At the weekend in The Observer, John Naughton wrote a column about photography in this day and age. He noted that in this day and age when many of us have access to exceptional photographic equipment (cameras just keep getting better – even the cheapest ones), and with billions of photos being placed online on sites such as Flickr, it’s become harder and harder for professionals to earn a living.
There’s an interesting example quoted by Naughton in the piece:
“Let’s say that 20 years ago,” writes one industry blogger, “a newspaper in New York was running a story about Hollywood and the editor wanted a picture of the Hollywood sign. Rather than fly one of their photographers out there, put him up in a hotel, and pay for his meals they would go to a company that specialised in stock photography. They would pay the company a fee for the licence to use their photo in the story and everyone is happy”.
If there ever was a time that a newspaper really did send a photographer all the way to Hollywood to simply take a photo of the sign, then it’s perhaps no wonder that newspapers have struggled to cope in this new age. Even in the halcyon days of newspaper publishing, that would surely have been appallingly wasteful. Certainly you should send a photographer for a broader Hollywood feature, part of which might be capturing a unique perspective on the sign. But any photographers using that example to illustrate their struggling profession are unlikely to receive a great deal of sympathy.
Cameras may have equalised the advantage that professionals once had over amateurs – only the richest amateur could afford the best cameras, or could shoot rolls of films without concern. But the availability of the tools of the trade really shouldn’t be what determines a professional from an amateur. It should be style, composition, technical ability and other less definable qualities that single out the professional.
Consider paintings for a moment. While oils are pricey, just about anyone can afford a basic watercolour set, some decent brushes and a pad. Yet professionals continue to find work while amateurs much less exposure.
I’m sure if my business had been stock photography, I’d be annoyed that the talented amateur had removed my USP; amateurs who didn’t really care what they got paid, and were happy for the attention and minimal cash if any at all.
I know that I’m in that camp. If a few people look at my pictures on Flickr then I’m happy. I have a Creative Commons licence on all my photos that only stops you commercially exploiting them. Even then, if you’re a small business, then I’m likely to let you have the photo anyway.
I mention all this, because in the last couple of weeks, I’ve seen some quite exciting usage of my own photography in a number of places.
The picture above demonstrates the variety of places it’s appeared.

The East Anglian daily paper, the Eastern Daily Press has a daily reader’s photograph spot on the comment pages, and having been persuaded to by mum, I sent in a couple of photos I took at dawn on Saturday. They published perhaps the more evocative photo of the regular cross placed on the clifftop Beeston Hill each year by local churches to celebrate Easter.

Meanwhile, I received a copy of a DVD package from The Teaching Company. They licenced a photo I took of the pump in Broadwick Street – a replica of the pump of the well that saw the last outbreak of cholera in London before John Snow discovered the water-born nature of the disease. The photo was used in one of their courses, and as well as a small payment, they sent me a copy of the course.

Finally Keyboard Player magazine contacted me for the rights to use a photo I took a couple of years ago of Brian Leiser of the Fun Lovin’ Criminals for an interview they were running with him. I was chuffed that they used it on the cover (Sidenote: I’d had more than a single drink that evening, and the camera I was using was a cheap compact Nikon).
The only payment I received was from The Teaching Company. Keyboard Player couldn’t offer a payment, but gave me a nice credit and a copy of the magazine, while I was just more than happy to see my photo in the EDP having sent it to their readers’ photos column myself (A reader also wrote in and asked to get a copy which I was happy to provide). I’m an amateur, and I’m always aware that I’m possibly taking food out of the mouths of professionals.
On the other hand, if you’re a large publisher or a running what I believe to otherwise be a profitable business, then I’m less likely to let you have my photo free of charge. I don’t doubt that it’s a dilemma, but perhaps some photographers have had it a bit too easy in the past. I know what some wedding photographers charge, and the profits there can be very significant!