David Hobby, newspaper photographer-turned-blogger, is suggesting that the strobist community start offering to shoot for free.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/12/four-reasons-to-consider-working-for.html

Especially interesting to me, are the replies.

Interested in hearing thoughts on this.

-m

I found it a very interesting read. Sounds like a great way to get personal work done or to fall into something great but at the same time it would be hard to not get branded as the free photographer. Definitely something to think over though.

I agree with him that it's a good way to do personal projects . . . which should be 1-2 a year in my book.

I also agree with supplying invoices to companies or business that receive free work, which shows the dollar amount of work that was given for free.

I like to pattern myself a giver. I'm full time and very busy. I'll be shooting every day this week and a wedding on Sunday, but I'm going to give a free family session for my daughter's preschool teacher. Why, because I can and I believe in giving to worthy causes.
I don't necessarily agree with Hobby on the economy as a reason to do this, nor do I agree that you should use it as a time to experiment (I already do that after I've nailed the signature shots). I think a lot of his arguments for "concept" are moot and can be achieved with most paying clients. I actually think the article was written more out of HIS personal experience, more than actually being a GENERAL communique to the photography community. Sometimes people have ideas that are for them, but they think it is for everyone. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about giving, I just think his reasoning is a little off.
I think so many people are doing "free" sessions right now because they bought an SLR and the "want to get into photography" that it is kind of annoying. Ruining our industry? No, just annoying and eroding the art and value of photography.

Just my humbly humble opinion.

...not your livelihood.

This is a fundamental mistake, much like undercutting the market and doing $250 weddings. One of the biggest mistakes new business owners make is NOT charging enough for their service. Sometimes in an effort to get quick market-share; other times due to ignorance as to how much a typical day really costs you in time/insurance/fixed costs/etc...

I donate my time freely to many causes--generally around my children's activities. But the idea that "giving away" your work will lead to more "paid" work, simply doesn't work as a rule.

Generally, transitioning clients from free to paid is a difficult process. Also, if you get a referral from the FREE client, the referral generally wants the same FREE deal.
"Nothing is FREE" is understood by most people at this point [unless you're talking about government giveaways]. Many receiving FREE service will feel [unjustifiably] 'ripped-off' when you do charge them.

Lastly, if there was ever an industry who's professionals are losing respect & value for their skills...it would have to be photography. Case in point, the latest Nikon commercials.

Just my opinion, but if you want to donate your time to your church, youth league, etc...you'll be the better person for it. But, if you believe giving away that service which puts food on the table and a roof over your head will lead to more money...think of something else.

>rw

As long as one doesn't confuse willy-nilly for a plan anything is possible.

I shot a community event earlier this year for next to nothing and made a great contact that has already turned into three grand worth of business with more coming down the line.

Use them as a means of advertising.

mauriceramirez wrote:
David Hobby, newspaper photographer-turned-blogger, is suggesting that the strobist community start offering to shoot for free.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/12/four-reasons-to-consider-working-for.html

Especially interesting to me, are the replies.

Interested in hearing thoughts on this.

-m

very nice response on the blog maurice. I have mixed feelings about this. I understand what he's trying to say; but I fear that alot of the "strobist" community won't.

chase jarvis weighs in on the subject

http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2008/12/will-work-for-free.html

Josh Evilsizor wrote:
chase jarvis weighs in on the subject

http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2008/12/will-work-for-free.html

I think it all started with Sean Cayton's post over at Black Star Rising
http://rising.blackstar.com/five-reasons-to-photograph-for-free.html

Charitable donating of work for the right reasons (both yours and the recipients) can be a powerful positive force for your business.

Look at the largest & most successful corporations ... they are often very big givers back to the community. They choose their recipients on neediness and often find a way to get some press for themselves. It is usually a win-win situation.

But the reasons have to be right ... if not the giving can backfire big-time by lowering the value of your work and creating negative perceptions on the part of those who just paid you for the same job.

But I think Hobby's post is more about positioning yourself & your business than helping others.

My impression is photography as a whole is one of those "gee I can do it too" type activities. There's a reason why there are fewer engineers or doctors in the world-- not everyone looks at those activities and says "gee I can do that too". The Nikon commercials just reinforce what everyone secretly or overtly thinks. I admit that I am one of these people-- I take pictures and get better and think "I can do it too." I just hope that I can get good enough to provide photos that your average snapshooter can't on a consistent basis... and I'm pretty confident that I'm there WRT weddings.

There will always be people willing to pay a photographer to take pictures because of their skill set. There are still people today willing to pay painters to paint a portrait. And we pay U2 and Tom Cruise and Hannah Montana to entertain us, because they're good at it, even though there's a host of local garage bands and community theater actors who can sing, dance and play an instrument. The problem for people who aren't at the top of their career field is other people clamboring to get to the top are giving stuff away for free, making it harder for a "middle class" photographer to function.

We're probably going to see photography split itself into a handful of rock stars (haves) and a multitude of advanced amateurs (have nots) or full time pros scraping by on below-average wages (think school photographers and your lower end wedding photographers).

I really enjoyed reading that and thought it was an altruistic, life-affirming view of how to do business and grow personally.

Thanks for sharing.

The concept in principle is a benevolent one. The problem is in the execution. People WILL abuse that and people HAVE. Not all will, but there is a sufficient number such that it will be detrimental longer term to the photography industry as a whole.

Photography doesn't always need to cost money. Payment can be made in other ways, and sometimes you can end up with more value by bartering goods and services. For example, this past summer we set up a bride/groom shoot with a couple friends of ours. We received flowers for free from a florist we've worked with in the past in exchange for usage of the resulting photos to promote herself.

Shooting for the sole sake of bettering yourself is a noble purpose, but that doesn't pay for new equipment, equipment repairs, insurance, not to mention any living expenses. Now, I get what he's getting at in his post but the Strobist crowd is largely amateur bordering on pro. And based on the responses in the comments, people are TOTALLY misinterpreting it, thinking they have a green light to go shoot anything and everything for free as long as they can justify it with "It's for my portfolio."

As a counter offer, why not shoot at a reduced rate in these cases where you want to expand a bit? Or if you're looking to experiment in a market you're already at, get your safe shots at your normal rate and play around once those are done. Reserve free for a cause you truly care about, and, while the IRS still doesn't consider service value tax deductible, you yourself can consider it a donation to that cause. Photo credit is worth less than the paper it's printed on and is not an acceptable or sustainable form of payment.

Value is largely a perception. The notion of supply and demand affects value, but it does not solely determine it. People need to FEEL that your photography services are worth the price and shooting for free will not do that. It is very, very difficult to ever go up from free with a client but unreasonably easy to go down to it.

A nice counter-post to this:

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/12/professional-photographers-vs-hobby.html
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/12/working-for-free-interns-and.html
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/12/working-for-free-commentary-and_07.html

Yes, the local dentist has abandoned charging as has the motel and McDonald's. There is no gain in free and more damage than you could begin to imagine.

Mike Mahoney wrote:
Charitable donating of work for the right reasons (both yours and the recipients) can be a powerful positive force for your business.

Look at the largest & most successful corporations ... they are often very big givers back to the community. They choose their recipients on neediness and often find a way to get some press for themselves. It is usually a win-win situation.

But the reasons have to be right ... if not the giving can backfire big-time by lowering the value of your work and creating negative perceptions on the part of those who just paid you for the same job.

But I think Hobby's post is more about positioning yourself & your business than helping others.


The reasons have to be right and the tax receipt has to be large and legitimate.

I agree with Maurice's post on the strobist blog.

If it is work - then get paid. IF it is pictures of your kid's soccer game then take snaps of your kid. If it is art - then do the art and sell the art. Simply displacing jobs benefits no one.

Ryan Britton wrote:
A nice counter-post to this:

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/12/professional-photographers-vs-hobby.html
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/12/working-for-free-interns-and.html
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/12/working-for-free-commentary-and_07.html


Ryan, I've been away from FM but just saw this. Thank you for this.

I initially brought up Harrington in my Strobist post... Wondering what the author of the staple book would think of anyone working for free, as in, a REAL gig and not a self-assignment. There's a huge difference. His response is complex but so are the factors and the topic. The logic holds up. Lo and behold we're on the same page.

A public debate between Hobby vs Harrington? I'd pay tickets for that.

-m

Just stumbled on this from a year ago as well:

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-negotiations-consider-career.html

Maurice I was reading the comments and you're like a single dissenting voice of reason amidst a flood of "awesome post" comments