right to dispute it legally just as the local dry cleaner would. And it will describe the intended use of the print and the charge for that use.

All in all I think the business on both sides would be more palatable if people talked to each other instead of about each other. So next time you're dealing with a photographer, ask questions, don't assume; we all run our businesses differently. And get it in writing before you pay. That protects you both.

elizabeth
Mar. 6, 2003, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by equienne:
been there...
I understand your frustrations, but I think maybe negotiating for "all rights" will be costly and more beef than you really need. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please address my question, if you wouldn't mind. It is posted about three posts up.

Thanks!

Weatherford
Mar. 6, 2003, 11:01 AM
Please keep it civil!

London Fog, stop trolling.

Thanks.

It's OUT! Linda Allen's 101 Exercises for Jumping co-authored by MOI!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jparkes
Mar. 6, 2003, 11:15 AM
Question to photographers -

Wouldn't it be in your best interest to have forms for the customers to fill out when they purchase a photo from you? As one mentioned above, photo contracts will hold up in a court of law. How many exhibitors have copies of these contracts? Instead of telling the exhibitor "you should know the laws", how about having it all in writing for each to fill out and sign?

Secretplace Farm
www.spfarm.com (http://www.spfarm.com)

London Fog
Mar. 6, 2003, 11:35 AM
Representing the "troll" section of this discussion, I rest my case.

equienne
Mar. 6, 2003, 12:41 PM
Elizabeth,

There was a time when many of us had no idea what was happening to our photos, didn't think they had much value, and charged little or nothing for use in ads or articles. We were not in touch with each other, we had no real sense of how many others were seeing their work turn up without their names attached in national magazines, in ads or even on products. Copies being duplicated for friends nad family seemed a rare occurence. We had no idea how many others were experiencing the same problems. We thought we were the only ones...

Then scanners came along, and software to alter the images, we found out that copies were being made and our names removed. Our work was being resold over and over again without payment to us. (check out ebay, webphotos.com, and all the other "post your photos here for free and let your friends buy them" sites)...owners were using our photos in posters and prints and making a ton off our work to promote their animals for sale, show and breeding.

...and then there was the internet...

...and then there was Napster...

...And Napster woke us up.


You see, Elizabeth, we began to realize that there's no difference in our work being used to make money for our clients than for other photogrpahers in other fields selling photos for other types of products (except that they regularly make thousands of dollars for their shots.) And yet, since "it's always been done this way" those who were used to using the negatives and prints paying just once for them (and very little at that) figured that they weren't worth much. After all, it's only film and developing, right?

Well... if you're making a living, it *is* a loss.

That's why. We're not in the dark ages anymore.

ARTISTS HAVE FRIENDS and we do keep in touch. Now we know when our images show up and we're not being paid. And we tell each other. We keep in touch.. by phone, and by the net. And we know the styles of each other;'s work, so when a shot turns up ona website that looks remarkably like one in a friend's online portfolio, the email goes out. The phone rings.

Would you give your work away? Should mare owners use extra straws for other mares they aren't paying for? They only paid for one, but if they have extras...??? (Hey, it doesn't take long to collect semen for a breeding. And the stallion does most of the work. A little lab time and pack it off on a jet...Heck, if there are extra straws from AI, why not just breed that extra mare and not claim it, right? After all, the shipment was made, right?)

Do you see how easy it is for people to justify stealing when it wasn't part of the original agreement?

I hope this makes it easier to understand?

Gene
Mar. 6, 2003, 12:45 PM
Let me run this scenerio by you guys and gals, A photographer that delivers your prints onsite up to 16 x 20's, lets you view proofs on a computer screen larger than a 8 x 10 and offers a CD of 5 images you own all rights to for a reasonable price.
would that make you a happy camper http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

equienne
Mar. 6, 2003, 12:56 PM
jparkes,

We have files of forms we share to help each other create the forms which will work best to meet our customers' needs and our own. Most of us who are on the network try to work very hard to meet both sides' needs and are usually very fair and compassionate aobut special needs, or circumstances. We do have hearts, honest. There are many who aren't informed yet, haven't joined our group to hear each other suggest better ways of doing business, learning from one another and trying to understand how best we can serve our clients. As I said in an earlier post, we have come a long way but we have a long way to go.

The word is spreading quickly and those who join us have been sent links to many good business suggestions, contract samples, and we are currently working on an ethics program that all who join will be mandated to agree to. We're not out to burn ourselves out of work. That wouldn't make any sense.

We do need for there to be equal interest from the other side as well; equally good ethics and mutual support in all our business transactions. Then everyone will be much happier.

susan b
Mar. 6, 2003, 01:18 PM
equienne, why does everytime someone starts talking about the riduculas pricing that some professional photographers have, other photographers turn it into a discussion about stealing?

No one here tried to steal anything. No one here used an image in a way that they weren't supposed to and no one here erased anyone's copyright off of a photo.

What gives? Do you understand the topic at all?

The topic is about the HUGE difference in buying a mediocre show photo for $25 and being told that to then use it for a website it would cost ten times that much and then more if you needed a brochure. To a lessor extent, the topic is also about how none of these so-called top quality professional photographers at one of the biggest equestrian events around had ANYTHING in writing - no fees for on-going use, web use, brochure or ad use.

It is riduculas to want the consumer to HUNT down a photographer years after the fact to find out if a photo can be used for something and how much that "something" would cost. Get this scenerio: I want to create a farm brochure and start looking through my photos. I come across one I want to use and the only thing on it is the photographer's name..say John Doe Photography. So now I need to call John Doe and ask him how much? Ok, how do I find JOhn Doe? Does he have a website? Who knows. Can I look him up in information? Well, I don't know what city, state or country John Doe lives in so my chances of information finding him and giving me his phone number is slim. I bought the photo in question at a big horse show so the photographer probably is NOT living in the state that the horse show was in. I could call the horse show management and see if they can look it up but really this is a mess!!

I agree with Kevin. Most horses at especially the big horse shows will be sold some day. For photographers to sell photos for "wall hanging only" is just to set themselves up for problems later and expecting the consumer to go through the scenerio I just outlined above is unrealistic at best. It really is reap what you sow.

tm
Mar. 6, 2003, 02:27 PM
&gt;&gt;For photographers to sell photos for "wall hanging only" is just to set themselves up for problems later and expecting the consumer to go through the scenerio I just outlined above is unrealistic at best.&gt;&gt;

Okay, I'm jumping in here with a couple of questions for all of you:

1) How many images on average, would you say you purchase per year? How many of those are 4x6, how many are 8x10?

2) How many images do you use in ads per year in order to sell horses?

3) How many images, ideally, would you post to your website per year?

The reason I'm asking is this: A percentage of my income as a photographer comes from commercial use fees. As eating is a habit I can't seem to shake, IF I don't charge separately for the use of photos for commercial use (appearance in ads to sell horses), to make up the difference, I would have to raise all my print prices by 30%. Which bring me to my next question:

4) Would it make more financial sense for you, in your specific circumstances, to

A) purchase ALL your photos at this 30% higher rate if it meant that you could then use any or all of them on your website or place a print ad to sell your horse? Or

B) Would it make more financial sense for you to buy prints at the present, lower price, with NO commercial use attached, and then only purchase the rights to the individual photos that you are using for ads or your website, even if it might mean a little more legwork? Or

C) Would it make NO sense financially for you, but you'd prefer to pay more across the board for your photos which you could use in ads or your website, because the freedom to use those photos at will would make you feel more warm and fuzzy about buying photos? ;-)

Thanks!

TM

EqChick
Mar. 6, 2003, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jparkes:
Let's look at this from another vendor's standpoint. The food vendors. I don't show anymore and it's been many years since I've evn been to the bigger shows, but I remember we could take our coolers and our own food to the shows instead of having to eat what the vendors had. Do the food vendors have the same rules as the photographer now? Buy from them only?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JParkes, I think this is a great point. Now, I am by NO way getting involved in the greater debate of worth and talent and pricing, but I think this is a more B/W issue (pardon the pun).

I **think** this is how this works:

If you bring your own food and eat it, that's fine.
If you bring your own camera and take pictures (or someone else takes them for you), that's fine.

If you bring food and try to sell it to someone else (assuming you're not a licensed vendor = you don't have an official agreement to serve as a show vendor), that's not fine becuase you're making money off of the show, and show management is not getting a cut.
If you bring a camera and take pictures of other people and charge them for it (assuming you don't have an official agreement to serve as an official show photographer), that's not fine because you're making off of the show, and show managment is not getting a cut.


Does that make sense? No one is saying you can't have your Mom come take pictures of you in the ring. I think what they're saying is you can't have your Mom just show up to a show and take pictures, and then sell them (to the exhibitor or anyone else).

Now, obviously, at a small local show, I don't think anyone will care. But, as you get to bigger and bigger shows, it becomes a bigger issue. So, at WEF, there's a reason that you can't show up on the grounds and take and sell pictures - becuase WEF management thinks that there is intangible value to the WEF reputation, and wants to be paid for it. So, photographers that want to take and sell pictures there must pay WEF a fee to do so. In return (as retribution for the photographers I guess), WEF agrees to only allow a certain number of photographers so that they don't get into price wars and can make enough money to be profitable given their costs.

Does that make sense? I definitely am not insisting that I am correct, nor am I trying to negate anyone else's opinion previously stated. I just thought JParkes brought up a good point, and I wanted to bring it back up.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

~~Jingle~~Jingle~~Jingle~~Jingle~~Jingle~~Jingle~~

AKDragooPhoto
Mar. 6, 2003, 03:41 PM
"buying a mediocre show photo for $25 and being told that to then use it for a website it would cost ten times that much and then more if you needed a brochure"

Susan B - Why would you want to use a mediocre show photo for anything? Just because there are palm trees in the background does this make your horse more valuable? Why would you buy anything you are not satisfied with?

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=934

Lord Helpus
Mar. 6, 2003, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Susan B - Why would you want to use a mediocre show photo for anything? ... Why would you buy anything you are not satisfied with?

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=934<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because that is ALL there is, and a mediocre picture is better than none. Obviously, if I had a choice between a really good picture and a mediocre one, I would buy the former (at the same price). Sad to say, at Ocala, I did not have that choice.

BTW, it is interesting that NO ONE has responded to my question about price fixing at Ocala -- 2 photographers, charging the same prices. Can that be a COINCIDENCE????? Oh My No! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And they deliberately do not take pictures in the same rings -- so there is NO COMPETITION, just 2 mediocre photographic companies. Every day you go over to both tents to look at pictures from the day before, and every day there are poor or no pictures. So, at the end of 3 weeks, with a new horse, you pick the best of a bad lot and shell out the money, just to have a picture of your new horse.

THAT'S WHY........... (Is this a revelation?) You asked a question, which I answered. But the answer seems so self evident to me that I cannot believe that the question even needed asking.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

susan b
Mar. 6, 2003, 05:00 PM
ok eqchick, under your logic, then all the trainers at the horse show who are "making money" off of the show by charging their clients "show day training" should pay a vender fee to be able to charge training fees to their clients. And all the braiders should have to pay a vender fee to braid any horses. And all the grooms who get paid (ha!) should have to pay a vender fee. Ok, lets see, how about the farriers? Do they pay a vender fee? How about the vets? Do ALL of them pay a vender fee?

RugBug
Mar. 6, 2003, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EqChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jparkes:
Let's look at this from another vendor's standpoint. The food vendors. I don't show anymore and it's been many years since I've evn been to the bigger shows, but I remember we could take our coolers and our own food to the shows instead of having to eat what the vendors had. Do the food vendors have the same rules as the photographer now? Buy from them only?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JParkes, I think this is a great point. Now, I am by NO way getting involved in the greater debate of worth and talent and pricing, but I think this is a more B/W issue (pardon the pun).

I **think** this is how this works:

If you bring your own food and eat it, that's fine.
_If you bring your own camera and take pictures (or someone else takes them for you), that's fine._

If you bring food and try to sell it to someone else

etc.

~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, I think to apply the above analogy to what has been discussed would be:

Would it be okay to hire a professional caterer to bring food to you while on the show grounds because the quality of what is being offered...at particular shows, by particular vendors...is overpriced and tastes like crap.

It would be a pre-arranged service for you only. I think this lies somewhere in between the examples you (and someone else earlier) are trying to use.

been there
Mar. 6, 2003, 05:53 PM
Ok, so now what you are saying is that it would be against the rules to have a pizza delivered to us while we were at the show!!!!

Unbelievable!

AKDragooPhoto
Mar. 6, 2003, 06:13 PM
As for price fixing, we know what the market will bear. As do all the trainers who you ride with. I bet there are quite a few who charge the same, is that price fixing?

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=934

Flashe
Mar. 6, 2003, 07:20 PM
Guess who's back......well very briefly at least! And "Hello" to all you fine folks again!

I'm going to stick my neck out here again for you, please don't cut my head off just yet as I have to work this weekend and might need it! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif (Had to try a little humor here!)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:
[QUOTE]And they deliberately do not take pictures in the same rings -- so there is NO COMPETITION,... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually LH, the real reason the two different photographers don't shoot the same ring at the same time is out of professional courtsey. Typically on large scale shows with multiple photographers such as this one, they rotate out the various rings so as not to "step" on top of one another trying to use the same lighting angles as well as not to be a hinderence to the horses/riders in the ring. Some horses/riders aren't all that comfortable with lots of people against the ring pointing long lenes at them. And with the videographers at the ring as well it can get a little crowded sometimes. In the past show managers even asked that of multiple photographers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, it is interesting that NO ONE has responded to my question about price fixing at Ocala -- 2 photographers, charging the same prices. Can that be a COINCIDENCE????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't take this as dodging your question, but if you (and all others)can just hold on to that question until tomorrow night, I give you sincerest word I'll give you a truthful answer on it as it pertains to this Ocala situation. That's a promise and I hope that from my previous postings you realize I'm not one to shoot bull to you folks. Ok? Deal?

I want to stray sorta off topic for a moment and say a heartfelt "Thank You" to all of you that sent me private posts, they truly meant alot to me. I don't get the chance to "chat" here often because of our crazy travel schedule which is about to kick off again real soon, but I'll be online some tonight and again tomorrow night, open to answer any questions or concerns you'd like to "chat" about. And just ask the same as previously~you get my respect and consideration at all times, please grant me the same.

And tomorrow night I will have what should be quite an insightful posting for you all. Just hang with me a little while longer.

Well, that's my current two cents worth and I "Thank You" all for listening!
RM

RugBug
Mar. 7, 2003, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by been there:
Ok, so now what you are saying is that it would be against the rules to have a pizza delivered to us while we were at the show!!!!

Unbelievable!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eesh! Been There, no one is saying anything of the sort. I was just trying to correct the analogy to what Kevin did (hire is own photographer to take pictures of his horse/s only).

It seems to me that the major issue is that consumer's feel like they are being taken for a ride by photographers who aren't taking quality pictures and aren't acting very professionally but are still charging quality prices. Things are made worse because the consumers feel trapped due to show management contracts and laws.

The contracts exist to make it worthwhile for a photographer to even go to event, but they can allow for some people to get lazy...not making sure to give the 150% I'm sure it takes to get some good, well-timed pictures of every horse. The consumer can complain to management and the photographer may not be asked back the next year but what happens to this year's pictures? The consumer is either stuck with buying poor quality, seemingly overpriced pictures or waiting til next year and hoping for better? Not a good solution in the world of horses where things can change in the drop of a hat. Example: LH's horse is for sale...she may not have another Ocala, or another show for that matter (at least not if I had the money http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), with him so waiting for a better photograph/er is not realistic.

The quality photographers out there should be condemning the ones who are giving you a bad name instead of trying to justify their unprofessionalism. I think most of the consumers who posted here said they would be willing to pay the prices for quality pictures. They just don't want to spend the money on mediocre ones.

kevin
Mar. 7, 2003, 12:29 PM
To answer Terri's questions, yes I would pay 30% more if I knew I could then use the photo for anything I wanted, could blow it up, make copies, etc.

$25.00 horse show pic + 30% = $32.50 = no problem for me.

Weatherford
Mar. 7, 2003, 01:12 PM
I had a real problem in WEF when I was there in 2000. I ASKED the ALL THE photographers to take my horses' pictures, told them the numbers and the classes (and we competed in four different rings) - and what did I get in EIGHT WEEKS of showing?

ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE PICTURE, NOT ONE PROOF - No, that is wrong, I got ONE picture of MY TRAINER on my horse, but not the HORSE!! Which, I didn't buy, cause it was NOT WHAT I ASKED FOR.

Ditto the Video company - whom I paid IN ADVANCE for a dozen rounds or so and I got THREE - they kept MISSING my rounds. And, no I did NOT get a refund from them.

Really really annoys me. I can understand LordHelpus' and others' frustrations.

It's OUT! Linda Allen's 101 Exercises for Jumping co-authored by MOI!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKDragooPhoto
Mar. 7, 2003, 02:24 PM
Not all photographers are good. It's as simple as that. But everyone is free to declare the value of their work. You may not agree with it. Don't buy the product. They pay the vee to be a vendor, they get to set up shop.

And just think out of the box, why is it that the top photographers in the industry gravitate to certin shows/series?

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=934

susan b
Mar. 7, 2003, 07:01 PM
Yes, everyone is free to declare the value of their work and we are all free to blast them on public BBs too.

Lord Helpus
Mar. 7, 2003, 07:22 PM
I like the analogy of having Pizza delivered. it seems to be right on point/

A show arranges for a food stand to sell food (and for a photographer to sell pictures of people at the show). if I do not like the food, I am free to call Papa Johns and ask that they deliver a pizza to me at the show grounds.

This is just what Kevin did -- He made arrangements for someone to come in and sell him a product on the show grounds because he did not like the services that were being offered by the show's contract company. This is ENTIRELY different from Papa Johns bringing a pizza oven and a tent and selling pizza at the show.

And to the respondent to said that TWO photographers at ringside would scare/bother horses, whereas ONE will not ---- I say Bull-hooey. Anyone is free to ask a photographer to NOT shoot them (that is, if you can find one who is planning on shooting you.) But in my wildest imagination, I cannot imagine exhibitors objecting to having 2 photographers at one ring.....

And that is not even the reason that the Ocala photographers gave. So, if that has ever been a valid reason, it was not operative there.

BTW, It has now been 11 days since I ordered pictures and videos. I was told by the picture people that they would be sent out in 3 - 4 days........ Of course, we can blame the next 7 - 8 days on the post office, can't we?.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

Flashe
Mar. 7, 2003, 08:10 PM
Better late than never, but at least I'm keeping my promise to you all. This may get a little long, so get comfortable!

Let me start out with a message to my fellow pros who may be reading this, some of you may not like or appreciate some of the things I intend to say tonight and I apologize if that's the case, but I promised these folks an open and honest insight tonight about the Ocala situation...and that's just what they're going to get, my own "personal" honesty.

Here goes~well as fate or dumb luck would have it I've been to Ocala twice this week. First on Wednesday, where after finishing a private shoot I dropped by the HITS facilty and took a walk around (sorry I couldn't find you Liverpool! I did try!). Only spent about an hour there, just looking things over, then ran into one of our favorite barns~some of our "adopted" kids were going to be showing today, Friday, and I was invited to come back and "just hang" with them. Again~fate stepped in, and after rereading all the previous and new posts~I took the day off to go "hang"!

Well after watching the girls wrap up some classes, they wanted to walk around the vendor area and shop...lucky me! Now keep in mind I was there not working, no cameras, no business cards, no nothing~just a regular person hanging out with my kids. So we stroll over towards the first photographers tent, the kids actually didn't want to go, but I did~so I used them! HA! I asked them not to mention my being a pro because I wanted to find out how I'd be treated. In other words folks...I decided to step into your shoes for the day! The following is all the info I gathered from each photographer's tent, the show management's office, a few vendors I know very well, and my own personal observations.

At the first tent, both of the two girls working were quite pleasant and helpful. I sat down with my kids to look at their proofs. I saw about a dozen proofs of each girl-they've ridden two weekends each in 4 classes per day, all Hunter. An honest evaluation of the proofs? On the first kid, there were two that had a minor focus issue but for the most part the form and timing were ok. The second kid's, again not too bad, although one was shot a bit early and one a bit late. My personal disappointment was in the lack of choice~most all were the same angle, 60% were the same fence I think. This could have been a lighting issue for the time of day it was shot, I don't know for sure and in all honesty I doubt it. I did ask for an order form and information on copyright usage fees. There wasn't any paperwork with the copyright fees listed but the one girl wrote them down for me. Now just to clear up this price fixing question~although close in price they are actually different...just to start with the first tent: 4x6 $25.00 each, 5x7 $45.00 each, 8x10 $55.00 each~all the way to 20x30 at $165.00 each. Now this photographer offered a "Barn Discounts" on 4x6's, if you purchase five 4x6 you get 10% off, ten 4x6's you get 15% off, all the way up to purchasing thirty 4x6's and you get 30% off. As for the copyright info~on the order form it does plainly have a statement saying, "These photographs may not be copied in any manner, including but not limited to photocopying or electronic reproduction. All use of these photographs for advertising and/or personal publication must be previously cleared with our office......", and this order form is carboned with the bottom copy acting as a reciept so you could not legally purchase a photo and claim the reciept had no copyright statement.And deliverly is 4-6 weeks~I don't like that myself! Now as for the web site usage fees, this is what was told to me and put into writing for me..fees range from $125.00 to $250.00 depending on the size of the image and the length of time it would be used. I didn't go into alot more questions as someone else had come up for help and I also didn't want to give myself away.

So on to tent number two we go~again two ladies working, one was quite pleasant and the other basically ignored me (strike one!). Here we saw only 5 proofs for one kid and 7 proofs for the other kid. The form and timing were fine on most of them, but again my complaint was no variety in shots. Mostly close ups and head ons, done nicely but I'd still like to see a little more horse too. (AGAIN THIS IS MY OWN OPINION!) Asked for and have an order form, pricing is a little different-two wallets for $15.00, one 4x6 or 3x5 without an enlargement purchase is $25.00, with an enlargement purchase $20.00 each, 5x7 for $40.00, 8x10 for $50.00 and so forth. What I did find more exspensive were the larger prints 16x20 for $160.00, 20x30 for $200.00, and 24x36 for $250.00. Also noted were the fact that wallets, 3x5, 4x6, and the larger 20x30 cannot be cropped. As for the copyright fees, again there was no order form type info, but the girl wrote it out for me. For web site usage it is $250.00 for a one year usage license which apparently is all he offers in this category, so it wouldn't matter if it was a personal web site or professional farm's web site or even an internet ad site. The order form itself also does have basically the same copyright statement about "photographs may not be reproduced in any manner...etc" so the legal part is in fact there in writing.

Ok, so here comes the truth part from me on both of these operations: no, I personally wasn't blown away with many of the proofs, they weren't all bad, but remember I'm going to be ten times more critical than you when looking at proofs! Price fixing? No, I can't say that's happening either because there is enough of a difference in their offerings. Also for the record, I have copies of both order forms sitting in front me right now and all the info I gave came directly from each of them. I also noticed where they are from~one from Mass and one from Va, I checked with sources I have in each place and these are in fact thier normal fees for large events such as HITS. Do I think the girls at the respective booths should be a little more informed? Probably, in the sense that I do think they should have on paper all the information you the exhibitor at such a large scale event might request, such as copyright fees. No, it's really not required to have it printed for you, but I personally think it's a good idea. Do I think the choice of shots could be better~absolutely. I think any photographer wants to provide as many quality choices as they can for the client, granted all the "elements" (lighting and such)don't always come together and we won't have alot to work with, but most of us certainly do try to make it work for you. Another factor in this situation was all the rain and grey skies~that never helps any performance shot look "bright" or exciting, but we do the best we can with Mother Nature. Do I think their pricing was too high? Yes and No, as someone mentioned earlier it is each photographers' right to determine the value of their work, but it is your right as the consumer not to pay that price. I in all truthfulness think the $250.00 web site usage fee, even though it's a year long contract was a bit high...but again that's my personal opinion, based on the reality that most folks don't keep the same image on a site for a year, granted some will but most don't. And I believe there should be different usage fees based upon the exact need/use and time needed of an image...again my opinion.

As for their actual print prices, well at first I thought maybe a little much~then I got the facts from show management office and vendors I know well...the cost for just the space is $850.00 per week times that by 5 weeks= $4250.00. A hotel room 10-15 minutes away runs $89.00 per night times that by 35 nights= $3115.00 per room. Hired extra shooters at no less than $100.00 (this is very cheap help folks!)per day times 25 days= $2500.00 per person. The two ladies in each booth to help you at (again quite low here)$75.00 per day times 25 days= $1875.00 per person. Plus food? And gas for transportation? Plus film at $2.00 per roll times who knows how many per day? Plus processing?
So let's just take the basics~say three hired shooters, two booth workers, three hotel rooms, and the vendor fees~that gives us a total of $24,845.00 just to be there. Ouch! Now I got these figures from there, I'm not pulling these out of the air. So if the average costs was $25.00 per photo that means at least 200 people per week would have to buy. Yes, I know someone is going to say "but there's a couple of thousand horses there"~correct, but those are the total over the course of the whole five weeks, not necessarily a guarantee each week will provide that 200 sales needed. After sitting down and seeing these numbers, I sorta understood their pricing for these large events a little better, and that's not taking into account their own personal exspenses back home or equipment. I'm not necessairly trying to defend these folks directly but while I might not personally be crazy about how they do things or their pricing, I can certainly understand some of what they're up against. And the sad truth is as someone else stated, not everyone is a great photograher but if their willing to pay the high cost to be there, they'll be there until the exhibitors change it by voicing their opinions to show management. I persoanlly won't pay those high fees because I care so much about my clients and wouldn't feel right about raising my fees just to make enough to break even, and you'll find this is how most of the best equine pros feel too.

Well, I'm going to step off the soapbox now. I hope this has been helpful or insightful in some way to you all. Hope my pro friends don't hang me! I'm back to work tomorrow but will check back in Monday if anyone wants to chat.

Thanks for your time!
RM

Flashe
Mar. 7, 2003, 08:54 PM
Me again~one last insight from a pro photograhers side, regarding the hiring of private photographers at the show: if several photographers begin showing up at events this could cause a chain of reactions you might want to consider. First off, I didn't say two shooters would in fact frighten a horse, I said it could and yes a rider can certainly waive off a photographer, but sometimes a rider may enter the ring before realizing (with everything else you're concentrating on for the ride)that there are multiple photographers at the ring and sometimes once the horse sees something that unnerves them even waiving off then is a mute point. And if multiple photographers begin popping up at an event where there is a contracted official photographer, it's not going to go over well with them or show management and while you who have hired them may not care, think about this, if this were to become "the norm" there would be fewer and fewer real pros out here who'd continue to accept show contracts, and while that may not be a big deal to those of you who can afford your own photographer it would certainly hurt the many other riders there, adults and kids, who can't afford the cost of a private photographer and depend on the luxury of having a pro show photographer there for everyone to enjoy the benfits of. Oh, and I can bet you if show photographers went away and all you had were private for hire photographers, it would not be very long before their prices went way up...once they realized what a commodity they now were. Like someone said "free enterprise" rules...believe me if private was the only way to get show photos you'd see that pricing soar thru the roof.

I am truly sorry to all of you who had a bad experience in Ocala and do understand that those "first show" or "last show" moments with your horse can't be recovered/repeated. There is nothing I could say to take away those disappointments. I will only hope and wish that your next show will be in the hands of a real pro who can and will provide you a memory to cherish. We're out here and just waiting for the chance to take care of you. I promise!

Thanks again!
RM

AKDragooPhoto
Mar. 8, 2003, 03:08 AM
Nice job Flashe.

Susan B - Yes, go right ahead and blast away, but be fair, do it to those you have dealt with( and have a problem with), don't put everyone into that basket, we all do our business differently and have different levels of talent/experience.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=934

Lord Helpus
Mar. 8, 2003, 06:32 AM
Flashe,

I really appreciate your insight and "putting yourself into the consumer's shoes". And your honesty in reporting what you saw.

I had mentioned the similarity of shots earlier in this thread. 90% of what they took was head on, front end shots only. In the case of Rings one and two, that was because there was one photographer assigned to both rings and they intersected on the short ends of the ring. So the photographer just stood in between them and shot horses coming at him. Not only did this not give any variation, it meant that he, at most, caught only about 2/3rd's of the competitors. And, as I said, the day I took pictures of a friend, the official photographer walked away and stood by the gate, chatting with the back gate crew the whole time. He did not turn around and take pictures in the other ring, nor did he take pictures of the 2 people who rotated with my friend. He just stood there and shot the breeze for the 30 minutes I was up there. Is he allowed a lunch break, potty break? Of course. But that was not what was happening.

I am very surprised to hear that your friends had so many proofs. What divisions were they in? Certainly not the 2'6" divisions, I bet. When I did the Modified Adults I think that, over the 3 weeks I was there, I saw 3-4 proofs of George and me. And that was all from one outfit (the one by the Annex ring). The other outfit never did have a proof of me, despite my jumping a total of 12 rounds. When I queried the girl about the low number of proofs, she told me that the proofs were "edited before being put into the books". I can see that, if a picture is horrid, for whatever reason, there is no point in displaying it. But I was Champion 2 out of 3 weeks --- my horse just plain does not jump horridly. I could see no reason for deleting proofs of George, if they had been taken. As you noted, being slightly out of focus was NOT a reason for deleting a proof. Those were put into the books with the sharp pictures. And I was fortunate enough to always show on a nice day, unlike the poor Jrs and Ammies who had to show in the rain.

As far as pricing goes: the variation is a surprise to me. I had asked the cost of the basic popular sizes and was told prices which were identical. No one ever mentioned discounts to me (or that a 3 x 5 was even offered). But, then again, I am probably not going to buy 20 or 30 shots, so a discount is irrelevant.

I DID ask about lightening a picture which was too dark and was told that it was not possible.... What I saw was what I would get, even in an enlargement. All the other show photographers I have dealt with include adjusting lighting/contrast in an enlargement so that the finished product is as good as it can be.

One other thing to point out: I stayed at the Holiday Inn for $59/night. The Days Inn, Quality Inn, Comfort Inn, HoJo's etc. were all less expensive (HoJo's was $29/night and it was not a bad place. Just no place for me to walk my doggies or I would have moved over there). If the photographers were paying $89/night, they were probably staying at the Ramada or the Hilton. Nice for them. Wish I could have afforded it......

But, again, thanks for looking at the situation from a customer's point of view and for your long report on what you found out. I appreciate the time and effort you spent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always live within my means, even if I have to borrow to do it.

Kinsella
Mar. 8, 2003, 08:10 AM
I have been reading this thread with interest as I am an amateur photographer. And let me start by saying I would never want to be a full time horse show photographer.

I just have a question for anyone that cares to answer it... How can (as an example) Joe Schmoe, a professional photographer, put his name on photos taken by someone he hired to shoot for the day? And why would anyone (the hired shooters) want to do that??? No way in Hades would I let Joe Schmoe put his name on an image I took!!

And LH - If you are showing at KY in the spring, let me know - I would love to take some shots of George (not because I want the money, but because I love photographing a gorgeous horse!!) http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

******************************
If you can't be a good example, then you'll
just have to be a horrible warning.

kevin
Mar. 8, 2003, 03:34 PM
I read these last posts with a laugh.

Some of you photographers cry and moan about NEVER giving away your copyrights - well, being that all those assistents were actually the ones TAKING the photos for the MAIN photographer who apparently wasn't taking many photos to put his name on - isn't that GIVING AWAY YOUR COPYRIGHT?????!!!!! and for what, $100 per day???!!! Is it only the consumer that you want to bilk being that you will work for much less for a colleague?

Also, flashe - the above wasn't directed at you so much but rather some of the rude others - but don't you think that the photographers may have changed things by week 5 since me and many others have been complaining rather hotly to them & management since at least week 2?

I am not the only one who was told the exact same pricing and web usage at $250 period - one was $250 for 1 year and one was $250 for 2 years. At least 2 other posters here said the same thing - I think they may have changed their tune some.

susan b
Mar. 9, 2003, 08:12 AM
Oh my!

So let me get this straight. You professional photographers don't want to "work for hire" because #1, you don't want to give up your copyright #2, it is like being an employee but no health insurance, etc. #3, you believe your work is "better" than that.

BUT, you will work for only $100 per DAY for another photographer, have him or her put THEIR name on YOUR photographs and I don't believe you are being provided "employee benefits" while working a few weeks at a horse show. And you guys would rather do this than work for $100 per HOUR, have all your expenses paid for and have YOUR NAME put on YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS in a "work for hire" situation with a client??!!

Is this right!!!!! Doesn't that just beat all!!

Oh, and also, wasn't it prophoto who kept saying either on this thread or the other one, that photographers who work for hire are basically beginners, hard up, ignorant, or some other trash....well, prophoto, what does that make a $100 per day assistant then?

And wasn't it Terri Miller who said, pro photographers - either this thread or the other - get paid more because they are top quality "equine" photographers that know when to take a good shot of a horse, etc - well if it is actually the $100 per day assistant who is taking the photos instead of the experienced "pro equine" photographer, how then do they justify the price and the on-going royalities?????

msf
Mar. 9, 2003, 03:09 PM
I am only speaking from my personal point of view and do not in any way represent any other equine photographer or group. I have not worked as an assistant to another photographer, nor have I hired an assistant as a second camera. For one show a year my husband acts as a second camera, but I consider that more of a marriage thing than a business agreement : )


Perhaps the assistant is a fine equine photographer who has only worked at small shows and is interested in gaining experience and knowelege about how to organize a shoot at a large show. In exchange for the valuable experience, the copyrights belong to the show photographer.

-or-

Maybe the show photographer is using some equipment that the assistant has been considering for themselves. Instead of renting the equipment for a day, the assistant gets to use it for free. An experienced photographer will very quickly pick up the specifics of a new camera, lens or set of filters and be able to provide quality results after just a few test rolls (or flash cards) before the show gets going. Actually, last year before shelling out $2,000.00 for a piece of equipment I was considering, I rented it first to see if it was as good as the advertisements claimed. I would have gladly accepted $100.00 as an assistant to see if the equipment was worth the price tag.

-or-

Perhaps the assistant and show photographer are friends who help each other out at shows. Sort of an "equal trade agreement".

Just a few ideas. Again, not spoken from personal experience. Are their any assistants reading this thread who may have some additional insight?

Suzanne Fischer
Blind Eye Photography
www.BlindEyePhotography.com (http://www.BlindEyePhotography.com)

susan b
Mar. 9, 2003, 04:55 PM
msf, I understand your points but really this is directed towards the photographer posters who are absolutely OUTRAGED that anyone would DARE ask them to work for hire and not give them royalities on what they consider their ART. But they then turn around and have "assistents" who THEY hire as "work for hire" and expect them to give up their copyrights and don't even pay them a good wage. It is talking out of both sides of their mouth if you ask me.

tm
Mar. 9, 2003, 08:37 PM
&gt;&gt;And wasn't it Terri Miller who said, pro photographers - either this thread or the other - get paid more because they are top quality "equine" photographers that know when to take a good shot of a horse, etc - well if it is actually the $100 per day assistant who is taking the photos instead of the experienced "pro equine" photographer, how then do they justify the price and the on-going royalities?????&gt;&gt;

Nope. Wasn't me who said that. I very rarely hire anyone to shoot for me. When I do, it's Susan Sexton.

Terri

susan b
Mar. 10, 2003, 07:30 AM
Terri, on a previous thread you stated:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"Most people" can't tell the difference between an extended trot for a "6" and an extended trot for an "8".

We're not most people.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I took that to mean that equine photographers had a "superior knowledge" of how to take a photo of a horse and since you said "we're not most people" I didn't think that meant just you - does that also extend to $100 per day assistents who are actually taking the photos? If you just meant "you" and not other photographers, then that would clear things up.

Riven
Mar. 10, 2003, 08:04 AM
I just wish that the photographers would mail out the proofs. As an owner that was unable to go to Ocala, I would love to have a picture of my horse but since they won't mail the proofs how can I order one.

www.rivendellfarms.ca (http://www.rivendellfarms.ca)

Flashe
Mar. 10, 2003, 08:32 AM
My goodness but this has taken a harsh turn over the weekend I was out...since I am the one who posted the "Ocala Visit/Tour" and really stuck my neck on the chopping board, please allow me to clear some points up for those of you questioning the "assistant" situation.

First off, I did not say the pay was a definite $100.00 per day, actually I even stated that was an extreme low figure~the average for an assistant on that scale of show is more like $200.00 plus a day plus all other living exspenses while there. I used the $100.00 simply as an example to show/point out the high cost of being at a large scale event such as HITS, and intentionally went very "low ball" on that number so as not to truly freak you all out.

Now as for assistants/additional shooters in general~MSF actually hit the nail on the head. In most cases the assistant/shooter is just as she described; such as a fine photographer who has been doing some of the smaller scale shows and wishes to learn more about expanding their business and knowledge from a more seasoned pro. This is very common with our network, and truth is most of these fine folks will offer to spend a weekend or even a week with a seasoned pro on larger events for no monetary payment but we do want to pay them something for all their time with us. And alot of times when one pro is considering a new line of equipment, such as going from film to digital, they contact a fellow pro they know who works with that same equipment and ask if there's an opportunity to work with them just to learn more about the equipment first hand before making that large investment in it themselves. Why spend money renting it if you've got a buddy with it? Right? Also there are many pros whose assistants/shooters are actually family members all working together~example my own partner/co-shooter just also happens to be my husband...and yes I pay him well! HA!

Another example is what some of us fondly refer to as "the paid vacation"~using myself here, we live and work (alot) in the "Sunshine State" of Florida where many of you know there is basically a horse event "every weekend year round", many are outdoor venues of course. Now I have several pro friends that live in New York, New Jersey, Penn, Oregon, Washington State, etc...do you see the pattern? They have what's know as "down time" during the winter months due to the oblivous~weather, snow and cold are not the more pleasant elements for horse shows outdoors. Some of them choose to take advantage of it and work on home projects or publishing projects, but many of them love to help out other pros in the south where the weather is much warmer and pleasant so they often volunteer to come "assist" / "shoot" for a fellow pro and yes, they get paid nicely along with other perks~hence the nickname "paid vacation". They're doing what they love and to them escaping the bitter winters back home is a "vacation". The bottom line with "assistants"/ "shooters" is that more often than not they are fellow pros helping out other pros for various reasons...and not the cheap labor or work for hire as you see it. For the most part the equine pro photograhers are tight knit group, a family in a sense and like a family unit we try to be there for one another when possible. As for the copyright issue, truth is most pros offer fellow pros helping them out the right to retain them and surprise-most times they say "you keep it with the company, I just wanted to help you out".

I hope this helps to clear up any misconceptions I may have unintentionally created.
Thanks for your time.
RM

kevin
Mar. 10, 2003, 09:58 AM
Flash, no it doesn't clear anything up.

It is the PHOTOGRAPHERS who seem to thing that their name on a photograph is worth so much. It is the PHOTOGRAPHERS who whine and complain about photos not having it to begin with. It is the PHOTOGRAPHERS who seem to think that their horse show photos are ART and want to charge so much. It is the PHOTOGRAPHERS who say that a well done photo sells horses, sells breedings, etc. It is the PHOTOGRAPHERS who want to be considered the ultimate professional "equine" photographer with ultimate experience, yadda yadda yadda.

Well, if I pay the money for that SEASONED, REPUTED, FAMOUS, WHATEVER photographer to take my photo with hundreds of dollars of copyright fees riding on it and the sale of my horses, stallion breedings, etc., what arrogant peice of sh.t photographer then thinks it is ok to have a $100-$200 per day ASSISTENT actually then take the photo????????

If you flew to a private hospital to have the best brain surgeon in the world operate on you, would you be happy if the resident then actually operated on you?

If you went shopping in Paris and went into a haute culture shop, would it be ok to find out that Walmart was actually making the clothes?

You guys can't have it both ways. YOu cant say, "well, we are wonderful experienced professionals who have experience in taking horse photos and we went to school to learn this stuff and we bought all this expensive equipment and that is why we can charge so much and it is art...." And then turn around and hire a novice and call it the same thing....and then blast US, THE CONSUMER if we want to hire that same person ourselves at less than what you charge!!!!

Liverpool
Mar. 10, 2003, 10:16 AM
Flashe, sorry I missed you... we were back in the hinterlands (tent 15!) so I am not surprised that we were hard to find http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I will now report firsthand my experience from Ocala.

My new horse showed the last two weeks in the Level 3 jumpers. He jumped really well and I was just thrilled - couldn't wait to go look for pics! And of course, as a proud "new mommy" I was prepared to buy just about anything... however, there was only ONE proof.

Total. From two weeks' worth of showing.

Even allowing for the days when the weather was poor, there were *at least* six classes that offered decent opportunities... spread amongst all the jumper rings. At an average of 12-14 jumps per round (more if you include jump offs) that is close to TWO HUNDRED photo opportunities. And I got ONE proof to consider. And yes, I went to the ring before every class and asked for photos to be taken.

Yes, I bought the one photo. It was an OK shot. It was a frame or two later than I would have liked - he is already unfolding a bit - but I liked the expression in his front end, and it was all there was. For my $25 I got the proof copy... wasn't even offered a cleaned up shot or a copy without all the fingerprints etc.

I am completely unimpressed.

I'd post the photo here, but I'd be afraid that someone would then send me a bill for $250...

"It's a funny thing about life: If you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it." ---W. Somerset Maugham

Rainbow Farm Unltd.
Mar. 10, 2003, 11:25 AM
For taking all that time to try to straighten the record. I think you did an awesome job, and it is so too bad that others have to keep on with their t misinterpretive bashing.

I have to say I'm really grateful not to be in that part of the country.

Barb Young Photography
and

Barb Young
http://www.RainbowFarm.com
Premium Oldenburgs and
1st Prem. Am. Sportponies

Glimmerglass
Mar. 10, 2003, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Liverpool:
My new horse showed the last two weeks in the Level 3 jumpers. He jumped really well and I was just thrilled - couldn't wait to go look for pics! And of course, as a proud "new mommy" I was prepared to buy just about anything... however, there was only ONE proof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congratulations, Liverpool, on the purchase and him working out so well at Ocala. Its shocking that the photography pool on hand elected not to take shots in spite of your requests. When you asked each time that you would like to have some shots were you met with a "sure, sure" type response?

While we all can find shows to be hectic I'm sure photographers are about as harried as possible. Still I can't imagine ignoring completely someone who makes a point of asking for shots - any shots - before every class he was in. Shocking.

Hopefully Mr. Liverpool took a few pics with the trusty digital camera http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

kevin
Mar. 10, 2003, 11:51 AM
To Barb Young - just EXACTLY what have we misinterpreted?

Molly99
Mar. 10, 2003, 12:21 PM
I think EVERYONE needs to remember that the photographers posting on here are NOT the TWO photography companies that were in Ocala.

Quite a few people seem to be unhappy, and it sounds rightfully so, of the work they were presented in Ocala.

Well, that is from only 2 business, who it sounds like have "copied" the practices and prices of "bigger" name outfits.

Kevin - Flashe presented the facts from Ocala in an unbiased manner. That is no reason to continue to bash the photographers on this board. They were not the ones in Ocala.

As for hiring assistants, I have no problem with that and if part of the hiring criteria is that the main photographer puts their name on your work there can be MANY reasons for that. The most important in my mind is that they are NOT providing their own camera or other equipment. They are acting in an apprentice capacity in most cases and like many other art or trade areas, you get the experience, but not the credit. As you get better and make the choice to work on your own, they you have to put out the money for the equipment and can them put your name on the final product.

I do not think it is any different than many other art or trade areas.

In my mind the owner of the equipment is getting to put their name on the final copy.

Flashe
Mar. 10, 2003, 12:56 PM
Well Kevin since it's my posting that you have indeed somewhat "misunderstood" or "misinterputed", I'd like to clear a couple of things up for you. Please pay close attention this time to exactly what I'm posting.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kevin:
[QUOTE] Well, if I pay the money for that SEASONED, REPUTED, FAMOUS, WHATEVER photographer to take my photo with hundreds of dollars of copyright fees riding on it and the sale of my horses, stallion breedings, etc., what arrogant peice of sh.t photographer then thinks it is ok to have a $100-$200 per day ASSISTENT actually then take the photo???????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, in the situation you're describing in the above quote Kevin, that type of work wouldn't typically be done at a show and if it were to be done on the show sight, it would in fact be done by the photographer YOU "hire" to do the work. As you have so often pointed out time and again, YOU are the consumer and if you are booking that type of work YOU are freely choosing the photographer yourself.

And second off, time and time again I have politely endured your outburst and insults to me as well as other pros posting here. I have remained very respectful, open, honest, and have sincerely tried to be helpful to you and others. HOWEVER, even I have a tolerence level Kevin and congrats you have reached it. I take great offense to your remark about "arrogant piece of sh..", you have absolutely no reason to disrespect me or other pros here on this board like that, and I for one will no longer take it. This is going to be my only truly "rude" statement here~~Kevin, before you call me or someone else (pro or otherwise) "arrogant" I suggest you look in the mirror. End of discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>........And then turn around and hire a novice and call it the same thing....and then blast US, THE CONSUMER if we want to hire that same person ourselves at less than what you charge!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for this quote, I never once used the term novice or inexperienced or anything remotely close to that. In fact I stated what is typical among the pros~pros helping pros out on various shows for various reasons. Although I do find it interesting how you just used the term "novice" and proceeded to share how you hire the same person for less....

And you wondered why I used the phrase in an earlier posting "I give up on you Kevin"? I told you in the beginning I will always give you the respect you deserve and only asked the same in return. That's not much to ask, common courtsey. If any of the rest of you fine folks are offended by my post here, I apologize for offending you but I'm not feeling to very welcomed here any longer.

Again, as I've stated time and again I am truly sorry to all of you who had a bad experience in Ocala, and I honestly hope that at your next show you'll meet one of us~a pro that cares about your needs.

RM

[This message was edited by Flashe on Mar. 10, 2003 at 04:05 PM.]

Liverpool
Mar. 10, 2003, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Liverpool:
My new horse showed the last two weeks in the Level 3 jumpers. He jumped really well and I was just thrilled - couldn't wait to go look for pics! And of course, as a proud "new mommy" I was prepared to buy just about anything... however, there was only ONE proof.

Congratulations, Liverpool, on the purchase and him working out so well at Ocala. Its shocking that the photography pool on hand elected not to take shots in spite of your requests. When you asked each time that you would like to have some shots were you met with a "sure, sure" type response?

While we all can find shows to be hectic I'm sure photographers are about as harried as possible. Still I can't imagine ignoring completely someone who makes a point of asking for shots - any shots - before every class he was in. Shocking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks, Glimmer. I was really proud of my guy.

And yes, I was very surprised about the photographers. The ring we were scheduled in was not exactly teeming - there were typically many minutes between rounds at the beginning of each class, which is when I prefer to go in the order, as the schooling areas are not as busy and this horse is both young and somewhat green - I didn't want to fry his brain in a busy warm up ring.

During one class I actually watched the photographer put his camera down when my horse entered the ring. This was perhaps ten minutes after I had spoken to him. Exact conversation was "Hey, my horse is warming up for this ring, we are just going to jump a couple and then we'll be ready to go. Please take as many shots as possible; I'm a proud new owner and will buy whatever you shoot!"

To which he replied, "we shoot every round." Uh, OK...

*sigh*

"It's a funny thing about life: If you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it." ---W. Somerset Maugham

ccoronios
Mar. 10, 2003, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ditto the Video company - whom I paid IN ADVANCE for a dozen rounds or so and I got THREE - they kept MISSING my rounds. And, no I did NOT get a refund from them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weatherford, that's INEXCUSABLE! God knows, we've all had "Murphy's Law" days - where NOTHING goes right - and somehow, it's all wrong for one, wonderful customer - and you want to crawl under a rock. But to NOT REFUND??????? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Would you e-mail me who that was?

www.ayliprod.com (http://www.ayliprod.com)
Equine Video and Still Photography in the Northeast

SoEasy
Mar. 10, 2003, 03:37 PM
Kevin ... I am going to ask ONE TIME that you stop flinging insults around this board, then I am going to lock this at the next uncivil post out of you - or anyone else for that matter.

RULE NUMBER ONE IS WE DON'T DO FLAME WARS - BE CIVIL.

Kinsella
Mar. 10, 2003, 03:52 PM
Hmmm. You know, I never really thought about the aspect of basically getting paid to try out new equipment... And in that case I will have to admit that it may not be such a bad idea to spend a day working with someone else. Not that I'd do it at a show I wanted to photograph for myself http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but at somewhere I didn't know anyone, it could be a great idea.

So Flashe, can I come down for a paid vacation sometime?? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And FYI, I didn't mean to start another war with my post... I just couldn't understand why someone would do that. Guess I needed to think "outside the box" a bit more on that one.

******************************
If you can't be a good example, then you'll
just have to be a horrible warning.

kevin
Mar. 10, 2003, 06:00 PM
to flashe, why do you think all the posts are directed soley to you? The only thing I addressed to you was that your post did NOT clear up things - you asked didn't you? Could it be arrogance that you think a post may be addressing someone else? This is the second time you jumped on me for what I posted to others.

FYI, the rest of what I posted was to all the other photographers who are not only making excuses for the Ocala photographers but seem to want to behave in like manner.

And my post is also in response to all of the other photographers who, in this thread as well as the previous thread I mentioned in my first post, cry and whine over the copyright thing, and the work for hire thing and all the other "things" I mentioned.

Again, Flashe, there have been other photographers on this thread and some of them were also on the previous thread mentioned posting quite vehemently on these issues, I might add. Again, you are not the only poster.

Spotty Horses
Mar. 10, 2003, 06:14 PM
Solution

We paid a private photographer to photograph our horses at the showgrounds and the negatives are ours. We paid $200 for first roll and $50 each one after that. He had a long lens for the arena (since they cannot go it...but places on the sidelines can be pretty good) and then took some at the grounds when the horses were all groomed nicely.

SoEasy
Mar. 10, 2003, 06:18 PM
Sigh ...

this is still too personal, and too far from ISSUES, NOT INDIVIDUALS.